Dear Friends,
It seems to me, just as a weak man is not a good man, while a strong man who restrains himself can be called a good man, nations that restrain themselves can be called good, while those that do not restrain themselves are bad. Even the weakest nation has agency to harm and self-restrain. North Korea for example. Those without international power have power over their citizens. That means they can be judged by how they treat their citizens, if not other nations. In this a nation or any form of state can be judged by its self-restraint. The natural fall back for a hypocrite with a monopoly on violence… is violence. A complete lack of self-restraint. Meanwhile, that state that practices self-restraint will lead by example, and the personal example of the outcome of their policies will make people follow.
Does might make right? Shang Yang thought so. He was of the Legalist school. Philosophers like him and Draco thought that the state is the ultimate. What follows is draconian punishment for even the most minor infraction. Shang Yang’s philosophy was adopted by the king of Qin… and ironically led to Shang Yang’s own execution. Although, it allowed Qin’s conquering of China. Then the Qin dynasty collapsed and was replaced by the Han dynasty. Might made power but it didn’t make right nor did it last long. Legalism was proven all the way back then to be a failure. The Han dynasty reintroduced Confucian Moralism while keeping some of Shang Yang’s Legalism. Legalism then calls for a lack of self-restraint on the part of rulers, while Moralism requires self-restraint.
One must be able to control oneself before being able to control others. If this is the case the control of others is easy. One merely needs to lead by example. When someone is unable to control themselves, however, they must resort to violence to control others. This is the path of the hypocrite. He or she is someone who can’t control themselves but need others to be controlled. I once heard a story about Confucius in the court of the Duke of Lu. The Duke asked Confucius how he could get the people to stop lusting after other men’s wives, gambling, and stealing… to which Confucius replied, You could lead by example and stop doing those things yourself. Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state the next day. When self-control is off the table, self-restraint is as well.
Nations are just people on a different scale. A nation, corporation, or mob is just a group of people. Therefore, such an entity is the aggregate of the people in it. Moreover, groups have several tendencies. Some of them are distributed blame, distributed responsibility, and distributed accountability. These act on the individual to erode his or her personal morality. This justifies a lack of self-restraint. The story that illustrates this is the Nuremberg Trials. The defendants said they were “just following orders.” The premise of that argument is distributed accountability. Each link in the chain of atrocity passing the buck to the one above. Meanwhile, the top link is so far removed from the horror he or she can claim ignorance. Without the self-control accountability teaches, self-restraint is impossible.
A good nation is one that restrains itself while a bad nation is one that lacks self-restraint. The weakest nations internationally are tested just as the strongest. Nations that commit atrocities, rule despotically, and censor are by this measure bad. They are bad because they refuse to practice self-restraint. They are like a cannibal giant. A giant that practices self-restraint could be a great benefactor but when he or she eats people they make themselves a menace. The US has traditionally practiced internal self-restraint leading to prosperity, and externally a lack of self-restraint leading to wars. Hypocrites who believe might makes right believe it only as long as they have the might. This means that a monopoly on violence in the hands of hypocrites who can’t self-control is a mortal danger.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
