No doubt it is rude and old-fashioned, but I require political theories to come within shouting distance of human reality. This rules out a number of popular philosophies that don't match simple experimental data points.
We observe a few simple facts about human behavior, and can easily see implications for government.
Observation 1
Anarchy is the worst known political system.
Sorry, circle-A devotees, but if you bother to look you'll notice that people spontaneously organize to avoid anarchy, and in practice will put up with a lot of injustice to avoid the chaos attending anarchy.
That organization doesn't have to take the form of laws—an unspoken agreement that Joe handles defense and you do what he says is an appointment of a ruler. When there aren't a lot of people or a lot of threats the organization can start out simple, but any old society is complex. You just imagine that the Bushman society is simple, but the social rules are there.
Observation 2
An irreducible percentage of your neighbors are criminals.
It may be only a few percent (something like 2% in the USA), but you will always find someone who steals, or likes to abuse, or kills—who is content to treat you as a useless thing. Within your clan, and even within your family you'll find bad actors.
It can get a lot worse. If your neighbors are another tribe, the fraction who'll steal from or hurt you if they can get away with it can rise to a majority.
Millennia of experience tells us you can't reform/redeem all of these—some few yes, most no. Stories of penitent criminals make for good theater but they represent only a small minority. The only thing that helps is to try to punish the criminals. That doesn't solve the problem—that percentage is irreducible—but in practice it keeps it from growing too big.
Observation 3
Nearby tribes are even more likely than your neighbors to be ready to steal or kill if they can get away with it.
You can come up with all sorts of arguments why—“dehumanizing the other” and so on—but the fact is that most neighboring countries have been at war with each other within the past couple of centuries. The USA is at peace with Canada and has been for a long time—but there have been times invasion was a live issue. Our relations with Mexico have been rather more fraught. Switzerland hasn't been at war with anyone for a long time—mostly because they've combined vigorous neutrality with militant preparations for war. Nobody wanted to monkey with them.
A theory of government is going to have to be able to explain how to deal with wars.
Observation 4
”Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Lord Acton's Law is observation, not theory.
You can find a few exceptions. They are rare. I gather that it is possible to try to teach children virtue and cultivate a slightly larger fraction who can resist the temptations attending the exercise of power, but that isn't a very popular program these days.
Power attracts people who love power, and these are the least likely to emphasize the “service” part of “public service.” They quickly believe themselves better than you, and entitled to control you. Just watch.
If your theory of government centers a radical degree of power in the government, it had better have some radical methods for dealing with the attendant corruption. What's that? You just assume that since they're your kind of folks they'll be righteous? See Point 2 above.
Observation 5
Laws and regulations multiply
It is very easy to pass a new law and worry about the side effects later. That may be an adequate explanation for the phenomena, but the observation stands: it takes huge effort to cut down the number of rules, and it is rarely done; but little effort to add to them.
There are side effects of this multiplication of regulations. Two of the most obvious are that
- Businesses cannot be sure if new regulations will inadvertently wreck their plans. They can respond by either doing the same old things or by investing in legislators and regulators (see Point 4 above).
- The web of regulations means that an individual can never be sure that he is not running afoul of some prohibition (Am I allowed to trim my own trees? Can I watch my neighbor's kids for her while they wait for the school bus? Not in England), and gives him a strong incentive to keep his head down and not make waves for fear of attracting the attention of inspectors.
Observation 6
You can always make things worse.
Maybe a new law will help. Maybe not—especially if it is careless or based on “let's pretend” instead of observation. Even when things get so bad that you need a revolution, the new masters can wind up as bad as the old, and on top of a war-torn country to boot.
Observation 7
”You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time”. Lincoln went on to say that you couldn't fool all the people all the time, but sometimes you come close enough. Hitler did.
Observation 8
Everything needs maintenance or it won't last
While not strictly a political concept, the analogy seems to describe what happens with governments—they grow layers of cruft and corrode their important workings. The military becomes more focused on ticket punching and internal politics than guarding the nation, agencies more interested in empire-building and turf wars than actually keeping the land clean or well-regulated. These are invitations to trouble, which rarely needs much invitation. Sometimes the resulting war or disaster can shake things up, but more often a nation seems to acquire dictators.
Observation 9
People forget benefits and remember injuries
If you give a man a free newspaper every day he'll come to expect it, feel entitled to it, and feel it an injury if you stop. That may not seem rational, but that's human nature. If a government gives out goodies the recipients will learn to expect them, and get angry if they stop.
If a political program doesn't take these into account, I think I'm safe in claiming that it won't work, or not for very long.
No comments:
Post a Comment