The fundamental unit of politics is not the individual. Nor is the fundamental unit of politics the family. The fundamental unit of politics is the person who has (some particular) authority and those who are subject to this authority.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Wood Faileth 
I like this. In other words: “The most important person in politics is the sovereign, the second most important person is everyone subject to him”.
However, in a democracy, what if the people is sovereign?
LikeLike
Scoot,
There is a lot swirling in my head after yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing. Though I do like to use the word “sovereign” I have found it more helpful to be explicit using the phrase “the person who has authority.” This phrase seems to freak out modern folks who fear one with authority, but also I think it better highlights the reality of politics. As you probably can imagine I don’t believe that it is possible really for the “people to be sovereign” in this sense. Democracy is a mechanism by which those who wield political authority are chosen even if that mechanism can never be the ultimate *source* of political authority. Again this is all swirling from the last 24 hours. I’ve been very unproductive at the job lol.
LikeLike
You and me both. What is the supreme court hearing? I have unplugged so thoroughly that news of it hasn’t pierced my bubble.
I’m in a contrarian mood so I’ll put it to you that the people are sovereign and that’s exactly what’s the problem with democracy. Don Colacho has this quote which I wrote about some time ago: “Either the people has rights or the people are sovereign. The mutually exclusive assertion of these two principles is what people have called liberalism.”
If the people have rights, it means they have been granted certain permissions from the ruling authority. The actual sovereign says “You may speak freely” and the people then proceed to speak freely.
If the people is sovereign, they say “I may speak freely” and when the government seeks to say “stop shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” that is a usurpation of their authority as sovereigns.
Democracy is the mechanism by which the sovereign (the people) select agents to effectuate their will. I come to this conclusion using the old greek saying by Themistocles, paraphrased: “The king rules greece, his wife rules him, his infant son rules her, therefore his infant son rules all of greece”. By way of analogy: The people obey the law, the law is written by legislators, the law is enforced by the president, the president is selected by the people. Therefore the people obey the people.
LikeLike
I think in a republic, “the people” means a kind of sovereign corporation made up of all citizens, not the individual citizens as a set, so to speak. The citizen of a republic, as opposed to mere resident of a territory or subject in a monarchy, is like, but not exactly like, a member of a club or other corporation. An individual exercises (political) authority *as an officer of the corporation* and an individual is subject in particular ways to the authority of the officers *as a member of the corporation.*
In a more democratic form of governance, all officers are members of the sovereign corporation and any individual member (citizen) is eligible (never absolutely, but more-or-less) to be an officer. I think democracy and oligarchy are on a spectrum, the more eligibility to be an officer (but not to be a member/citizen) is restricted, the more oligarchic. Election to office by mass voting is not strictly speaking necessarily democratic, for instance, Athens chose officers by drawing lots and there are elective monarchies. In monarchy, the subjects are individually subject to the monarch’s authority in a unique way for every single person, more-or-less, so his subjects do not form a sovereign corporation.
This is why a pure democracy is impossible, I think, because it is like trying to make everyone CEO. So, to Wood’s last point, the sovereign is the highest political authority, which, ultimately, must be an individual. In our case, it looks rather like that person is the deciding member of a group of nine judges dressed in black.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scoot,
The SC hearing was Dobbs v Mississippi, which I predict will be both our generations’s Roe or Casey landmark abortion case and our generation’s SC case upholding abortion. It does have the potential to overthrow Roe (I predict it won’t), and anytime that is possible my antennae go up.
Just so we aren’t talking past each other, when I say “sovereign” I am meaning it as a short hand for the political authority right here and right now who can adjudicate between these particular conflicting claims right here and right now. Democracy in America is the main mechanism of choosing who has that authority – even if this act of choosing is not the derivation or foundation of political authority itself. The “sovereignty of the people” is one of those liberalisms attempting to hide actual political authority behind high falluting language and bureaucratic process that is supposedly always there and yet inexplicably never really there. Have you met a single person or faction of this people who feels or claims to be “sovereign”? I sure haven’t.
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for the comment, and I largely agree. My original post was one part yesterday’s SC hearing (heard a lot about individual liberty and autonomy – laughable given that side’s usual take on vaccine mandates), one part perusing some old Ayn Rand books (the ole girl was really interesting at times actually despite her being an apostle for wickedness and overall monster) and one part IRL discussion (“so what are you anyway, some kind of libertarian?”). Also, I’m an idiot wrt tech, and your comments somehow aren’t being white listed. I’ll try to fix that.
LikeLike
Wood,
I did some googling on the case–God help us! I tend to be an optimist so I hope something changes–it’s certainly possible, I didn’t expect Youngkin to win in Virginia–but if the Supreme’s don’t strike a blow against abortion then ACB is worth about as much as John Roberts. I’m watching her vote in particular because it will be a litmus test for how this court will act for the forseeable future.
“adjudicate between these particular conflicting claims right here and right now.”
Fair–that’s very Zippy sounding language and certainly makes sense to clarify. Though I don’t think “choosing who has that authority” necessarily puts “the people” too remote to be considered sovereign–judges are certainly selected agents of the sovereign and can act remotely to adjudicate between claims.
“Have you met a single person (…) who feels or claims to be sovereign?”
I would argue you have and you haven’t realized it. The act of voting is a holy ritual as you have observed, and my friend hambone and I like to refer to it as a “revolution release valve”. Everyone earnestly believes they are kingmakers and earnestly believes their opinion on kingmaking matters. They aren’t saying “I feel sovereign today” but they are saying “i can decide who is king today”.
To reciprocate your clarification, when I refer to sovereignty I mean the “prime lawgiver”—if a rule is embraced by the sovereign it becomes law, if it is rejected by the sovereign it ceases to be law. Just look at the SC Case—the whole reason it is controversial is because the people qua sovereign have decided to reject the law but the government qua agents of the sovereign have not acted to legitimize this position legislatively. The law lags behind society–so even if the SC strikes down some aspect of abortion, it will not be long before they do something else to uphold abortion because society has already decided that abortion is ok.
LikeLike