O_on_das on Xanga

Weblog

Wednesday, 18 February 2009

On Government, part deux

            While nation-states exist only within the mind, their effects on life exist outside the mind, in the real world. The reason for this is so simple, I think it barely worthy of stating here, so, as quickly as possible: people’s mind can interact with the world, usually through their physical structures. The mind controls the brain, the brain controls the nerves, the autonomia take care of themselves, and conscious decisions are acted upon. Ta-daa.

            All nation-states act in certain ways, as their governing body wishes. Many of these governing bodies set down codes and regulations and laws stating how the representatives of the state will conduct their actions and activities, and it is up to those that join these organizations to do all that they can in following the regulations set out for them. It is when people in an organized government begin acting in contravention of that government’s stated laws that the frailty of their hold on real life begins to show. Ultimately, people will choose to act as they would no matter what laws supposedly govern the area around them. If the opposite were true, no person would ever be murdered, nothing would ever be stolen, and everyone would drive at or below the speed limit all the time.

            At it’s founding it is rare to see a nation full of corruption, its citizens unwilling to serve, its agents jaded to the goals the organization has tried to achieve. It is only when the nation begins to stagnate, and the ideals begin to fade into ritual that the brightness of the initial dream is lost. From this point, a nation is often quick to tarnish and fade, its agents preferring to wield what powers they are given for personal profit, fiscal or otherwise, and not for those powers intended purposes. When the heroes of the past become mythic figures, mere story-tale characters with no practical bearing on the real world, the truest import of their actions is lost, and the downward cycle that these heroes fought so strongly against begins once again. Votive candles may still be lit to these figures, even by the people striving to eradicate the effects of their work, but their message is lost, their time is done, and it becomes time once again for heroes to rise.

Monday, 16 February 2009

What is a Government?

            For this example you will need one (1) political map, and one (1) geographical map. Look at the political map. Countries spread their claims over the land in pastel tints, straight lines splitting people into tribes defined only by their locality. This side of this line is Nevada, the other side, New Mexico. This side of this line is Quebec, the other side, Ontario. Every year, cartographers must put out new versions of their works as the political structures in regions change, which makes map making a stable racket to get into. Each line on the page represents negotiations, and battles, the self imposed limits of state power. On this side of the line, the laws of Mexico are enforced, on the other, the laws of Guatemala hold sway.

            Now look around. Be sure to peer out the window for this one. What color is the ground beneath your feet? Is the pavement, the soil, the vegetation the same shade of pastel pink as the tint on the map? In the far distance, can a wall be seen, rising ever upward to define the airspace claimed by a nation? How silly of me, for even the most foolish of my potential readers can say that the splotches of yellow, and green, and orange are not representations of actual geographic phenomena, but of the constructed reality of politics. To get a more realistic representation of the world around us, look now at the geographical map. No borders, no pale tints stretching from coastline to coastline, just land.

            What then, is represented by the political map? If they do not display actual, physical reality, then what is their purpose? In short, political maps represent the constructed reality agreed upon by the majority of people: that government has a physical existence. Much is done to support this delusion. Great buildings are constructed to show where power resides. The readers in the United States will know of the White House, and be able to recognize the dome of the Capital building. Great monuments, to Washington and Lincoln certainly, but also to Jefferson will be distinct shapes in the collective consciousness. The idea that governments have a physical presence intrudes on our daily lives every time you drive past a police station. But this idea is little more than a delusion, willingly, and not so willingly believed by the people subject to the whims of those governments.

            Nation-states exist only within the mind. When the people change, and the buildings are left empty as their old occupants move to new horizons, even the greatest of powers is revealed to be a figment of the collective imagination. What implications does this have, then, for the existence of law?

Thursday, 12 February 2009

Questions beget answers beget questions

In my last post I discussed how a joking statement began to raise tough questions in my search for knowledge. “You’re so smart, you should be President” became “wow, this country is really humped” became “can I consider this government a legitimate power over me?”

A lot of searching was the next step. My own mind was the one place I could rely upon to give me an answer to the ultimate question here, but I didn’t have enough information to make a right decision. All that I could say with certainty, with surety, is that the Federal Government of the United States of America did not accurately represent my will, my opinions, or my interests. I initially began to think about what I could do in response. This question gave me a very long and ultimately unhelpful list of options, so I revised the question. What should my response be? This question had been answered by many people in the past, their voices crying of war and singing of peace, such philosophers at Thomas Jefferson and Mohandas K. Gandhi, such leaders as George Washington and Karl Marx, and such voices as Tomas Hobbes and Socrates all contributed to the considerations I was making. Their opinions, the wisdom of their age, were brought to my attention, that their words might lend some bearing upon my own decision.

It wasn’t until then that I realized that the answer to this question must be based upon my answer to several others. Without this basis, this foundation, any answer I arrived at to the first would crumble in the slightest wind of doubt. First: what, in this context, is man? What rights does mankind have; what privileges, what weaknesses? Second: what, in this context, is a legitimate government? What rights does a legitimate government have; what privileges, what weaknesses? To the books!

Tuesday, 10 February 2009

Omens and Portents

Originally, this project began as a joke. “You’re so smart; you should be president of the United States.” Family members said it. Coworkers and supervisors said it. Friends said it. Professors said it. Eventually, it got me to thinking…
“If I was POTUS, what would I do in the position?”
So I started doing some research. What was the President legally allowed to do by the Constitution of the United States of America? What powers had been given to the position by later laws, and more importantly, what limits had been placed on those powers? What had Presidents done in practice, apart from the laws of the nation? Most importantly, I delved into the questions concerning the actual results of their actions. Which actions had changed things for the better, and which for the worse, and how much in each direction?
Then I came up with a list of things I would do as President of the United States. After sectioning this list off according to which of the Cabinet Secretaries would be responsible for the underlying issue at hand, and removing duplicate items, I was left with fourteen pages of ten point font listing as concisely as possible the changes I would make to the ways the Federal Government conducts itself and it’s business. The extent of this list left me astounded, thinking along completely different lines than I had been before. Yes, a general sense of dissatisfaction had pervaded my sentiments about how the country was being run, but to have so many specific points laid out before me… Points of contention that were based on the very foundations of the law, and the culture which had spawned those laws. Points of contention that affected day to day aspects of my life, and the lives of those around me, and the lives I merely glimpsed through my television set and daily newspapers.
I no longer wished to consider the prospect of becoming President of the United States. Previous leadership had set a course so disparate from one I desired, I began to ask an entirely different set of questions. Questions with answers I found even more disturbing.
If my vision for this country and the actions of this country were so different, was it really my country? And if it wasn’t my country, what hold did it have over me? What responsibilities do I have that body, that congress, which presumes to dictate my behavior, and attempts to dictate my beliefs? And so it began…