7 votes

Government & Factions

Originally published - Mon, 06/03/2013 - 21:21, under the title "Government (I spent a lot of time on this please read it all the way through)"

- - -

I started writing this 6 years ago. This was a concept that i had before a found that there were liberty minded individuals in this country, although my understanding of freedom and inalienable rights differ from the general consensus Please read it and critique. I posted another lengthy post year a month ago and it got very little reception. I would go elsewhere but i am not sure where my ideas might be accepted. I spent a lot of time on it and i think it offers a different perspective on the ideas of natural rights:

It ought to be asserted that no political entity has ever managed or regulated man as capably and competently as the individual has managed himself. This basic human instinct has caused humankind to prevail over every menace to her existence. Throughout the ages the will of man, most importantly the will of the individual has set mankind on a path of remarkable advancement. Advancement in all fields in fact, to the extent that through most paradigms history is characterized by advancement and progression. The indomitable spirit of man, coupled with his ability to understand his own suffering and the reason to employ means through which to prevent it, has caused the ascendancy of an existence the likes of which nature has never seen. To incorporate this into the larger scheme, one must consider the implications of man's aptitude for success. It is an accomplishment of mankind inasmuch as mankind shares the same characteristics as its elements. For the ascendancy of mankind is a direct answer to the ability of the individual to attain his own ends. The unification of individuals is as much a product of reason as their competition against one another. It is an arrangement, an intangible contract between a people that outlines the manner in which their coalescence will benefit the private interest of the singular. No man would submit to the will of another man arbitrarily. This invaluable check on mankind ensures his interdependence on each and every aspect of his environment. The individual good precedes the greater good. The greater good is its consequence.

It may be contended that great men have led a people to ends not possible but for their superior direction and that those great men are the producers of the advancement of humanity. Men are not equals, as we can discern from historical example; However, when great men lead united peoples to great ends those people are continually working for the interests of the whole. A leader risks no less than his following because their ultimate goal is the same. Perhaps materially the goal may differ, but in the end it can be summed up quite succinctly. Every single man is searching for an improvement of his own circumstances as he sees it. When the means to two different ends coincide, it is in the best interest of men to attempt for those means to be realized, and in certain cases to unite to do so.

This is not to say that a collection of different individuals makes up a whole of lesser integrity. It must be maintained that acting as a single unit, groups of individuals take on a distinct personality. The success of its mission is not the responsibility of one great man but on each and every individual component in the framework of that coalescence. The whole exists so to realize certain means advantageous to the pursuit of individual goals and its integrity is such that only the parts of its mission that are necessary to every individual gain make up its consistency. It is imperative for the whole therefore to maintain its unity. Man is a social creature. He understands his interdependence, and the importance of his role in the manifestation of a greater society. It's is the most fundamental quality of harmony.

Before man can pursue his own objectives he must protect his means by which to attain them. In order to protect the whole, the whole must protect the interest of its parts. When the same means are no longer necessary to every individual end, the structure itself loses its integrity, and when man stops vying for the interest of the whole, he dis-joins, representing another faction, a separate entity with a different persona and dissimilar ambitions. The whole ceases to be the whole. The whole is now also a faction taking the place of the individual in the larger context of human existence. These conflicting factions represent a new level of self. The tension between multiple factions, not unrelated to the tension between multiple individuals is therefore a matter of egotism. This is a very important point to stress because this is where unity becomes a person of sorts. Faction can be rational, and faction can also be irrational.

Faction inherits emotion from its framework. It acts in the very same way as the individuals it is composed of and in essence it inherits the same devotion to self-interest by which it was fashioned. It is logical then that with the same aim the method by which to achieve it will be likewise the same. It is inevitable that faction will seek to merge with faction to enhance its ability to serve its purpose. The question is to what degree. To survive it must protect its interests. By not doing so it should cause its own dissolution. How then to procure its own subsistence without yielding to the will of other faction?

With unity an identity is forged. One must not expect that the intention of all man is one of his own survival or prosperity. It is not always a systematic analysis of his condition that causes man to look to community for his needs. It is an inherent characteristic of human nature. One will never be sightless of the affinities one shares with someone else. Common language, common landscape, a common environment creates common values and perspectives. Identity not only a result of coalition, it can be the foundation of coalition and it is always a quality from which to draw strength. The vitality of unity is that any part will be willing to sacrifice his self for the good of the whole. Just as a doctor will amputate an infectious limb, so will the whole sacrifice the piece. When the limb is cut away it does not cry. The pains are felt most deeply not from the severed limb but from the man from whom the limb was severed. Again to fully appreciate this one must consider the reality of the whole. If a part is not willing to sacrifice his self and his ambition for the good of the whole, than he evidently cares more for his own self than he does for the whole. In fact the mere existence of the whole is derived from the presupposition that it should serve each and every individual purpose. If the endurance of unity requires man to make sacrifices that contradict his own purpose than isn't that where whole and part detach. Therefore the argument is not that the general welfare of the whole will never out way the general welfare of the part, but that it should only do so when the general welfare of the whole is the purpose of the individual.

Thus it is apparent that self does exists on many levels and to attain the highest level of unity one must consider the aim of every single level of identity, whether it should be that of faction or the individual. The philosophy of government is centered on that underlining theme. To answer the questions concerning government one must first define it. Government is the institution by which society maintains its unity. The effectiveness of government relies on the faith that every person over whom it exercises its authority has in that authority to protect their interests. Just as man may be at variance with his fellow man, so may all forms of self; however, to what lengths should self go to protect its best interest? Ought it to go as far as to risk the very ambition that it is fighting to protect? Open conflict like open warfare is an arduous livelihood where more energy is expended fighting to maintain the existence of the immediate self than can ever be expended in the pursuit of the ambitions that gives self its personal qualities.Now, one must concede that when the ambition of a self is one of oppression than it is in that self's best interest to pursue it, but to maintain its unity of purpose the prospect of annihilation must be accepted among the different individual egos in the makeup. Unwilling to capitulate to the will of opposing faction how could one ever expect opposing faction to capitulate to ones own will? There will never be any coherence unless validity is established in terms of every single will of every single individual self in the greater self. Thus to effectively create the validity of ambition mankind must turn to principle to guide its government. There is validity in every personal ambition of all mankind, unless the action of that ambition is inconsistent with this fundamental principle.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is fiction

"The effectiveness of government relies on the faith that every person over whom it exercises its authority has in that authority to protect their interests."

There is no it, other than the lies that inspire people to believe that it exists as a thing, a cult of personality, an entity unto itself, a corporate being of limited liability.

Why do people fall for it?


I am grateful to see this post reapear

It has been a long time since I wrote it, but was the most thought I put in to politics up until I joined the daily Paul.

It is neat to see it with a purpose now.


You place too much faith in altruism...

Individuals act in hopes to find themselves in a more satisfactory state after the action.

One may consider a marriage where the wife enjoys the ballet while the husband does not. The husband will go to the ballet but not out of altruism - self sacrifice. The husband will go because he is aware that he will likely find himself in a less satisfactory state otherwise - in the dog house so to speak.

Another example is a person that gives to charity. A person may say they give to charity because they want to help the needy, but in reality they give to charity because it makes them feel good. If it made them feel worse, they wouldn't do it.

People act in order to maintain or improve upon their current level of satisfaction - the whole has little to do with it other than its potential impact upon the individual's satisfaction.

That was kinda my point

The husband goes to the ballet because it serves his best interest. Not because he enjoys the ballet, but because he enjoys the experience of making his wife happy, thus generating a positive experience for his marriage.

The biggest point i try to make is as soon as someones best interest is not being served(i.e.- the individual is no longer appeased by the final outcome) it is oppression not unity.


I agree with your biggest point.

I'm glad I responded to this post back then. It's a good post.

The point I was making in the above comment was that you could have reached your conclusion without too much consideration for the "whole" in the argument. I don't think it can be overcome that humans will always be focused on their immediate environment.

I recall as a very young child imagining that, when I wasn't around, everyone went into suspended animation - relatives primarily.

My experience leads me to believe that individualism is deeply rooted in the psyche of Man - as your post supports.

Since individual action is only affected by stimuli directly experienced by the person and most people primarily communicate with other people they associate with locally , the "whole" for each individual is essentially defined on a local level over 90% of the time (hence the common degradation of long-term relationships).

So, considering the nature of Man, invoking the "whole" on a very large scale - which happens often, especially in politics - to explain human actions doesn't serve much purpose. For instance, even though the wars are despicable and many people disagree with them, people still go to work everyday and perform the habitual actions they've come to do over the years. Life goes on - so to speak.

On a slightly different but related topic, to contain a State, the People must be forever vigilant - at least a significant number - so they say. Considering the above, I believe "forever vigilance" is a pipe dream - another strike for having a State. The State is like an animal - if you can't control it, you don't need it.


Believe it or not, I have already developed to that conclusion. Again, this post was written 7yrs ago. About 5 years ago, I envisioned a non-territorial system of voluntary government.

Since then I have discovered rothbard, Proudhon, and have developed my opinion towards statelessness...