In the discussion to the Riddle of Steel post below, a matter has come up that deserves its own discussion.
Blogger jabrwok said...
The State is just a way of organizing human beings. It's neither intrinsically good or evil, any more than a gun or automobile or whatever.
A definition of "evil" would be useful here. I'd say "evil" is any action which undermines social trust (some actions do so more than others, hence greater and lesser evils). States can certainly *engage* in evil, and have a lot more power to do so than individuals, but I wouldn't say that a State is *inherently* evil.
E Hines said...
States can certainly *engage* in evil....
This is another misapprehension. States do nothing at all; they're merely, as noted, a means of organizing. That organization, though, is populated by particular men and women. It is those men and women who engage (no quote marks needed) in any action, and those men and women can use or abuse that organization's power to more or less good (however defined) or more or less evil (however defined).
It's important, too, to keep in mind that those definitions of good and evil, while perhaps originally the definitions of the population who created their State organization, quickly become the changing definitions of the changing men and women who populate the organization.
Grim said...
St Augustine says that evil is, purely, a privation from the good intended by God in creation. I think the administrative nation state we have today is an evil in that pure sense. Humanity organizes naturally into families; Aristotle claims that it organizes even more naturally into polities, because (he claims) that is the only place where humanity's full range can be realized. In a polity, one can be free of oppression by other families or clans or bandits; one can enjoy a sort of equality with others that is not found in nature; one can take actions as a member of that polity to govern one's self and to express one's virtues through practical action. One can help others in the community express their own virtues by electing them to other offices to which they are well-suited.
Weber's criticism of the administrative state -- you can read my notes on it by following the links at the sidebar -- shows clear privation from these goods. The need of the elected officials to constantly run for office means that they have to defer their powers to administrators who aren't elected; this means that the good of self-governance is lost, because the people we elected don't end up being the ones with power over our lives.
The need for money for those campaigns means that the elected officials also end up chasing donations instead of doing good to deserve election; that means they don't actually end up doing even their limited duties, or exercising their limited virtues.
The need to use power to perform favors for donations is inherently corrupt. It also draws into the political class not the virtuous, but the most successful at corruption.
It also creates an administrative class that is both unelected and really powerful, thus eliminating the sort-of equality that free citizens had with each other.
Thus, all the goods intended by human nature -- according to Aristotle -- end up being achieved either not at all or only privatively. Thus, per Augustine, the state is evil: and really evil, not just rhetorically evil.
E Hines said...
Except it's not the State doing any of that. It's the men and women populating the State. The State is just a tool.
Grim said...
Yes, but at the same time also no. It's true that only living beings, and not formal organizations, can act -- yes, in that sense. But it's also true that the form of organization creates effects, even they aren't willed actions. One form of organization has a structure that does the one thing; the modern administrative state's structure does the other. It's not that the right people, choosing the right things, could fix it. The right people won't be successful in obtaining offices under this structure; should they by accident, they couldn't keep them over successive cycles without becoming corrupt; the elected offices don't end up having the power to fix the problems anyway because it gets delegated to administrators; and the administrators interests are necessarily separated from those of the governed so they are sorted into separate classes.
It's similar to the materialist/immaterial issue. One can say that 'only material things exist,' and in a way that seems true: everything we can observe is composed of material parts. But it really matters how those parts are organized. The same parts can be organized into a table, and it will function as a table and provide the goods for which a table was wanted. Or they can be organized into a loose heap on the floor, in which case it's all and only the same parts -- but the form of organization prevents them from attaining any of the goods that they might have if they'd been organized into a table instead of a heap.
My sense is that the Conan-style band of adventurers is a kind of political organization, non-family members choosing a leader and striving towards a common goal, each contributing according to their own virtues and by voluntary participation. That's an ideal, more Homeric than Aristotelian as it does not attempt (nor really contemplate) the sort of organization that would entail all of the human goods that Aristotle wants from the polis.
25 comments:
Four views of government:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/65895.html
What you are calling the third view is Protagoras’, which he explicates via his Great Myth in the Platonic dialogue that bears his name.
My central thesis is that it's men who act, not the State (organization built by men).
But it's also true that the form of organization creates effects, even they aren't willed actions.
This is true only if the men of the organization follow the rules/accept the structure of the organization--or if they even have the same interpretation of of the rules as did the originators of the organization, or have the same acceptance of the structure. Men in power, though, routinely violate those rules, and interpretations vary, even among well-meaning men, over time and across succeeding generations of the men in State authority. They'll even adjust the structure at need, for good purposes or bad. Thus, the organization--its structure and rules--may strongly influence effects, but it cannot bind men to them.
I think your table analogy breaks down quickly from this. The parts of the table exist either as the table or as a bundle of parts on the floor--and clearly the two organizations bind the parts to those organizations' separate roles. But men are not inanimate parts: we start out in a Hobbesian state and quickly self-organize into a community with a State structure and rules of one sort or another. And self-organize and self-organize and self-organize and.... The State we create, being a structure of men, is not static; the men in power, and the men subordinate to it are the actors, constantly evolving the State's structure and rules. The men populating the State use the State's structure and rules to manage the rest of the men in the community, adjusting the rules and structure at need in order to do the managing. And the subordinate population goes along, or they object and force their own changes.
The State's form influences the men, and the men influence the State, but it's not a loop; it's a spiral with a strong bias favoring the men over the form of the State.
Eric Hines
If one of the functions of the state is to discourage some types of evil behavior and encourage some good ones, perhaps we can call a form of a state evil if any instantiation of it does the reverse. Perhaps an evil state populated by angels might find them developing ways to work around the evils, but broken humans wind up even worse than before--or perhaps merely more dramatically worse.
My impression is that it is not action Grim is talking about, but form.
The heart of it I think is here: "It's not that the right people, choosing the right things, could fix it. The right people won't be successful in obtaining offices under this structure; should they by accident, they couldn't keep them over successive cycles without becoming corrupt; the elected offices don't end up having the power to fix the problems anyway because it gets delegated to administrators; and the administrators interests are necessarily separated from those of the governed so they are sorted into separate classes."
We don't live in a world of unbounded free action. Instead, we live in a world bounded by various things: physics, economics, political power, etc. Some actions are possible and others are not. We have free will to choose between the actions that are possible, or we can choose to try impossible things and take the consequences of the necessary failure that follows. (Obviously, it is often not clear where the line between possible and impossible is.)
So, Grim's argument would seem to be that the current form of the government makes good actions that would actually make real changes impossible, regardless of the actor's choices. One person cannot steer a government bureaucracy of hundreds of thousands, and the system is currently set up to reward vice and punish virtue. In the end, if the individual actor wants to keep his job in government, he goes along with it. If he insists on bucking the system, the system will buck him off and he's done.
Another way to frame this would be to note that Grim is using the term evil as an adjective, not a verb. So, the claim that "The government is evil" has no action. The verb is stative. By being organized in such a way that makes good action impossible or nearly so, and by similarly making evil action nearly obligatory if one wants to remain in government, the government itself can be called an "evil state."
That, at least, is my understanding of Grim's argument, and I think it is a good one. My question is where exactly the line of possibility is. I don't know that Grim is right, nor that he is wrong, about where that line is. The line itself can be shifted; actions taken today can make things that are impossible today possible tomorrow. That said, it seems increasingly like the line of possible reform has shifted mostly outside of government and is mostly in the hands of citizens who are not in government.
All of that is not necessarily a disagreement with Eric's view, unless he is going to insist that form is irrelevant and only action matters. I agree that it's people who DO good or evil, rather than governments. My point is that it is necessary to consider both form and action and to properly assess the line of the possible. Without considering the form, you cannot know what actions are possible.
I think your table analogy breaks down quickly from this. The parts of the table exist either as the table or as a bundle of parts on the floor--and clearly the two organizations bind the parts to those organizations' separate roles. But men are not inanimate parts...
I picked a table as a demonstration of how human will interacts with the material, because a table is already an artifact. Its parts were chosen and shaped by intent already; its assembly into a form desired by a creator to satisfy an intent. Absent the will, no tables would exist, and in that sense humanity's capacity for will is crucial.
Nevertheless, you cannot make a table out of every sort of material; as Aristotle puts it, 'you cannot make a saw out of wool.' The order inherent in the material gives it, or does not give it, the capacity to serve a purpose. The order into which we put things can likewise destroy their ability to achieve goods: you can think of a factory designed and made to produce goods of some sort, which a military unit comes and destroys to deny it to the enemy. No goods would be produced without men operating the factory; but now no human will can make the factory produce goods regardless. Until a whole new factory is built, the goods cannot be made under the system as revised by the army.
I think that is true of the administrative state as well. Men can destroy it and institute some other form of government: revolutionary change is possible. But there is no possibility of using a form like this well. It is inherently disordered for the human good.
James:
"Perhaps an evil state populated by angels might find them developing ways to work around the evils, but broken humans wind up even worse than before--or perhaps merely more dramatically worse."
Yes, perhaps: but some forms could not be used well even by angels. Consider a slave state in which humanity was forced to submit to ownership and mastery by angels. Because that defies humanity's divinely-desired free will, even angels could not do this well. Only revolutionary change could serve to reintroduce the good: the system is inherently evil, and must be destroyed if the good is to be made again.
Tom:
"That, at least, is my understanding of Grim's argument, and I think it is a good one."
You think your understanding of my argument is good, or that the argument is? :)
I'm glad to see you practicing your philosophy. That is a good analysis.
We don't live in a world of unbounded free action. Instead, we live in a world bounded by various things: physics, economics, political power, etc.
Except that only physics is an immutable bound (maybe--our understanding of physics is constantly changing, and we're far from knowing very much about it, no matter how much our egos insist otherwise). Economics, politics and power, etc. are changeable by men's behavior. The structure of those parameters certainly has an impact on our ability to effect change, and it has an influence on us, but they don't prevent us.
By being organized in such a way that makes good action impossible or nearly so....
Pick one. "Impossible" and "nearly so" are mutually exclusive states. It's always been my claim, in a variety of venues, that "hard"--"nearly so"--means possible. One person cannot steer a government bureaucracy...? History is full of examples where a single man's assassination, for instance, has "steered"--drastically changed--the relevant government and so the bureaucracy involved. But I'm not limited to the ability of a single man to go against, and alter, the structure of the government (though the man who chooses his job over resisting what he otherwise sees as an immoral (however defined) structure is a coward and a part of the structure he only pretends to dislike), nor am I limited to the catastrophic change of revolution. The most common, and often the most effective, mechanism is the erosion of the many (although revolution is merely a special case of that erosion, by the many or the few).
...unless he is going to insist that form is irrelevant and only action matters.
I don't think I insisted any such thing: The State's form influences the men, and the men influence the State, but it's not a loop; it's a spiral with a strong bias favoring the men over the form of the State.
Absent the will, no tables would exist, and in that sense humanity's capacity for will is crucial.
Exactly. The table merely is, or is not. It's human action that makes the table what it is or destroys it. It's certainly true that we couldn't make a table out of water parts (at least at temperatures comfortable to me), but that's merely a limit of physics.
...true of the administrative state as well. Men can destroy it and institute some other form of government: revolutionary change is possible. But there is no possibility of using a form like this well. It is inherently disordered for the human good.
And yet, we have. Our Revolutionary War, for instance, and the sequence of Anglo-Saxon Civil Wars culminating in our own, for instance, all moved things along well enough--which in the human scheme of things, I consider to be well, since as human, I don't hold out for perfect. The final unification of China at the end of the Warring States period I consider also a use of the form for a net good, at least in the sense that it ended that period and produced a period of general stability.
Of course, revolution is a chancy thing--the French Revolution shortly after our own seems the more common outcome. However, "more common" doesn't cancel the utility; it only reduces its beneficial likelihood.
Eric Hines
"You think your understanding of my argument is good, or that the argument is? :)"
:-D That's a fair question. Well, I'm never really sure about my understanding of someone else's argument. I'm just muddling through.
"History is full of examples where a single man's assassination, for instance..."
That's the spirit! :)
Actually, Mr. Hines, we're closer than you might think given your set of examples. Assassination, the Revolutionary War, Anglo-Saxon Civil Wars, the Warring States period... we're talking about systemic change, not reforming an inherently evil system. That's certainly possible; indeed, it might be the only thing that could accomplish the goal.
Except that only physics is an immutable bound (maybe--our understanding of physics is constantly changing, and we're far from knowing very much about it, no matter how much our egos insist otherwise). Economics, politics and power, etc. are changeable by men's behavior.
Yes, but generally economics, etc., are only changeable by the cumulative mass of behavior, not by the individual's actions. It is true that at times one individual is in a position to have a much larger effect than the vast majority of individuals will ever have, but those are the exceptions.
The structure of those parameters certainly has an impact on our ability to effect change, and it has an influence on us, but they don't prevent us.
That depends on the parameters. Conflicts between one person and a state of thousands are effectively determined against the one. I don't think there is a consistent bias either for the State or for the individual; it depends on the form of the State and the number of individuals, and on the broader parameters of physics, economy, etc.
The most common, and often the most effective, mechanism is the erosion of the many (although revolution is merely a special case of that erosion, by the many or the few).
Yes, I think that's true. I don't see any majority in the US moving us in the right direction. I see lots of different little movements working on this aspect or another of the problems we face, and yet the ship is still on it's wretched course and, as far as I can see, getting worse.
we're talking about systemic change, not reforming an inherently evil system.
That reform is one of the purposes of systemic change, for all the risks involved. But systemic change also can be effected--and usually is, for good or ill--gradually, bit by bit. Water and a rock, men and a government structure.
That gradual change, though, is more likely to be for the worse than the catastrophic change of combat.
Yes, but generally economics, etc., are only changeable by the cumulative mass of behavior, not by the individual's actions.
You're the only one arguing the ability of one man effecting change. I've never argued that as the sole source of change.
...yet the ship is still on it's wretched course and, as far as I can see, getting worse.
That's your perspective--and mine, and I suspect that of most of us in the Hall. However, that's only one perspective. There is a significant fraction of Americans who view the course more favorably. And that sort of thing is at the core of why political change most often is a slow, gradual thing, occasionally punctuated by the catastrophic.
Eric Hines
My sense is that the Conan-style band of adventurers is a kind of political organization, non-family members choosing a leader and striving towards a common goal, each contributing according to their own virtues and by voluntary participation.
So, have you seen the Errol Flynn movie of "Captain Blood", involving pirates and their code of conduct yet?
Groups of human being exhibit behaviors that individuals do not. (so do groups of some bacteria, colonies of ants or termites, schooling fish...) What is possible or moral for the individual is different for the group and the organized state, though Heinlein (via characters) among others argue otherwise. One person throwing one snowball at a guard outside the tax office is a joke. A few dozen organizing a volley of such peltings is disruptive of social order and may provoke a response with reinforcements, bayonets and firearms. Quantity has a quality all its own.
That gradual change, though, is more likely to be for the worse than the catastrophic change of combat.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Is it that gradual change is not as good as catastrophic change? Or that gradual change is just usually bad?
Eric, if I remember correctly, you've written some books. Is there one where you lay out your basic political philosophy? That would be interesting.
Is it that gradual change is not as good as catastrophic change? Or that gradual change is just usually bad?
Define "not as good as." That's not entirely facetious. My claim in this part is that gradual change is less likely to be good than is catastrophic change. Think of the frog in the heating-up water vs rolling the dice in forcing sharp, sudden change. Only instead of the frog being blithely oblivious, men, especially in groups, tend to think more of their immediate gain rather than of their long-term good, and that's our obliviousness. With revolution/rebellion (more, the former), there's a likelihood that there's a thought-out plan for the longer-term future, given victory.
I've written on political philosophy, but nothing that lays out more core in so many words. A link to my author page is in Grim's Blog Roll: E Hines' Favorites. Probably the most useful ones here are Manifesto (not that well written; it was my first), Treatise, National Policy, War, and Law.
Eric Hines
more core==>my core
Fershlugginer keyboard types what I tell it to, instead of what I mean for it to....
Eric Hines
My claim in this part is that gradual change is less likely to be good than is catastrophic change.
Ah, yes. Thanks for the clarification.
And thanks for suggesting the reading.
So, have you seen the Errol Flynn movie of "Captain Blood", involving pirates and their code of conduct yet?
I have not! I do mean to do that when I can.
I agree it's humans who act, but a system can be structured to provide more incentives for evil than good. I doubt this happens so much because the system was deliberately devised by individuals for evil, as because people misunderstand incentives, and believe that their own subjectively unimpeachable motives can substitute for a clear-eyed evaluation of the effect of the incentives they've created. This can start as a mistake and turn into evil, if the people propping up the system refuse to take responsibility for their errors.
Decoupling costs from benefits is a prime example of a bad incentive that will cause a seemingly benign system to degenerate into savagery. My favorite example of decoupling costs from benefits is the indulgence of pleasurable feelings about charity funded by compulsory payment out of other people's bounty. It's a mistake that undermines the virtue of charity as surely as it fails to achieve the ostensible purpose of charity, which is to assist the unfortunate. Next to the relentless desire to treat other people as mere stick figures or resources rather than free comrades, it's the most corrosive error I know.
I agree, Tex, and I would add decoupling authority / power from responsibility / consequences as a pernicious influence on the system.
Wow, I step away for a few days and I miss a fascinating discussion involving Conan, economics, the administrative state, and political organization. I feel like I missed Christmas. Very interesting comments.
I'm afraid I have nothing new to add. I agree with Grim that while the men and women that work in our government can behave in good and evil ways, the structure of our government can be organized in such a way to make it evil, and certainly destructive towards the ends promoted in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Certainly our Founding Fathers thought this way, hence the structure set forth in the Constitution (power checking power in order to protect liberty). The modern administrative state, which is antithetical to the structure set forth in the Constitution, is evil (for many reasons) not the least of which is the way in which it subverts the Constitutional order the ends it was intended to promote.
I'm sorry we missed you with this one, Joel. It just kind of came up. It's definitely up your alley, and your input would have been greatly appreciated.
Post a Comment