Sunday, October 29, 2000

The lively discussion on Alternative Medicine over in mail has turned serious as such things do. When you examine policies that affect people's health, you are very quickly brought up against the principles of a Republic vs. an Empire.

In this election there is no candidate who chooses the Republic. We have a choice of Emperors. Both are descended from consuls and senators of the transition period when there was still some idea that we might restore the Republic. Now that is gone: neither candidate even hints at a Restoration. It is likely that neither knows the difference between Republic and Empire..

Both will spend more on "education" -- as if the schools in Imperial Washington, where the Congress does have the authority to run the schools in any way it pleases, were so good that forcing the rest of us to take heed of the imperial bureaucracy on educating our children made the slightest sense. The fact is that Imperial Washington probably has worse schools than you do wherever you live; yet we get to choose between two candidates who both want to increase the power of Washington over your local school. C'est la vie.

A Republic would attempt to build fine schools first, demonstrably better schools, schools to be proud of, long before debating whether or not to impose them on the rest of us; schools so good that we would be eager to ask for help, and imposition wouldn't be necessary. An Imperial system cannot afford that luxury. Under an Empire, the central bureaucracy always knows best, by definition. They may not be correct. They are not that arrogant. But they are convinced that no one can do better, and therefore it is depriving the provinces of the best if the central schemes are not imposed.

That is in theory. In practice, of course, these high ideals go away and the central bureaucracy simply seeks power for the preservation of power, and often forgets that the theory is that the Empire is the best judge of the interests of the populace, and the Empire will provide because the subjects cannot do it. That is when you get naked power, masked gunmen with machine guns bursting in doors to protect people from their own follies. But that is inevitable: no matter the high ideals of those who set up an imperial bureaucracy, finding people who will administer those laws and regulations, and who can be entrusted to be uncorrupted by that power, and who will not personally resent any challenge to the imperial power -- finding the angels to administer a centrist bureaucracy is impossible. At least for men. Heaven is said to be an absolute Monarchy. But then so is Hell.

Dr. Mark Huth raises the real question about health. What if citizens choose what is demonstrably the wrong treatment? Choose to take that which is clearly not only bad for them, but makes it nearly impossible for the physician to do anything about it? And all this because products falsely advertise themselves, or less blatantly, simply do not warn? Or do warn, but the warnings are not understood? And what if it is very clear that it is the least able citizen who succumbs to such blandishments, who harms himself and his children; who thus becomes CLEARLY not the best judge of his own interest? Dr. Huth can point to many such. So can we all. There are pharmacias and injectorias no more than 5 miles from my house, places that administer God knows what to anyone who asks and can pay. They have no shortage of citizen customers.

And what if there is a large bloc of such citizens, clearly unable to discern their own best interest? Not a majority, but a lot of them? Does not a democracy have the right to protect the least able from abuse by denying the implements of abuse to everyone? Should not we, who know better, protect those among us who do not? Should we not close down such places? And from that to the FDA bursting into a vitamin house to seize tryptophan is not only a short step, but one that we have already taken.

Of such concerns for the less able are despotisms made, but we know that, and we will be careful. We are, after all, only looking out for those who cannot look out for themselves. It's for the children, and for the childlike of any age, that we do this. They must not be permitted to make such mistakes. And yes, of course this may lead to denying the rest of us things we would not abuse, but this is a small price. It may lead to absurdities such as the warnings on power mowers that one should not put one's fingers under that mower when it is on. Certainly we know that those who are likely to read and heed that warning would already know it's not a good idea. But by setting up legal watchdogs to ensnare and bankrupt those who do not clearly warn the less able of all conceivable dangers, we make certain that the less able are warned of real dangers.

The question then becomes why allow those "less able", those so stupid that they do not know not to put their fingers and toes under a running power mower, an equal vote with those who do know better? What is their qualification to be part of the governance of a Republic? There is none. But we must not say that. Empires always insist on spreading citizenship to all, and acting as if that were important. Therefore we will empower judges and other aristocrats serving for life and thus are not subject to the whims of the electorate to have the final sovereignty. We will have empire.

And so we have, two hereditary nobles contend for power, neither having the slightest intention of restoring the Republic, neither having any great qualification for office other than family connections. I am told that only 17% of those eligible to participate in the primary elections determined that these will be the two candidates from which will be chosen our Tiberius. Neither is a bad man. But long ago a sage wailed that surely the nation could find a better man than Calvin Coolidge. Now I think there are many who long for a Coolidge. We will get, as Tiberius, either Bush or Gore. With luck we can go from Tiberius to Claudius without Caligula.

We have had luck. We have transformed the Republic into an Empire without civil wars and lists of proscription. No President stood in the streets of Washington with soldiers ready to strike down any to whom he did not extend his hand. We have not had military units chasing down Cicero to cut his throat in obedience to the whims of a popular general.

John Stuart Mill said that a people insufficiently virtuous to govern itself should count itself fortunate to have a Charlemagne or an Akbar.

So why have we come to this? Because we will not face the central problem of a Republic: what do we do with citizens who are clearly unable to be the best judges of their own interest?

One possible choice is the principle that no matter what we think of any particular choice, we hold fast to the principle that each man is the best judge of his own interest.

But then there are those who are so clearly wrong in their choices. Shall we protect them? But clearly if they are in need of protection from themselves, the rest of us are in need of protection from them. If we are to deprive ourselves of options in the name of protecting some, are we not justified in depriving them of the means for undoing our well meant actions? Do we not need an emperor to protect us from democracy? And no, I am not being sarcastic here. It has happened before. The ancients thought it would always happen.

The problem is one of voter qualifications.

This is a matter we will never discuss, because to bring it up is to make oneself the target of charges of racism, and being a racist is equivalent to being a Nazi, and to be a Nazi is automatically to be guilty of a hate crime, and hate crimes are far worse than ordinary crimes, and must be punished. And what defense has anyone against an accusation of thoughtcrime?

Clearly a Republic ought not be governed by those unable to read. Equally clearly, we have the means to test ability to read as part of the voting process: you enter the voting booth, and if you don't pass a short reading test, your vote is not counted. Such a system invites vote fraud, but we probably have the technology to make it fair and equitable. We could at the same time throw in a simple test of arithmetic, say the multiplication of three three-digit numbers, pencil and paper being supplied. You are permitted to use a calculator on the theory that if you're smart enough to do that, it's sufficient. You could include a short history test, and while Palm Pilot and other such devices would make that an "open book" examination, so what? If you're unable to tell us whether the Civil War began closest to 1688, 1700, 1776, 1812, 1860, 1898, or 1914 should you be choosing our president? If you cannot multiply 135 by 638 using pencil and paper or a calculator, should you be voting in bond elections? We could certainly eliminate the clearly unqualified.

We won't do any of that, of course. We are thus left with the dilemma: how do we have government to benefit those unable to govern themselves while entrusting the selection of that government to those very people? And since that can't be done, we will inevitably move toward an Imperial system in which the only choice is who shall be Emperor.

So we choose our Tiberius. Will we be spared Caligula? Very likely. Our Empire is softer, kinder, more benevolent, and so long as the central authority is not seriously challenged, a great deal of personal freedom can be allowed, so long as one understands that this is benevolent gift from the Empire, not a fundamental right of the citizen. And perhaps it is all to the good. Perhaps it is not such a high price to pay, to save those who cannot properly be the best judges of their own interest.

Jerry Pournelle

borrowed without permission from the current view section of Jerrypournelle.com

Tell Me what you think of this. Click here to E-mail me.