Dear Friends,
I wonder, what makes a tyrant… a tyrant? Surely that is a question we as a society and people should ask ourselves. What is the quality that makes one a tyrant, as opposed to a jackass, and how does that quality lead to oppression? Some would say that only kings or despots are tyrants, while others would claim all white men or capitalists are tyrants. There are as many definitions of tyrant as there are political factions. What we need to do then, is do the logical equivalent of a Venn diagram, and see what qualities or attributes that all people called tyrants and oppressors share in common. Only then can we come to an understanding of what makes a tyrant, a tyrant, apply that lesson to modern powerful entities and thus avoid being tyrannized and oppressed by the powerful.
The progressive would point to the company town as an example of naked tyranny writ large… and they would be correct. The company town was an anathema to laissez faire capitalism… and a wad of gooey spit in the face of liberty. The “employees” of a company town are no more than slaves. The places were set up to insure the old song, “another day older and deeper in debt…” was true for as many people as possible. That is indeed a form of tyranny… showing tyranny need not arise from government. The workers cannot leave until their “debt” is paid. They are subjected to arbitrary rule and have no way of complaining or getting grievances addressed. They were also controlled by a single person who’s personal interests the entire enterprise served.
Someone from the Enlightenment might argue that hereditary kings are the true tyrants. Most people in a feudal system are serfs, while the noblemen are few and powerful, yet still subject to the arbitrary will of the king. Often, hereditary kings would be so inbred they would be half wits, endangering the kingdom and everyone within it. To put an end to tyranny, as practiced by kings, they were limited by constitutions. A contract between the king, (or other government) and people, upon which the powers of the government are limited to those enumerated. Protecting the people from arbitrary rule… in theory. Kings have arbitrary rule and the subjects are not free to speak their minds. A kingdom ruled by a tyrant king serves only the interests of the tyrant not the people at large.
In ancient time however they had a more discerning definition of a tyrant. Aristotle defined tyranny as a wrong form of government, in contradiction to right forms. He said the right forms are, monarchy, aristocracy and polity… while the wrong forms are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. The ideal form is a republic, or blending of the right forms. The wrong forms have one thing in common, they all serve the interests of the rulers, not the society. A tyrant exploits his power to enrich himself at cost to the kingdom, the oligarchy exploits their authority to enrich themselves while under democracy the people vote themselves largess from the treasury… bankrupting the nation. In this case, we see that tyranny does not need to be a single person but could be any number of people, grouped to common purpose.
What do all these forms of tyranny have in common? They silence the opposition, they use arbitrary rule to enforce their power and exploit authority to enrich themselves at the cost to society. From the owners of company towns, Robber Barons, kings and despots to oligarchical hegemonies. If we apply this definition to the powerful today, (other than the administrative state), we can see who is tyrannical. Take the big tech companies, Google, Facebook and Twitter. They are modern company towns. They silence people they disagree with, exploit their monopolies to hold people, seek ever more power, act arbitrarily and without consequence… all to increase the stupendous wealth and power of their owners. Progressives used to hate company towns… but now they own them, it is a different story.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
