Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primæval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place.
I am more of a Burkean conservative than I am a Painean radical.
Much depends on what is meant by "government". If by government one means the society in which one finds onesself, we can say with some certainty that Paine was wrong. Human beings are social animals. We are not solitary hunters like cats. We require the society of our fellows to thrive and prosper and, along Burke's lines, that implies that attempting to divide human beings from government is fallacious and it is reasonable to believe that governments, too, have certain rights.
We may speak of good government and bad government, just or unjust government, efficient or inefficient government but it is psychologically, anthropologically, and historically unsound to speak of no government at all or, as Paine does, of government preceding individuals in any meaningful sense.
Paine argues the opposite, that individuals preceded government.
We are not solitary hunters like cats.
Not true. People function much more like individualist cats than pack animals like dogs; this is why community-property systems like Communism fail while individual property systems thrive. Like cats, we own territory/property as individuals, but form societies for hunting/food-gathering, mating, and social interaction.
and it is reasonable to believe that governments, too, have certain rights.
Governments are a convenient fiction, a pact between individuals, and such a construct cannot be said to have intrinsic rights, as it has no inherent existence. And as Paine correctly says, such a pact is the only principle by which they have a right to exist.
Not true. People are much more like indvidualist cats than pack animals like dogs; this is why community-property systems like Communism fail while individual property systems thrive. Like cats, we own territory as individuals, but form societies for hunting, mating, and social interaction.
Actually, communal property systems work quite well on a small scale, which is why during most of the initial stages of human evolution, humans lived in tribal societies. More individualistic systems evolved, much later, out of very complex inherited customs. Burke (as well as other admirers of the British legal/political tradition like Blackstone) seems to have gotten this, while Paine, on the other hand, ignored this historical reality completely.
Actually, communal property systems work quite well on a small scale, which is why during most of the initial stages of human evolution, humans lived in tribal societies.
No, they work quite poorly. Compare the standard of living of Americans to any group living in a communal system.
People living in such communal conditions now or in prehistory live very, very harsh lives compared to modern individualist societies. They certainly cannot be held up as representing any kind of ideal human society.
Exactly! That it was a necessity meant it was better than any other system of property ownership given the conditions they faced. Yes, modern individualism has given humans more knowledge, more freedom to flourish. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no primordial individualistic society -- our current freedoms evolved, over a long period of time. Paine's model simply does not match reality.
Seems you changed your post to remove the part I quoted. Fact remains I never held up communal property as an ideal, just a functional system for a certain stage of human evolution.
Actually, I doubt even that it was necessary, which is why I removed that. Since there are no prehistoric individualist societies to point to, it is hard to know for sure whether they, too, would have functioned far better than their communal counterparts.
But it seems likely, as the first individualist societies, such as the Greeks, were far superior to their contemporaries.
Paine wasn't saying there was a primordial individualist society, he's saying individuals must have formed government rather than inheriting it from the ether. The fact they did so quite poorly, giving away most of their rights as individuals, is something Paine would have readily acknowledged.
Given that we cannot think of examples of preliterate, hunter-gathering societies who did not have some form of communal property system, I think the empirical-minded should be led to conclude that there was some advantage to such a system.
And the Greeks were far more technologically advanced than most tribal societies at the time they adopted more individualistic practices.
No, that doesn't follow. They didn't use writing, algebra, or electricity either, but that wasn't because they couldn't have gained an advatnage from them, it was because they didn't understand how they could be exploited for their benefit.
Similarly, an evolved understanding of how to conserve our natural rights did not arise for some time either.
Okay, change "advantage" to an "advantage over all the systems that could have likely evolved given the state of knowledge, technology, mores, etc. at the time".
Paine's response to Burke's talk of "contracts" and "oaths" is bit of a smackdown:
To possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or ought to be, we must trace it to its origin. In doing this we shall easily discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people or over the people. Mr. Burke has made no distinction. He investigates nothing to its source, and therefore he confounds everything; but he has signified his intention of undertaking, at some future opportunity, a comparison between the constitution of England and France. As he thus renders it a subject of controversy by throwing the gauntlet, I take him upon his own ground. It is in high challenges that high truths have the right of appearing; and I accept it with the more readiness because it affords me, at the same time, an opportunity of pursuing the subject with respect to governments arising out of society.
But it will be first necessary to define what is meant by a Constitution. It is not sufficient that we adopt the word; we must fix also a standard signification to it.
A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.
Can, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he cannot, we may fairly conclude that though it has been so much talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form.
I agree, but realize that when you toss in "likely to have evolved at the time" you render the whole argument over the merits of a system of individualism moot by specifically excluding it as a possibility.
It wasn't a great system, it was just the only one anyone had thought of yet. Later, we evolved better systems.
I agree, but realize that when you toss in "likely to have evolved at the time" you render the whole argument over the merits of a system of individualism moot by specifically excluding it as a possibility.
It wasn't a great system, it was just the only one anyone had thought of yet. Later, we evolved better systems.
I agree 100%. But I wasn't trying to compare tribal communism and modern individualism; I have never held the former superior or equal to the latter. All I ever said was that there was some merit in the former. Proof of that merit is that it allowed for the continuation of the human race and the evolution of even better social systems.
LOL And thus the mystic and the empiricist diverge again.
That one must do an inductive survey of the whole of British common law (e.g. Blackstone's Commentaries) to derive the system's constitutional priciples, doesn't make the constitution "mystical".
That one must do an inductive survey of the whole of British common law (e.g. Blackstone's Commentaries) to derive the system's constitutional priciples, doesn't make the constitution "mystical".
A system derived from an inductive survey is a fairly mystical concept relative to being able to put one's finger on a document.
I realize Paine's preference for a written constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that the British legal system has a regular order (which can be observed) despite its lack of written (and thus officially fixed) axioms.
I don't doubt that this wonder has led some to postulate a sort of mystic force guiding the development of the British constitution, though I think Hayek (see Law, Legislation, and Liberty Vol. I) has properly identified these forces as regular evolutionary processes.
I realize Paine's preference for a written constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that the British legal system has a regular order (which can be observed) despite its lack of written (and thus officially fixed) axioms.
Actually, it does matter in very concrete ways. As Paine points out, there's no Constitution that says, for example, how many years Parliamentarians can serve. They could pass a law saying they serve forever.
And, according to this wiki entry, such a vote would have to pass both the Commons and the Lords and gain Royal approval.
7.13.2007 4:40pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
-- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
Much depends on what is meant by "government". If by government one means the society in which one finds onesself, we can say with some certainty that Paine was wrong. Human beings are social animals. We are not solitary hunters like cats. We require the society of our fellows to thrive and prosper and, along Burke's lines, that implies that attempting to divide human beings from government is fallacious and it is reasonable to believe that governments, too, have certain rights.
We may speak of good government and bad government, just or unjust government, efficient or inefficient government but it is psychologically, anthropologically, and historically unsound to speak of no government at all or, as Paine does, of government preceding individuals in any meaningful sense.
Paine argues the opposite, that individuals preceded government.
We are not solitary hunters like cats.
Not true. People function much more like individualist cats than pack animals like dogs; this is why community-property systems like Communism fail while individual property systems thrive. Like cats, we own territory/property as individuals, but form societies for hunting/food-gathering, mating, and social interaction.
and it is reasonable to believe that governments, too, have certain rights.
Governments are a convenient fiction, a pact between individuals, and such a construct cannot be said to have intrinsic rights, as it has no inherent existence. And as Paine correctly says, such a pact is the only principle by which they have a right to exist.
Actually, communal property systems work quite well on a small scale, which is why during most of the initial stages of human evolution, humans lived in tribal societies. More individualistic systems evolved, much later, out of very complex inherited customs. Burke (as well as other admirers of the British legal/political tradition like Blackstone) seems to have gotten this, while Paine, on the other hand, ignored this historical reality completely.
No, they work quite poorly. Compare the standard of living of Americans to any group living in a communal system.
Exactly! That it was a necessity meant it was better than any other system of property ownership given the conditions they faced. Yes, modern individualism has given humans more knowledge, more freedom to flourish. But that doesn't change the fact that there was no primordial individualistic society -- our current freedoms evolved, over a long period of time. Paine's model simply does not match reality.
But it seems likely, as the first individualist societies, such as the Greeks, were far superior to their contemporaries.
Paine's model works quite well in reality.
Paine wasn't saying there was a primordial individualist society, he's saying individuals must have formed government rather than inheriting it from the ether. The fact they did so quite poorly, giving away most of their rights as individuals, is something Paine would have readily acknowledged.
And the Greeks were far more technologically advanced than most tribal societies at the time they adopted more individualistic practices.
Similarly, an evolved understanding of how to conserve our natural rights did not arise for some time either.
To possess ourselves of a clear idea of what government is, or ought to be, we must trace it to its origin. In doing this we shall easily discover that governments must have arisen either out of the people or over the people. Mr. Burke has made no distinction. He investigates nothing to its source, and therefore he confounds everything; but he has signified his intention of undertaking, at some future opportunity, a comparison between the constitution of England and France. As he thus renders it a subject of controversy by throwing the gauntlet, I take him upon his own ground. It is in high challenges that high truths have the right of appearing; and I accept it with the more readiness because it affords me, at the same time, an opportunity of pursuing the subject with respect to governments arising out of society.
But it will be first necessary to define what is meant by a Constitution. It is not sufficient that we adopt the word; we must fix also a standard signification to it.
A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.
Can, then, Mr. Burke produce the English Constitution? If he cannot, we may fairly conclude that though it has been so much talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, or ever did exist, and consequently that the people have yet a constitution to form.
As to the English constitution, read Blackstone, read Hayek... It's there, even if you can't put your finger on it.
I agree, but realize that when you toss in "likely to have evolved at the time" you render the whole argument over the merits of a system of individualism moot by specifically excluding it as a possibility.
It wasn't a great system, it was just the only one anyone had thought of yet. Later, we evolved better systems.
LOL And thus the mystic and the empiricist diverge again.
I agree 100%. But I wasn't trying to compare tribal communism and modern individualism; I have never held the former superior or equal to the latter. All I ever said was that there was some merit in the former. Proof of that merit is that it allowed for the continuation of the human race and the evolution of even better social systems.
That one must do an inductive survey of the whole of British common law (e.g. Blackstone's Commentaries) to derive the system's constitutional priciples, doesn't make the constitution "mystical".
A system derived from an inductive survey is a fairly mystical concept relative to being able to put one's finger on a document.
I don't doubt that this wonder has led some to postulate a sort of mystic force guiding the development of the British constitution, though I think Hayek (see Law, Legislation, and Liberty Vol. I) has properly identified these forces as regular evolutionary processes.
I should note that the system isn't derived from the inductive survey; the system, already in place, is rather identified by that survey.
Actually, it does matter in very concrete ways. As Paine points out, there's no Constitution that says, for example, how many years Parliamentarians can serve. They could pass a law saying they serve forever.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.