4 ms·

This article reminded me of Napoleon, who was a smarter and wiser man than most anglophones give him credit for; > There is no such thing as an absolute despot

This article reminded me of Napoleon, who was a smarter and wiser man than most anglophones give him credit for; > There is no such thing as an absolute despotism; it is only relative. A man cannot wholly free himself from obligation to his fellows. A sultan who cut off heads from caprice, would quickly lose his own in the same way. Excesses tend to check themselves by reason of their own violence. What the ocean gains in one place it loses in another. The part that sticks out for me is, "A man cannot wholly free himself from obligation to his fellows." It's a simple statement, a simpler lesson, but a profound statement that we've forgotten. Society wouldn't exist if it weren't for the consent of those around us. Society wouldn't exist without the agreement of those with us. Society is in its essence a bond and a privilege - it gives us the permission to do more and ask for more by the virtue of its existence. We have mutually agreed to not rape and kill each other for scraps, but to let each other do their own thing unless it hurts others (or abrogates their contract with one another). That's why taxes exist. For me, they're the subscription fee for civilization. There has never been a civilization that hasn't had some form of governemnt. There has never been a civilization that has acted and organized purely on "self interest." Someone has to dig the ditches, run the sewer lines, lay the roads, and stop people with a crowbar from coming into your house and killing you in your bed. Someone has to pay the fee that allows the contract to exist. Each time this covenant has been breached, it has been met with a short and bloody end. No despot has ever been absolute. Stalin couldn't get out of bed without fearing a gun to his head - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kirov#Assassination_and_aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Kirov#Assassination_and... . Pol Pot might have met an ignominious end - https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/21/cambodia https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/21/cambodia https://web.archive.org/web/20110918095455/http://articles.cnn.com/1997-06-21/world/9706_21_pol.pot_1_khieu-samphan-anlong-veng-fields-reign?_s=PM:WORLD https://web.archive.org/web/20110918095455/http://articles.c... . And Hitler died alone after putting a gun to his head. If they couldn't rid themselves of their obligations, how can we?

devoply 7y ago
It's because everyone has bought the doctrine of the invisible hand and self-interest, as a panacea of all that ails everything. While yes these tools do exist, they must be balanced with your obligations to others, else society becomes unhinged. And we're seeing that today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Criticisms > Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there. Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.) But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.[22]
hogFeast 7y ago
Historical note: it has always been true that the rulers have an obligation to the ruled. A fact often totally forgotten these days. Even kings and queens that subscribed to the notion of divine right, recognised that they had an obligation to the people they ruled over. This exchange of power was often codified. The relationship wasn't one group of people ruling with an iron fist over another. If you were a serf, you had to provide labour but you received rights and benefits in exchange. That system often broke down in periods of population growth (a common example is vagrancy laws in the late 16th century) but even there was an established right to riot and dissent as a way of pressing claims. It was only during the Cold War that we really saw this understanding of dictatorship/monarchy/whatever completely break down (imo, there are a ton of books on the above i.e. Polyani but I am speculating now) as dictators were able to maintain power through their allegiance to the US/Soviet power (and changes in technology made this easier too). And, of course, our notions of community/society have totally changed too. Substantial reductions in economic and physical uncertainty has made most people unwilling to live in a system in which another person has dominion over you. But this doesn't change the fact that this is why these systems existed in the first place. And, in most cases, people who have tried to rise up and create systems in which the bottom class rise up and have found themselves crushed under the weight of the obligations they are forced to assume (they do not disappear, risk has to be assumed by someone).
- a3n 7y ago
  > Even kings and queens that subscribed to the notion of divine right, recognised that they had an obligation to the people they ruled over. "Divine right of kings" is the fig leaf. The "obligation" comes not from the divine, but from the threat of pitchforks and torches.

devoply 7y ago

It's because everyone has bought the doctrine of the invisible hand and self-interest, as a panacea of all that ails everything. While yes these tools do exist, they must be balanced with your obligations to others, else society becomes unhinged. And we're seeing that today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand#Criticisms > Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there. Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.) But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.[22]

hogFeast 7y ago

Historical note: it has always been true that the rulers have an obligation to the ruled. A fact often totally forgotten these days. Even kings and queens that subscribed to the notion of divine right, recognised that they had an obligation to the people they ruled over. This exchange of power was often codified. The relationship wasn't one group of people ruling with an iron fist over another. If you were a serf, you had to provide labour but you received rights and benefits in exchange. That system often broke down in periods of population growth (a common example is vagrancy laws in the late 16th century) but even there was an established right to riot and dissent as a way of pressing claims. It was only during the Cold War that we really saw this understanding of dictatorship/monarchy/whatever completely break down (imo, there are a ton of books on the above i.e. Polyani but I am speculating now) as dictators were able to maintain power through their allegiance to the US/Soviet power (and changes in technology made this easier too). And, of course, our notions of community/society have totally changed too. Substantial reductions in economic and physical uncertainty has made most people unwilling to live in a system in which another person has dominion over you. But this doesn't change the fact that this is why these systems existed in the first place. And, in most cases, people who have tried to rise up and create systems in which the bottom class rise up and have found themselves crushed under the weight of the obligations they are forced to assume (they do not disappear, risk has to be assumed by someone).

a3n 7y ago
> Even kings and queens that subscribed to the notion of divine right, recognised that they had an obligation to the people they ruled over. "Divine right of kings" is the fig leaf. The "obligation" comes not from the divine, but from the threat of pitchforks and torches.