Dear Friends, It seems to me that any utilitarian/stoic philosophy of government must have at it’s core the belief that people are “ends in themselves“. To believe otherwise opens the door to despotism.
To be an “end in oneself” means that there is no other reason you and I are here except that we are. We are not here to serve some other purpose than what we will. We are sovereign. The belief that we are an end in ourselves is the premise of the belief that it is wrong to enslave another. (To make use of a human being as a tool).
To make mankind the end and people the means… as does communism, socialism and progressivism, is to lower our status to slavery. A tool for the Elite, through government, to exploit. The enlightenment was for naught. Hume and Kant argued to the air. For our new philosophy has us back to the right of kings, (in another guise). Socrates arguments about justice were premised on people being an end in themselves… sovereign. Because if we are not sovereign then justice is a figment of our imaginations. A slight of hand to keep us gullible weaklings in line. To serve the Elite.
So any logic proposed that denies in any way the sovereignty on the human being is fundamentally flawed and is sophistry. Logic that appears correct but really is meant to deceive. In fact to tricking another into choosing a path that is disadvantageous to him.
What would be examples of this form of sophistry? Arguments that are premised that you or I should have our property taken from us, by government, and put to a use that is not advantageous to us. Like taxing us for supporting some good that the Elite see fit. Art, earmarks, “special” contracts granted, favorable legislation, etc…are some examples. When money is coerced from us, and spent on something that we don’t use and will never use, it is denying our individual sovereignty.
Another example would be if government borrows money in my name and sends it to get a certain faction more power. That is patently against the best interests of society in general and mine in particular. The ability for government to borrow money without restraint is a direct affront to the sovereignty of the human being.
What difference between the Pharaoh who coerced a month a year from his subjects to build a monumental tomb for himself, or the president, that coerces three months labor worth of money from his subjects? The Pharaoh is less demanding of his subjects property.
If property, in the form of money, is coerced from us and spent to protect us from tyrants that would invade our country and subject us to despotism it does not deny our sovereignty. The slippery slope is close at hand however. Is it, in our true best interest, to use our money to “protect” us from an invader that would liberate us… from tyranny? Or to coerce us to spend the blood of our children to protect a tyrants power? What do you think the answer is?
Free will of the governed. One of the cornerstones of constitutionalism. That the governed must freely will the government they are subjected to. Constitutions were meant to keep the powers of government in check. When we see constitutions that exceed one hundred pages it is plain to see that people don’t trust governments. But, a would be depot is always singing the siren song of wanting to “help” his people in some way. If only he had the “power” to “help,” he would improve the lot of his people… They decry that constitutions are by their natures sets of negative rights.
Cambyses (as related in Herodotus) asked his most trusted advisor one day, “what do the people think of me?” The advisor pleaded that the opinion was not his but the people thought Cambyses drunk too often. To which Cambyses pulled out his bow, knocked an arrow, and fired the bolt directly into the heart of his advisors oldest son. Cambyses then said “I have drunk quite a lot today, if I in fact do drink too much my aim would have been off. If the arrow has not pierced the heart of your son, I agree, I drink too much.” Then ordered the palace guards to cut open the child. The guards said the arrow went directly through the heart of the youth.
The youth’s death proved, by the logic of the governor, Cambyses didn’t drink too much… He was used effectively.
