Dear Friends,
It seems to me, political associations exist for the benefit of the associates, and for no other reason. If a political association then stops benefiting one or more of the associates, then it’s no longer legitimate. The illegitimacy is doubled when a political association actually harms an associate. In that case the political association must be disintegrated. Because it no longer serves the interests of the associates. If the conditions are such that it benefits the associates to reintegrate the association, then so be it, but under a different paradigm. A system that protects the interests of all the associates. The only way a political association can be maintained, that harms it’s associates… is by force. Which redefines an association, as a bad association, while those that benefit are good associations.
A political association must be between equals. Any other association can’t be political it must be something else. Only equals can reach an agreement that benefits all associates. An association where one party has all the power, like Britain, is one where the parties are not equal, nor is the system fair, or just. Because the result will always benefit the strong at cost to the weak. Making it not so much an association as the epitome of Thrasymachus’ philosophy of injustice as justice. Any association however can be subverted by one or a few parties to their own benefit. At cost to the rest. In fact, I might argue, that is the normal evolution of political associations. They start fair, then the stronger party gains strength, and the weaker party becomes weaker, until the system becomes a sewer.
A lopsided association is one that drains the wealth, rights and humanity from the weak, giving it to the strong. Clearly, a political association that benefits only one associate and harms the rest isn’t fair. It could be called just in the Thrasymachian sense though. Where justice exists only as a means to theft. Theft of rights, property and persons. A political association that abets theft isn’t one anyone on the losing end wants to be associated with. Moreover, a political association can’t be based on force, that’s a master slave relationship, not a free association of equals. Which allows us to identify a political association from a master slave contract. Are the parties equal, is the system fair, or does it benefit one party at cost to the rest? Moreover, is it enforced by force, or mutual consent?
A political association can be a national government, an international agency, a faction, a fraternal organization, all the way down to a local D&D club. They exist to serve a need of the members. Such associations pop into and out of existence more often than do virtual particles in quantum physics. While most are ad hoc, many are long term, and degenerate to be enforced by violence. Often called the state’s monopoly on violence. In these associations the equality of the participants is mitigated by force. The greater the political inequality, and the greater the harm, the more illegitimate the association becomes. This paradigm usually evolves, until it becomes intolerable, and some of the associates violently dissolve the association. Because equals hate becoming slaves.
Are all the political associations your in legitimate? The EU harms its associates. Italy has been banned from sending migrants to Albania, and then back home, should it be deemed safe. Instead, the absurd standard for foreign nations is, safety in every corner. While in Europe, no one’s safe anywhere. Is the PRC, North Korea or even the US a free association of equals? Can you leave your country and drop your citizenship? Do you have suffrage, or is there so much propaganda, election fraud and or intimidation, elections are for show? Are the laws equally administered? Does the association benefit or harm you? These are the fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves. If the answers aren’t to our liking, it’s up to us to change the paradigm… as equal associates in a political association.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
