Reverse checks of power

[James Stuart]

I do find The State of Exception interesting. Schmitt's arguments are interesting intellectual exercises, but the conclusions he draws are at best morally suspect.

Schmitt's position and the OP's are functionally similar, since both argue for the arbitrary exercise of power as a means of the salvation of society from the corruption of politics. And what is the result? Precisely fascism.

I haven't read the book, but how is that fascism? It seems like garden-variety authoritarianism from the description.

 

[Tahuti]

The reasoning is flawed at the start because power is never secured: thousands of years of "hereditary rule" (the most common "given" kind of power) saw thousands of "God given Monarch" end poisoned/overthrown/cut into pieces/head shopped etc. So a Monarch will still spend most of his time and effort "consolidating" his power.

And that is not to bring into the picture all other reasons why "god given kind of Rule" is horrible: the arbitrary of the choice (ending with a Kim young Un type of horrors), and even when we're lucky, even "normal" people are not vaccinated against errors and or "greed"

What if the steps for "consolidation" are smaller than otherwise?

Only in democratic republics - rather a minority on the planet populationwise.

Democracy is not about elections or ballot boxes, rather, the integration of state and its populace.

If a state claims it is democratic, it is democratic, since a nation that is not interested in the integration of state and populace wouldn't indulge in such games of rethoric.

Very nice. Except monarchs (universal or otherwise) never held absolute power. They'd wish. Interestingly your illustration is a case in point as it dates from the Investiture struggle's aftermath. Not that the HR emperor ever held absolute power before that.

Short of a small village, it's impossible to refer to any political figure as having absolute power, for the reasons Cutlass stated.

I have already taken that into account in earlier posts, and you have given no arguments why my consideration is insufficient. Maybe I missed something?

People aren't honorable when wealth and power are at stake.

That tells more about the culture that is very clearly pervasive in the US and by which you have been influenced more than anything else.

 

[Cutlass]

That tells more about the culture that is very clearly pervasive in the US and by which you have been influenced more than anything else.

Clearly you haven't bothered to learn anything about the European age of exploration and colonization.

 

[Tahuti]

Clearly you haven't bothered to learn anything about the European age of exploration and colonization.

I wasn't saying Europe was anywhere near free from this.

 

[James Stuart]

I have already taken that into account in earlier posts, and you have given no arguments why my consideration is insufficient. Maybe I missed something?

No you didn't you just made some throwaway claims about how a monarch's checks and balances are somehow better than constitutional ones, with no evidence to support your claims. And I, and others, pointed out examples that disproved your theory anyway.

That tells more about the culture that is very clearly pervasive in the US and by which you have been influenced more than anything else.

If you can find me a single culture that doesn't behave this way, I will contact SETI, for you have discovered an extraterrestrial intelligence. Individuals may be able to overcome the drive to power. Societies can't.

 

[aelf]

I haven't read the book, but how is that fascism? It seems like garden-variety authoritarianism from the description.

First, you need to tell me what you understand by fascism and authoritarianism.

 

[Cutlass]

I wasn't saying Europe was anywhere near free from this.

And neither is anywhere else. It's universal to the human condition. So you have a theory that can only work so long as you have a whole culture which behaves in ways never before seen in the human species.

 

[Akka]

Dante Aligheri, a White Guelph (Guelphs were the Italian opponents of the Holy Roman Emperor) turned Ghibbeline (the supporter of the Holy Roman Empire) reasoned that a universal monarch who theoretically held unlimited powers would not desire any more power and would consider such as a given, thus dissuading him from misusing power in order to augment it and keep it respectively. I wonder what people think of this reasoning.

It's simply completely stupid and makes no sense. How exactly giving absolute power makes one above misusing it ? Seems that the only aspect that was taken into account in this idiotic reasoning was "thirst for power", ignoring the other infinite variations of misuse.

 

[Traitorfish]

Short of a small village, it's impossible to refer to any political figure as having absolute power, for the reasons Cutlass stated.

Small villages are often the most difficult places to excercise political power, because at the end of the day it isn't very difficult for disgruntled neighbours to just club you over the head. Politics in stateless societies are always complex processes of negotiation even and perhaps especially when leadership is formally unaccountable.

And that's the problem with this whole fantasy of "absolute power", that beyond any issues of delegation, political power is never absolute, it's always negotiated. Kaiserguard treats the fact that people will do as their told as a given, and thinks politics is simply a question of who will do the telling, and that simply isn't how these things play out in practice. For somebody who likes to rail against the "abstract theory" of liberals and Marxists, he's building this whole image of monarchy on a cloud.

 

[Tahuti]

And that's the problem with this whole fantasy of "absolute power", that beyond any issues of delegation, political power is never absolute, it's always negotiated. Kaiserguard treats the fact that people will do as their told as a given, and thinks politics is simply a question of who will do the telling, and that simply isn't how these things play out in practice. For somebody who likes to rail against the "abstract theory" of liberals and Marxists, he's building this whole image of monarchy on a cloud.

Unlimited monarchies (unlimited in the legal sense that is) have been a thing historically. I hate to have explain to the likes of you (namely, a honest and smart poster) that I never implied delegation was a problem. Ultimately, unlimited monarchies are limited by the capabilities of the monarch, being a human, even if he is wee special kind of human.

At least, you haven't been trained with with the Pavlov impulses that have been showcased by some of the other posters, to whom I will not waste any time with.

 

[Traitorfish]

I wasn't talking about delegation. I specifically say that I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that the "absolute" or "unlimited" character of a regime is always and only a legal fiction, not a description of political reality. The actual process by which political power is exercised is much more complex and much more heavily negotiated than a guy on a throne saying "make it so".

 

[Senethro]

Unlimited monarchies (unlimited in the legal sense that is) have been a thing historically. I hate to have explain to the likes of you (namely, a honest and smart poster) that I never implied delegation was a problem. Ultimately, unlimited monarchies are limited by the capabilities of the monarch, being a human, even if he is wee special kind of human.

At least, you haven't been trained with with the Pavlov impulses that have been showcased by some of the other posters, to whom I will not waste any time with.

It doesn't take special conditioning to think kings are a bad idea. It takes a vague knowledge of history.

 

[Borachio]

Now that is something I can lay claim to: a vague knowledge of history.

I don't know much about other countries, but the history of the kings and queens of England reads like the history of the Mafia.

Or so they tell me. Vaguely speaking.

 

[Tahuti]

I wasn't talking about delegation. I specifically say that I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that the "absolute" or "unlimited" character of a regime is always and only a legal fiction, not a description of political reality. The actual process by which political power is exercised is much more complex and much more heavily negotiated than a guy on a throne saying "make it so".

I agree here.

 

[Smote]

Consider that there's a right way to do something (R) and a wrong way (W) (based on some consequentialist version of what actually happens.) Let's say we have a pure democracy vs a fascism.

Let's consider a few cases:

A. 80% want R, 20% want W, fascist leader in majority
Both systems get it R
B. 80% want R, 20% want W, fascist leader in minority
Demo > Fascism
C. 80% want W, 20% want R, fascist leader in majority
Both systems get it W
D. 80% want W, 20% want R, fascist leader in minority
Fascism > Demo

So we can see the only differences happen when the fascist leader is in the minority opinion. This is obviously an oversimplification, because usually leaders will have far more information than average citizens. But we can fix the discrepancy in information by switching over to a Rep. Demo, instead of pure Demo, and consider 80% of representatives vs 20% of representatives in each case, and hope that these representatives are well-informed. So we still end up with these two differences:

B. 80% want R, 20% want W, fascist leader in minority
Demo > Fascism
D. 80% want W, 20% want R, fascist leader in minority
Fascism > Demo

So, if the fascist leader is so wise that he can make better decisions than a majority of well-informed individuals, then fascism could be the better system. Otherwise, rep. democracy is better.

Obviously, finding such a wise leader is problematic. People are usually biased, one way or another, based on love, children, etc. Succession tends be a problem, and a wise leader might still make bad decisions to give absolute control to someone who might not be wise because of bias or misinformation, and cause worse outcomes for his country.

Do you have a solution for the problem of succession?

 

[Mouthwash]

Typically, polities these days have a separation of powers and other checks and balances, the idea being that these are safety valves against misuse of power. However, this was not always the reasoning of the day.

Dante Aligheri, a White Guelph (Guelphs were the Italian opponents of the Holy Roman Emperor) turned Ghibbeline (the supporter of the Holy Roman Empire) reasoned that a universal monarch who theoretically held unlimited powers would not desire any more power and would consider such as a given, thus dissuading him from misusing power in order to augment it and keep it respectively. I wonder what people think of this reasoning.

Absolutely right. It just isn't humanly possible to hold such power, or to even come close.

 

[James Stuart]

First, you need to tell me what you understand by fascism and authoritarianism.

The former is a revolutionary ideology with a strong focus on nationalist and corporatist structures, which co-opts socialist and communist structures while abandoning their focus on individualism for a focus on the state. The latter is simply a case of 'might-makes-right.' While all fascist states have been authoritarian, not all authoritarian states are fascist. In fact, I doubt there have been ten fascist states that have ever existed.

 

[aelf]

The former is a revolutionary ideology with a strong focus on nationalist and corporatist structures, which co-opts socialist and communist structures while abandoning their focus on individualism for a focus on the state. The latter is simply a case of 'might-makes-right.' While all fascist states have been authoritarian, not all authoritarian states are fascist. In fact, I doubt there have been ten fascist states that have ever existed.

That is a very historical definition of fascism, i.e. one that is made in hindsight in view of what purportedly fascist regimes actually ended up looking like. That's about as right as seeing Communism as equivalent to Marxism-Leninism with a Stalinist bent - it's incomplete and deterministic (acting as though things couldn't possibly have turned out differently).

I'm pretty sure that what I wrote is reasonably close to how fascist thinkers actually saw things (that society needed to be 'saved' from the corruption of democratic politics/liberalism). Some of them of course had particularly nationalistic flavours, but AFAIK they too emphasised the failure of liberal governments to act in the (irredentitst/expansionist/imperial) interests of the nation.

Also, authoritarianism is not "might makes right."

 

[Hygro]

Authoritarianism often follows the success of might-makes-right ideologizing regimes. Merry X-Mas.

 

[James Stuart]

That is a very historical definition of fascism, i.e. one that is made in hindsight in view of what purportedly fascist regimes actually ended up looking like. That's about as right as seeing Communism as equivalent to Marxism-Leninism with a Stalinist bent - it's incomplete and deterministic (acting as though things couldn't possibly have turned out differently).

I'm pretty sure that what I wrote is reasonably close to how fascist thinkers actually saw things (that society needed to be 'saved' from the corruption of democratic politics/liberalism). Some of them of course had particularly nationalistic flavours, but AFAIK they too emphasised the failure of liberal governments to act in the (irredentitst/expansionist/imperial) interests of the nation.

Also, authoritarianism is not "might makes right."

I think most fascists were more concerned with socialism myself, but they definitely didn't like liberalism. Your expansion makes more sense than your original comment.

Authoritarianism is basically absolutism, with or without a monarch. While it does not technically require that the authority be stronger than those the authority is exercised against, it would be extremely difficult for it to be otherwise.