HIDING THE MULA

There is an important element of any modern society that by its nature holds a federalist character and, at the same time, does not.  The modern corporation, by its very structure, has the very federal element of being owned by the voluntary affiliation of stock owners – ostensibly forming a federation through that ownership. 

Yet, it does not have, among those stock owners, any sense – except perhaps for a select few who own large number of shares – any sense of ownership of that entity.  They, in terms of their consciousness, own stock shares, not a corporation with all its human attributes and qualities.  As such, their “pride” in ownership does not stem from ownership, but from any transactional profit they might derive from said ownership – the first step of detachment.

          Its worth mentioning, the typical stock purchaser does not care about the company he/she is buying ownership into which in a vast number of cases amount to a miniscule portion of the total ownership.  All that person cares about is the price for which he/she is purchasing the shares and how much the anticipated price he/she can sell it at some future date.  In most cases, the person anticipates a higher price and, therefore, a profit from the transactions.  Just another way to make a buck.

          This posting needs the reader to understand these basic elements of stocks, corporations, and stock ownership to make its points.  But the main point being made here is not directly associated with these elements, but with how the notion of corporation is used to establish the processes that lead to unsavory results.  This is aided by, to various jurisdictions being fast and loose with attaining identifiable information with those establishing corporations. 

And those results, as is cursorily explained below, come about from a detachment system – detachment between ownership and business – that allows certain practices to take place.  But before this established process came into being, it was an idea, but an idea with important consequences. 

Its manifestation has probably done more to advance what Jonah Goldberg[1] calls “the Miracle” than just about any other development.  As the reader is probably aware, the formation of corporations provides the vehicle for the accumulation of financial capital to fund the purchases of physical capital allowing the expansion of smaller businesses.[2]  In turn, that allows the businesses, if successful, to go national or even global.

          With those physical assets, as well as human capital, a business company can buy machinery, set up distribution facilities, set up sell operations, rent the necessary office spaces, acquire the use of buildings, on and on.  In the process, by the willful, chosen course of action, investors – who supply the money – in a formal way, form a type of “partnership.”  On paper, they become federated one to the other.  So much so, that the scholar, Daniel Elazar, cites this process as one that helps demonstrate that America is a “thoroughly” federated system.[3]

          But hold on.  Oliver Bullough points out a missing federal quality in these arrangements.  In his description, he explains how corporations have attained the ability to hide money and other assets and this has led to very un-federated realities.  He writes:

… there is more going on here than just [corporate] lawyers being dishonest – turning a blind eye, or otherwise.  It was not a crooked London solicitor or a dishonest New York attorney that made it so easy to create companies [instrumental in hiding money]; that was the work of government.  The crucial attribute of corporate vehicles is that they are legally separate from their owners and their owners’ liability for their debts is limited.  What that means in practice is that, if you operate through a company, society as a whole is taking responsibility for your debts.  It’s a kind of insurance.  If your business fails, only the assets of the limited liability company will be at risk, not those of its owners.[4]

Of course, it is this “insurance” that helps persuade investors to invest in “start-up” companies despite all their inherent possibilities for failure.  So far, so good; but this process, by avoiding direct attachment to the business in question, through this “insurance” scheme, accomplishes an important – second – step toward non-identification of ownership.

          Naturally, corporate structuring has a history and it is relevant to what is currently going on.  The first corporations of note popped up in the early 1800s.  England and the Netherlands were the first two nations to employ them.  But they were initially highly restricted.  For example, in England, Parliament had to give permission for the creation of one and that, in turn, limited the number that were created under that supervisory regime. 

But leave it to the good ole USA – even in its more federalist years – to give it its current form.  New York first legislated the limited liability form in 1811 and by the 1850s, that structural form was in full use.  By the early twentieth century, modern incorporated entities accounted for 95% of the market.  Citing the Economist, Bullough reminds his readers, “Limited liability is … ‘the key to industrial capitalism’.  Companies are good, without them, our modern prosperity would have been impossible.”[5]

So, there is an upside, but there is also a downside.  It turns out, that not only people can buy stocks or form corporations, but for a variety of reasons – some reasonable and honest, some not so much – corporations (legal persons) can also form them – sometimes many times over.  And this layering of ownership provides the third, and perhaps most important, structural basis for hiding ownership and with it, the ability to hide money.

And hark, the problem comes into focus.  Through this anonymity, a lot of shenanigans take place.  From spouses who want to hide their assets from divorcing mates to Mafia and other illicit, organized groups who use this structural capacity to hide money, how it is earned, and how it is used.  And this includes corrupt politicians on the take.  Some of those activities include fraud, bribes, embezzlement, and tax evasion.  And, of course, these activities have social consequences.

If the way the money is “earned” happens to be illegal (dirty money), the ill effects of that activity is problematic – take drug dealings or a blind eye to shoddy construction by public inspectors.  But people can find such hiding not only associated with “dirty” money, but also with “naughty” money. 

Tax evasion, in the eyes of many (not including this writer), is not dirty, it’s naughty.  People also see spending on extra marital affairs, for example, and other such expenditures as less than dirty but not honorable.  They result in embarrassment, so through the efforts of some skillful lawyers, those funds can become de-embarrassing through certain practices and incorporating, in certain ways, plays an important role.  

There are countless reasons why people want to hide money.  And since the uses of money have social consequences – as just pointed out – society has every right to ferret out where and by whom money is owned and controlled.  But they can only do so if the important information is recorded and accessible – they are too often neither.  In terms of the US, these practices go against the very notion that Americans are, constitutionally, a federated people.

Central to these unfederated consequences, created by hiding money, is the function corporations fulfill in such efforts.  So, an issue civics classes can have students investigate – at the risk of encouraging future practitioners – is the ability of individuals or groups to partake in these practices including those associated with corporations that are set up for these dishonorable and even illicit purposes.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).  The “Miracle” refers to the explosion in economic wealth since the seventeenth century.

[2] This is especially the case when investors buy into an IPO, an initial public offering, of a promising, relatively young business.

[3] Elazar, D. J.  (1994).  How federal is the Constitution? Thoroughly.  In a booklet of readings, Readings for classes taught by Professor Elazar, (pp. 1-30) prepared for a National Endowment for the Humanities Institute. Conducted in Steamboat Springs, Colorado.

[4] Oliver Bullough, Moneyland:  Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World and How to Take It Back (London, England:  Profile Publishers, 2019), 92.  Emphasis added.

[5] Ibid., 93.

BEING SCHMALTZY?

This blog has just finished a series of posting regarding a foundational construct offered by Jonah Goldberg.  This writer needs a milder topic and the reader deserves a shorter read.  So, at the risk of being schmaltzy, this blog offers the following – from Lao Tzu – that captures, for the writer, a federalist notion:

Watch your Thoughts, they can become Words.

Watch your Words, they can become Actions.

Watch your Actions, they can become Habits.

Watch your Habits, they can become Character.

Watch our Character, it becomes Destiny.

Perhaps the original intent was religious, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.  It can also be secular.

          The federalist turn occurs in the last line.  This writer does not know this philosopher’s meaning, but he feels the line captures an unavoidable truth.  No matter how much a person feels he/she determines his/her own fate, the manifestation of what will occur relies on the “our” element.

          People who hold a purely capitalist notions of the economy, seem to have a hard time accepting that fact.  Yes, business owners work hard.  They put in the hours, the sweat, the anguish, and the risked capital.  But all businesses exist within a social landscape that permits that business to exist.  Like what?  All the publicly owned infrastructure – the streets, water works, police protection, public health services, etc.  Are those services and related goods just a transaction between resident/businessperson and the government – taxes for services?

          Roughly testing that idea, this posting offers the following.  In New York City, from “Googling” the subject, one finds that the median income is from $50-58,000.  The City’s budget comes to $89.2 billion a year.  That comes to a per capita (per 8.6 million population) share of expenses of circa $10,350.  Add to that state expenses and taxes and federal expenses and taxes.  Somehow, these numbers seem to indicate the average New Yorker falls short of covering city expenses given the median income levels just listed. 

The point is:  an individual citizen, on average, does not exchange the amount he/she pays in taxes and the benefits he/she gets from living in a jurisdiction like New York City.  This blog is not passing judgement on the fairness of that city’s taxing policies or of any level of governance.  Do governments do too much question is for another posting.  This one is only claiming that being a citizen transcends being in a transactional relationship.  More is at stake.  In the extreme, how does one place a price on the sacrifice many have made – such as in the armed forces or first responders.

In addition, transactions do not elicit love.  It might engender appreciation, respect, even a sense of marvel at what professionals can accomplish.  But they do not, in any real sense, elicit love.  Yet, for a nation to survive, that is exactly what is needed in order to advance much less survive.  “Watch our Character, it becomes Destiny” refers to what a society is and will become.

Of interest, there has been various version of the above set of suggestions.  A more individualistic version has the last line, “Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.”  This is attributed to Frank Outlaw, the deceased president of the Bi-Lo Stores.[1]  Perhaps his version demonstrates the “businessperson” bias alluded to here. 

Another point of interest is the fact that the word “watch” contains the first letter of each of the key words of the quote.  “W” for words, “a” for action, “t” for thoughts, “c” for character, and “h” for habits.  They are not in order, but the coincidence (?) is worth noting.

How’s that for a schmaltzy effort?

---

[1] See “Watch Your Thoughts, They Become Words; Watch Your Words, They Become Actions,” Quote Investigator, n.d., accessed June 24, 2019, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/10/watch-your-thoughts/ .

A NUANCED HUMAN NATURE

With the last posting, this writer brings forth evidence – Columbus’ account of his first voyage to the West Indies’ islands and his encounters with their inhabitants – that questions Jonah Goldberg’s view of human nature.  Goldberg’s view is that human nature disposes people to be self-centered – egoistic – and apt to pursue self-interests irrespective of others’ property or other rights. 

According to Goldberg, one must be taught to think and even feel differently.  Such a human nature leads to the establishment of governments for the sheer purpose of robbing a populace in a way that allows bandits to continuously pilfer from a victimized population.  How?  By leaving enough among the targeted people, so they can continue to create wealth, and the robbers to continue to steal.

          That is, by leaving enough, those pre-historic societies become ongoing victims of those who establish and maintain power by establishing government with the power to tax.  Here is another writer’s account of this same process:

The American economist Mancur Olson traced the origin of civilisation back to the moment when pre-historic ‘roving bandits’ realised that, instead of raiding groups of humans and moving on, they could earn more by staying put and stealing from their victims all the time.  Early humans submitted to this, because – although they lost some of their freedom when they submitted to these ‘stationary bandits’ – they gained in return stability and security.  The bandits’ interests, and the community’s interests, became aligned.  Without bandits constantly raiding them, and stealing their property, groups of humans built increasingly complex communities and economies, becoming increasingly prosperous, which led eventually to the birth of the state, to civilisation, and to everything we now take for granted.

          ‘… Roving banditry means anarchy, and [sic] replacing anarchy with government brings about a considerable increase in output,’ Olson wrote in his 2000 book Power and Prosperity.[1]

Olson’s account of the beginnings of civilizations varies significantly from that offered by Arnold J. Toynbee[2] which was described in the last posting. 

All this blog’s writer can state is that Toynbee was a historian looking at the effects natural challenges have in providing the conditions for the beginnings and subsequent health of civilizations and Olson, an economist, seems to have applied rational theory to the economic fate of the former communist bloc nations after the fall of communism.  Toynbee’s review, it is felt here, of over 20 civilizations has more explanatory power, at least, in terms of the overall factors affecting the development of civilizations.

The important point is that human nature has not been shown to be this one-dimensional factor; it is not necessarily an egoistically disposed force within people which calls on selfish, short-sighted behaviors and, therefore motivates the establishment of governments. 

It might be the case that one person has such a nature, but another does not.  It can be the case that another has a nature that is charitable and especially disposed to seek opportunities to be of service to others.  In either case, the individual, with the appropriate socialization can turn to be of one sort or another and every other possibility in between.

In addition, any disposition under the right circumstances can be motivating someone to be involved with the processes involved with building a civilization.  Therefore, in terms of considering human nature and the origins of government, one should see that it is too simple to ascribe such motivations to a desire to steal.  That conclusion has implications as to the veracity of the natural rights’ argument. 

That argument basically states:  in terms of governance, the governing class needs to give in to human nature – in its disposing power to lead one to have tunnel vision in terms of one’s self-interest – so that the trade-off is for a person to abide by the rules of the game and enhance a mutual well-being and the stability to which Olson refers.  Such a regime, that theory holds, helps establish a social landscape in which a mutual welfare can be created and maintained.

Or stated another way, it allows for the Miracle – what Goldberg calls the development of liberal democracy and capitalism – that has led to the economic explosion of the last several hundred years.  This writer acknowledges that this “explosion” occurred.  He agrees there are those who have such anti-social dispositions that leads one to wonder how natural their antagonistic behaviors are.  But he highly questions that there are not enough natural tendencies toward benevolence among a given population that actively initiates and supports public action that leads to a more federated arrangement among a citizenry.

As Thomas Reid and Francis Hutcheson, two Scottish writers of the 1700s, claimed:  being kind, benevolent to others feels good, it’s a natural high.  This, in the mind of those writers, was part of human nature and unalienable.  If this is true, public policies that address common needs – like, for example, health care – that impinges on liberal values – like mandating taxes to pay for a single-payer health care system – does not necessarily undermine the foundations of the economy or of a viable democracy.

They can, on the other hand, introduce and support the assumptions upon which a federated – as opposed to liberal – democracy is based.  This blog does not argue for a public health program.  That is not the intent here.  What it does argue is that a public health program – like Medicare for All – should be argued on its merits – is it efficient enough; is it politically viable enough; is it effective enough? – not on its threat to the Miracle. 

And by the way, a poor health care system undermines the claim that a system honors equality and that such a program threatens the Miracle as would any examination of the tenets of liberal liberty.  Addressing the extent of any social, economic, political condition that undermines the values of a federated union is legitimate given the values of such a union.  Addressing it legitimately picks up on an aim of the Constitution, to “promote the general welfare.”

With that, this blog completes its critique of Jonah Goldberg’s foundational construct.  Again, this writer highly recommends Goldberg’s book.  To the extent humans are naturally the way he describes them, his arguments are useful.  It also goes a long way in explaining the conservative mind set.  But as this posting and the last one indicate, this writer has fundamental reservations as to that writer’s take is on the origins and functions of government.

---

[1] Oliver Bullough, Money Land:  Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World and How to Take It Back (London, England:  Profile Books, Ltd., 2018), 24.  British spelling.  For reference:  Mancur Olson, Power and Prosperity:  Outgrowing Communist and Capitalist Dictatorships (New York, NY:  Basic Books, 2000).

[2] Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (New York, NY:  Dell Publishing Co. Inc., 1971). 

COLUMBUS’ REPORT

Well, are humans naturally egoistic with little regard for others?  Jonah Goldberg provides a description of human nature as portraying the natural people as very apt to steal, exploit, and otherwise advance their own interests, at the expense of others, except for in limited social arrangements.  Those exceptions refer to seeking mutually reciprocal relationships with fellow tribe members – with those that look like themselves.  Is this true?  And why is the question important?

          It’s important because the answer reflects how readily humans are disposed to engage with others.  People who readily engage in exclusively self-advancing behaviors at the expense of others, will not be apt to cooperate enough or collaborate enough to achieve any but the minimal levels of collective accomplishments – that is forgoing the types that characterize not only modern life, but life that has been the state of Western life in the last few hundred years.

          To test Goldberg’s sense of human nature, one can look at the work of anthropologists and archeologists.  When such work comes to mind, this writer thinks of the classic work, Patterns of Culture, by Ruth Benedict.[1]  That anthropologist studied North American tribal societies – the Zuni, Dobu, and Kwkiutl – and their cultures.  Her aim was to show the range of possible human behavior within a specific culture. 

She categorizes that range in terms of a culture’s attitudes and traits and determines how individuals within each culture are defined; that is, what constitutes success, unacceptable or disparaged behaviors, or intolerable behaviors.  In other words, these are not predetermined or universal traits, but developed within the experiences of each culture.

With that, the findings of a famous historical character – famous not for his anthropological work, but for his exploratory adventures – are used here.  Christopher Columbus, as any school age child can recite, “sailed the ocean blue, in 1492.”  In terms of Europe and sailing under the Spanish flag, he “discovered” America (more accurately, Caribbean islands) at the end of the fifteenth century.  He also encountered those islands’ indigenous peoples.  In terms of this posting’s aim, in a letter to one of his supporters,[2] Columbus described how these islanders behaved.

Given that in 1492 there was no chance that modern life would have had any influence on these people, as perhaps Ruth’s observed people might have had in the 1930s, his observations, it is judged here, has more power in determining how much the observed tribespeople reflected Goldberg’s view of human nature.  So, how did Columbus describe these people?

According to this cited letter, the first people Columbus encountered were on the island he named Espanola.  On that island, he and his men found and described a people with the following characteristics:

·        They lived in sets of dwellings indicating they were not nomadic.

·        They were almost totally naked except for women who covered their “private” parts with leafy material.

·        They had no weapons.

·        They initially and for a good amount of time would run away when they encountered or saw the explorers.

·        In general, they were highly fearful and had a timid demeanor.

·        In their “running away,” they readily left behind their children and their children readily left behind their parents.  They just scattered.

·        Their practice of fleeing was maintained even when the explorers offered them gifts.

·        Eventually, they were convinced that their new guests did not pose them any danger and eventually they interacted with the explorers.

·        They were very simple in their customs and demonstrated honesty in their interactions.

·        They did not exhibit any possessiveness over what they possessed.  That is, they readily gave their things away among themselves and with the explorers.

·        They exhibited high levels of love toward all others including the explorers.

·        They seemed content with little amounts of material things.

·        They expressed the beliefs, once they began interacting with the explorers, that these new arrivals – the Europeans – were from heaven.

·        Most of these tribespeople led monogamous relationships with their “married” partners except for the “king” and “princes” who had polygamous arrangements of 20 wives.

·        There was no sign of private property; the needed or wanted things were meted out by a king’s agent who simply distributed those things.

In the opinion of this writer, this doesn’t seem to support Goldberg’s view of human nature.  In fact, Columbus’ encounters, which also included other groups of the islands, seem to be the complete opposite.  But before one believes this was pure paradise, there was an exception.

          To the east of Espanola there was another island called – presumably named by Columbus – Charis.  There lived a group that did not follow the customs of the others and this divergence gives one a reason to why the other groups vigorously ran away upon seeing the newcomers among their midst.  Here is how Columbus describes this other group:

·        They were ferocious and considered as such by the peoples of the other islands.

·        They fed on human flesh.

·        By using sophisticated canoes (which the other peoples also had), they visited and attacked the other islands, robbing and plundering these more peaceful groups.

·        They shared the same physical appearance as their peaceful counterparts except for the fact the men wore their hair just as long as the female islanders.  This similarity indicated they shared the same genetic ancestors as the other groups.

·        They had weapons, usually bows and javelins with sharpened tips.  They were made of cane.

·        They readily instilled fear in their neighboring islanders.

·        Along with their weapons, they also had brass plates – their island had ample supply of brass – for defensive purposes.

These inhabitants of Charis are more in line with Goldberg’s description of how human nature manifests itself in pre-“civilized” peoples.  But in terms of the Caribbean (or those islands Columbus reported on), these people are the exception, not the rule.

          This writer finds several facts as particularly troubling in accepting Goldberg’s view.  These tribespeople for the most part are fearful of foreigners, but not apt to be antagonistic towards them.  They are not egoistic but concerned for their fellow inhabitants.  Why this arrangement among these different tribes evolved into being what they were is anyone’s guess, but it seems hard to just dismiss this evidence in judging the veracity of Goldberg’s view.

          Now, one can say Columbus was not a trained anthropologist and he might have had hidden motivations to communicate the observations he reported.  After all, he believed for the rest of his life that he had reached the eastern most extension of the Asian continent or, at least, islands off that coast.  Of course, it became evident that that was not the case but not until after Columbus died.  The only motivation he betrays in his written account was his wish to encourage conversions of the islanders to what he believed to be the true religion, Catholicism.

If that is the extent of his aims, his report provides counter information vis-vis Goldberg’s argument.  Yet, even in an environment where basic needs are readily met, those types of places did not have sufficient challenges to encourage the development of civilization – a la Arnold Toynbee’s theory for the beginnings of civilizations.[3]  One should not consider these islanders as being naturally deficient in their natural abilities.  As a matter of fact, Columbus communicates respect for not only their social dispositions, but their cognitive abilities as well.

Where survival is basically secured by the natural environment, as in these islands in the Caribbean, those locations’ populations will not have the motivations or reasons to develop the technologies to meet demanding natural challenges – such as cycles of flooding in Mesopotamia.  Further, they will not have the reason to develop the modes of production and the resulting cooperation and collaboration such large projects, like controlling such flooding, demand.  In turn, where it does happen, such developments lead to forming the other elements of a civilization.

In terms of this blog’s review of Goldberg’s argument, Columbus provides serious counter information.  Yes, there were the Charisians, but they were the exception and that fact leads one to believe that the cultural character of a group develops from past events and other factors. 

What one can say is that natural humans are open to a variety of cultural traits and they can range from peaceful, cooperative, loving behaviors to vicious, destructive, violent, thieving behavior patterns, and the like.  What good public policy should be – what governments should be set up to do – is protect populations against one extreme while encouraging the other. 

That is, protect against the robbers and to promote the charitable.  That is what federation theory aims to do and this blog is set up, in its modest way, to assist.  Next posting will further this critique of Goldberg’s foundational construct.

---

[1] Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (Boston, MA:  Houghton Mifflin, 1934).

[2] Christopher Columbus, “1493, Christopher Columbus:  Discovery of the New World,” The Annals of America, eds. Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren (Chicago, IL:  Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1968), 1-5.

[3] Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (New York, NY:  Dell Publishing Co. Inc., 1971).  While Toynbee’s theory has been extensively critiqued, his overall relationship between challenges and responses has, in the opinion of this writer, held up.

A NATURAL RIGHTS STORY

This blog, through the last series of postings, has described a foundational construct that is offered by Jonah Goldberg.[1]  Assuming this writer has sufficiently provided an accurate account of Goldberg’s view, what message should the reader derive from that construct?  This posting attempts to begin answering this question by offering a restatement of Goldberg’s explanation for why and how not only governments become established, but how and why liberal values came to be accepted.

This posting uses a language that better sets the stage for this blog’s critique of Goldberg’s view – possibly, it can be considered the first stage of that critique.  As for this review, it includes explaining what led to the Miracle.  The Miracle refers to the most pronounce “hockey-stick” upward curve in human history; that being of economic activity that Europeans initiated during the 1700s. 

Current inhabitants of what is generally called the advanced nations benefit from this historical turn in countless ways, but just to mention one, the average life span has increased from 35 years of age to over 70 years of age in the era of the Miracle.  From people this writer knows, a household of public servants (husband and wife), such as public-school teachers, who live normal, modest lives with some industry, can accrue assets of over a million dollars derived from a thirty-year career. 

This might rely on a public pension program and a viable union, but the examples are out there.  One can safely say, such a retirement was not available to any teachers back before the Miracle took hold.  It might not be available to the current crop of teachers since, in general, income distribution has not advanced during the reign of Reagonomics initiated in the 1980s.

Initially, this posting was to begin a critique, and, in a way, it does.  But an overall review of Goldberg’s explanation is felt to be in order.  This posting, in a more narrative form, reviews Goldberg’s account of how and why governments come about.[2]  To begin this overall explanation, this writer focuses on the contextual factors Goldberg establishes to make his argument. 

That, in turn, refers to that writer’s view of what human nature is – where, by the way, most foundational constructs of government and governance begin.  An initial question:  how would humans behave without the effects of civilization?  More specifically, how would they behave without being socialized to the values of a liberalized democracy?

According to Goldberg, without any civilization, humans, roaming in a natural environment, would be almost totally self-centered trying to eke out a way to survive the day.  The individual would be devoid of any sense of private property, especially any objects in the possession of others.  If possible, the first party, if he/she wanted something in the possession of another, would simply take it, if he/she could. 

One can question this basic view of life – many think this isolated, nomadic life is unhuman in that archaeological evidence places humans in social groupings, most often tribes, from the earliest found remnants.  But, for the sake of the argument, accepting this basic framework – one used by John Locke to introduce liberal thinking – one can make an important speculation.  If it existed and prevailed, this state, for obvious reasons, would preclude any social basis for coordination and/or collaboration. 

Therefore, humans would be unable to enjoy any material-based assets – the stuff that makes life easier and even enjoyable.  Such developments call on coordinated efforts which, in turn, depends on sufficient levels of trust and comradery to make any efforts bearable over significant amounts of time.

But Goldberg’s construct provides the possibility for such a development.  He offers an exception to the above description of an egoistic human.  Humans, it turns out, have a natural attraction for others that are seen as themselves.[3]  That is, people naturally are attracted to others that look like them, that are members of their tribe (which presupposes a tribe).  Once this attraction functions, then limited abilities to coordinate and collaborate become possible and takes place.  This allows tribal, social arrangements to take hold and allow for limited advancements. 

A prior posting describes how, in current days, this allure of others who belong to the “us” category provides the motivation for troubled individuals to seek allegiances within the context of say a street gang, the Klan, or the Mafia.  As such, this allure can be quite strong given the social dangers such memberships entail.

Limiting social arrangements to local tribes also results in debilitating consequences.  That is, if one limits oneself to cooperating and collaborating to fellow tribespeople, one can have a very limited autarky (self-sustaining economy), but it will be:

·        Limited to local resources – both physical and social;

·        Exhaustive of local resources; and

·        Lacking in competition which can/does lead to serious inefficiencies.

These factors are not important initially, but as the tribe, the region, or the nation seeks to advance its economy, they can be very important.

This bias for linking with others who are like themselves also allows those in power, on a limited basis, to extend this sense to larger social arrangements and, up to the 1700s, that process had grown to an inclusiveness that corresponds to modern nation-states.  Later in his account, Goldberg describes how those who are ready and willing to take what they want – that is, steal – found the taking more difficult given a more organized victim.  This did not deter such stealing; in fact, an organized tribe with more material assets, became a more alluring target. 

They, the takers, had more to steal, but there was a problem.  If one takes by raiding a tribe what the tribe has, a taker would not revisit the site, since those of the site now have nothing.  But if one can figure out a way to steal but allows the victim to retain some of their possessions and even leave them with ability to produce more, than the robber can continuously steal.  Hence, the motivation to create government that the robbers, through some acceptable rationalization, control and can, on an ongoing basis, continue to steal from the victimized population.

And what better rationalization can be used than one that exploits the tribal bias in which individual humans are wired to feel.  The nation is simply the expression of “us, the people” of a given geographic place.  And, as in the “natural rights of kings” rationalization, God, in his beneficence, has ordained this king/queen to rule.  That royal family, in Goldberg’s take, are, with their necessary party of advisors and supporters, the established robber-class who exploit the rest of the population on an ongoing basis.

Not only does the ruling class have an ongoing victimized population, but certain social qualities are started and advanced.  Yes, economic activity can transcend tribal, regional, or even national borders (depending on the level of advancement).  Institutions emerge and they are those defining trade which naturally leads to advancement in legalisms – between individuals, tribes, regions, and nations. 

Higher levels of economic wealth – and, therefore, higher payoffs for the ruling class – are further produced and increased.  All this is assisted by higher levels of trust and feelings of empathy, benevolence, and even friendship among those within and among populations.  This, in turn, can lead to the development of different ideas and, in the case of Europe, led to liberal supporting developments – such as the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, exploration, the Protestant Reformation, and other developments.

They were instrumental, in the case of Europe, in initiating liberal governance.  But as these progressions took place, humans strayed from their natural biases.  To learn and accept these newer values and perspectives, the individual needed/need to be taught to accept them.  And that process is not natural; it is unnatural and, therefore, a never-ending process is necessary to be administered to each new generation. 

In other words, people need to learn to be accepting – or at least tolerant – of “foreign” customs, aesthetics, and views of reality, be they next door or on the other side of world.  Of course, this has its limits.  And with this language, the next posting will extend this “critique” with an account of a “primitive” people from an unlikely source.  Afterall, Goldberg’s view is based on a view of what natural humans were like.  That account is offered by, of all people, Christopher Columbus.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[2] While attempting to be true to Goldberg’s account, this writer, to give the account a more narrative quality, adds some descriptive elements.  Hopefully, this does not offend the points Goldberg makes.

[3] Robert Sapolski provides supportive evidence of this human trait.  See Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

SOCIALIZING PRODUCTIVE CIVILITY

To this point, this blog has been reviewing the work of Jonah Goldberg.  He has offered a foundational construct – a view of how and why governments exist and why liberalist government emerged and has been maintained since the 1700s.  The following quote summarizes a lot of what he is trying to get his readers to understand:  “When we fail to properly civilize people, human nature rushes in.  Absent a higher alternative, human nature drives us to make sense of the world on its own instinctual terms:  That’s tribalism.”[1]

          Proof?  Look at those urban youths that find themselves in struggling families – both economically and socially – and are attracted to join a street gang.  The sense of belonging these arrangements offer the young person goes a long way toward explaining other attractions, that of the Klan or the Mafia.  These are all forms of tribes. 

Instead, to avoid such membership, the young person needs to be taught to seek that sense of belonging in those groups that further the common interest (the family, the workplace, the school, and possibly the church – assuming the religion involved has a pro-civic theology) to counter this attraction.  Of course, these institutions need to be operating in such a way that they advance this sense of belonging – they need to project a federated relationship among their members.

          Goldberg points out Benjamin Franklin’s observation that those colonists who were abducted by indigenous tribes at a young age and “went native,” would likely refuse to leave the tribal life for the more “European” lifestyle when the opportunity was offered.  Why?  The speculation is that the native life more completely satisfied this human yearning – the interpersonal relationships that characterized the indigenous tribes.  Obviously, humans have an innate need to have the relationships that add meaning to their lives.  Tribal life does that.

          But tribes have limited resources.  And the resources are not only those having to do with environmentally based assets – such as minerals – but human resources in terms of talents, knowledge, dispositions, sensitivities, experiences, motivations, and other assets.  Goldberg understands the lure of the tribe but points out its limitations.  That is why the Miracle – the economic advancement liberal governance has made possible – had to oppose the tribal option.

Liberal democracy, though, through its mechanisms provides one an understanding of these limitations.  It encourages inclusion beyond the tribe.  This writer believes – and this is central to his criticism of Goldberg – that liberalism, on its own, does not provide the substantive narrative countering the alienating sense it ignores in its explanations.  That is, Goldberg might point this out, but the purely liberal construct does not.

While liberal writers, such as Adam Smith, point out the need for community, the theory itself ignores it and provides nothing to establish, maintain, or advance it.  Apparently, scholars have pointed out, for example, how incongruent Smith’s two major works are – they are incongruent on this very notion. 

These scholars refer to Smith’s two major works:  An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations – the work more based on egoistic motivations of humans – and The Theory of Moral Sentiments – the work that points out the need for humans to be sensitive to the needs of all, both rich and poor.  This was called the “Adam Smith Problem.” [2]  Generally, the judgement here is:  natural rights literature ignores the need to express benevolence and emphasizes the egoistic interests of the individual.

What one sees when socialization toward liberal democracy is wanting, people seek the tribal relationships that often exist to address the alienation the individual is likely to feel.  For example, the attraction of gang life demonstrates the emotional bent the young harbor that lead to membership in these ultimately anti-communal groupings.  What Goldberg points out is the naturalness involved when such a move or decision to join a gang takes place.  The young person is merely seeking those intimate relationships.

          He also names the set of emotions that leads to such strivings:  romanticism.  Goldberg describes his use of this term:

The core of romanticism, for Rousseau and those who followed, is the primacy of feelings.  Specifically, the feeling that the world we live in is not right, that it is unsatisfying and devoid of authenticity and meaning (or simply requires too much of us and there must be an easier way).  Secondarily, because our feelings tell us that the world is out of balance, rigged, artificial, unfair, or – most often – oppressive and exploitative, our natural wiring drives us to the belief that someone must be responsible.  The evil string pullers take different forms depending on the flavor of tribalism.  But the most common include:  the Jews, the capitalists, and – these days on the right – the globalists and cultural Marxist.[3]

Romanticism fills in in what liberal democracy tends to ignore.  Democratic capitalism, that construct’s “off-spring,” does not provide meaning beyond the motive to gain profit, yet humans seem to need meaning – a meaning anchored in human relationships.  Without such meaning and left with a view one can basically seek one’s self-defined interests, many, if not most, will seek those interests by means that counter the common good. 

That is, reaction to liberal democracy is reactionary.  Emotional, romantic movements are against liberal democratic rule and rely on sentimental corruptions – as in decay, putrefaction, rot – that strives to return to more natural modes of thinking and feeling.  Romanticism fights against inclusion among the peoples of the earth.  Why?  Because such inclusion is emotionally offensive to humans’ natural bias against those who don’t belong to one’s tribe.

Goldberg writes:

The Miracle ushered in a philosophy that says each person is to be judged and respected on account of their [sic] own merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors.  Identity politics says each group is an immutable category, a permanent tribe.  Worse, it works from the assumption that what benefits one group must come at the expense of another.[4]

In one way or another – some being very imaginative – liberal democracy repudiates this basic view.  There are those, in the academic world, who focus on alleged oppression.  Goldberg cites Howard Zinn’s work, People History of the United States.  It makes the case that US economic policy has been a series of exploitive actions.  This blog has identified this view as the critical theory construct.

          That strain of argument can be classified as extreme leftism.  But there is also extreme rightist arguments; this being in the forms of populism and nationalism.  Both the extreme right or left magnify the incidence of ingratitude for the accomplishments of the Miracle.  Goldberg claims that both are at best based on half truths or pure fiction.  Despite that, these intellectual denizens have become very popular and are dominant in certain circles including academic social studies.

          This writer – a critic of Goldberg – highly recommends his cited work.  He ends his introductory chapter to that work with the analogy of the fable of the golden egg, the Miracle, and with a scene from The Godfather.  Highly entertaining and apropos.  The next posting will pick up on this theme and continue this report of Goldberg’s foundational construct.  That posting will be this writer’s critique.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018), 12 (Kindle edition).

[2] See “Adam Smith (1723-1790),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n. d., accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/ . 

[3] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy, 13 (Kindle edition, emphasis in the original).

[4] Ibid., 16.