I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.
This American government--what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient, by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it.
~Henry David Thoreau
(Blogger's note: Hear, hear! I still think articles like this are relevant even in today's politics)
And speaking of Democracy AND THE REPUBLIC....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thoreau makes a very basic assumption that I believe is flawed, and it leads to my disagreement with him about the necessity of the government, and the army.
ReplyDeleteThoreau believed that humans are inherently good, and that societal pressures cause them to become corrupt and evil. I disagree; I believe that the struggle for self is man's driving influence, and that morality is irrelevant to that cause. Shakespeare said thinking makes it so; I say man should be judged by his actions (noting that speaking is an action), because no source of power carries a moral value in the good|evil sense; power's use defines its morality.
But we must decouple two axes that become linked in the American subconscious before we can speak seriously about this. Before you continue here, take a minute and try to get over the conviction that furthering oneself is evil, or that conversely, self-sacrifice is altruistic by definition. The simplest way I can say it is that while power sources do not have moral properties, and uses of power do, it is not -what- you do with the power that defines the morality of the act -- it is -why-.
Now, I said all of that to say this.
People, in furthering their own goals (which I've said, above, is not wrong), the goal is to concentrate one's available power on the actions that yield the best ratio of reward to risk -- with our survival instinct reminding us that if we die, it's over, and placing the emphasis heavily on low risk. Inevitably, we run into other people. The planet is just lousy with folks. Since we would all be competing in one-person teams for resources, random chance dictates that the day must have come when the population density of an area was greater than its resources' ability to support that population. Furthering one's goals requires one of three things: Making more efficient use of existing resources, acquiring more, or reducing the number of consuming people. Let your eyes walk that sentence again, and see if an easy solution to two out of three doesn't suggest itself immediately.
But the other guy thought of that too! Even if you get him, the next guy to threaten your life might be luckier. The advantage of numbers becomes obvious, and following that comes the corollary discovery -- that cooperation vastly increases the efficiency of use for all those finite things you can't let yourself run out of.
But get above a certain size, and the necessity of maintaining order needs a persistent organizing body. A committee is born. But it must have the authority to overcome unreasonable resistance to the will of the majority (or just the powerful, depending on the exact blueprints of your committee). Now it's a government. But your neighbors have worked this out too, and are banding together themselves! Best apply those organizational advantages to the common defense. An army is raised.
The army's purpose is to make the other people size us up and decide the risk is too great, since they only have the one life. Armies carry a cost; no government has ever fielded an army that did not attack the government at least once, including ours.
Ultimately, we cannot live among other people without governments and armies being the logical conclusion, and we do it entirely to ourselves. And we don't even LIKE armies.
"Thoreau believed that humans are inherently good, and that societal pressures cause them to become corrupt and evil. I disagree; I believe that the struggle for self is man's driving influence, and that morality is irrelevant to that cause. Shakespeare said thinking makes it so; I say man should be judged by his actions (noting that speaking is an action), because no source of power carries a moral value in the good|evil sense; power's use defines its morality"
ReplyDeleteWell said chinashop! However I disagree with you one point. While I concur that a person should be just judged on his or her actions, I do not think speaking can completely count as an action. I know “Action speaks louder than words but not nearly as often” and Shakespeare is the master of verbal action. However, if a person is judged forever by verbal representation then we aren't doing favors for anyone's morality. No one is perfect, and at least they had a chance of free speech. There are exceptions to this, I am sure. In my opinion I find that my actions mean more to me than words.