Nature of Sovereignty

[Michael]

Authority Issues—Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?

Read Article (http://www.takimag.com/site/article/authority_issues_is_there_sovereignty_beyond_the_s tate/)

Again, the article doesn't say very much that is earth-shattering. It serves here only as a primer to set the discussion.

I'm certainly inclined to agree with the essential thesis of the article - that sovereignty is not absolute nor does it reside in one unique point.

Anyone have any thoughts on this issue?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Sovereignty is nothing more than an attempt to justify and rationalize the use of naked force-- and to attempt to convince people to obey the sovereign without the use of naked force.

All of society exists in the interaction between individuals and institutions, and their exercise of power. Unlike the libertarian, I do not consider this to be wrong and do not consider this a reason to reject either society or its institutions; this is simply the natural and healthy extension of the social behavior instincts of humanity.

That said... sovereignty is as good as any other excuse for power. It is only as good as it is effective, and for those who see it for what it is, is only worthy of their consideration for political purposes.

[Michael]

Sovereignty is nothing more than an attempt to justify and rationalize the use of naked force-- and to attempt to convince people to obey the sovereign without the use of naked force.
Actually, I should think that sovereignty is the attempt to justify and rationalize a monopoly on the use of force.

In this respect, it may be considered a building block in the goal of reducing the use of force. That our definition of sovereignty would 'expand' continuously over time is ultimately a progressive concept.

All of society exists in the interaction between individuals and institutions, and their exercise of power. Unlike the libertarian, I do not consider this to be wrong and do not consider this a reason to reject either society or its institutions; this is simply the natural and healthy extension of the social behavior instincts of humanity.
Yes, I agree with this - sovereignty is the legal term for the range or domain of civil society.

That said... sovereignty is as good as any other excuse for power. It is only as good as it is effective, and for those who see it for what it is, is only worthy of their consideration for political purposes.
Man is a social animal. Sovereignty defines civil society. Ergo, sovereignty defines civilized man.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Actually, I should think that sovereignty is the attempt to justify and rationalize a monopoly on the use of force.

Same thing. How does the State react when its monopoly of force is challenged?

In this respect, it may be considered a building block in the goal of reducing the use of force. That our definition of sovereignty would 'expand' continuously over time is ultimately a progressive concept.

While I normally consider myself to be progressive-- as a futurist, I could hardly be otherwise-- I disagree that a State monopoly on the use of force is a desirable goal, and I would even argue that reducing the use of force itself is necessarily desirable. The important thing is to ensure that the use of force is controlled and predictable, so that it does not threaten the orderly operations of society.

In fact, that is why I promote a high level of decentralization of force, so that no single agent can establish a monopoly, and so that every agent and/or institution must be mindful of retaliation when it sets policy or engages in the use of force. That way, it keeps all but the most extreme at the negotiating table-- and ensures that those who walk away from the table aren't capable of terrorizing those who keep their seats.

The price of a government monopoly on force is the government believing that it need not negotiate.

Man is a social animal. Sovereignty defines civil society. Ergo, sovereignty defines civilized man.

I disagree. It is not sovereignty, the justification of force, that defines civilized man; it is the ability to negotiate, to establish boundaries and build fences, that defines the civilized man. The highest form of civilization is two armed men with a grievance against the other, talking quietly over tea because they understand that fighting would be too costly.

[Michael]

Same thing. How does the State react when its monopoly of force is challenged?
With force, obviously.

However, the conceptions are not quite the same thing. One is referenced almost entirely to the application of force itself (which is physical), the other is directed at the idea/justification which is social or emotive. Intimately related they certainly are, but slightly different meanings.

While I normally consider myself to be progressive-- as a futurist, I could hardly be otherwise-- I disagree that a State monopoly on the use of force is a desirable goal, and I would even argue that reducing the use of force itself is necessarily desirable. The important thing is to ensure that the use of force is controlled and predictable, so that it does not threaten the orderly operations of society.

In fact, that is why I promote a high level of decentralization of force, so that no single agent can establish a monopoly, and so that every agent and/or institution must be mindful of retaliation when it sets policy or engages in the use of force. That way, it keeps all but the most extreme at the negotiating table-- and ensures that those who walk away from the table aren't capable of terrorizing those who keep their seats.

The price of a government monopoly on force is the government believing that it need not negotiate.
An excellent argument - I grant the point.

But that just reinforces my earlier point and weakens your general argument. :D

It is my liberal-pluralist-toleration approach to morality that is necessary to support the concept of a social "decentralization of force" that you mention as desirable.

Your position here contradicts your earlier stance regarding zero toleration of moral varieties.

I disagree. It is not sovereignty, the justification of force, that defines civilized man; it is the ability to negotiate, to establish boundaries and build fences, that defines the civilized man. The highest form of civilization is two armed men with a grievance against the other, talking quietly over tea because they understand that fighting would be too costly.
Your analogy certainly describes an ideal characteristic of civilized man.

One could speak of civilized man as one who is sovereign over his own passions - as is illustrated in your analogy, but it does not impinge upon the idea of collective sovereignty (which is our topic). Sovereignty is the exercise of a collective will. Your analogy speaks only of individuals.

[Korimyr the Rat]

It is my liberal-pluralist-toleration approach to morality that is necessary to support the concept of a social "decentralization of force" that you mention as desirable.

Your position here contradicts your earlier stance regarding zero toleration of moral varieties.

The stronger the moral consensus in a large group of people, the less moral deviance will occur-- and the only way to come to an honest moral consensus is if everyone, or at least almost everyone, has a voice at the negotiating table.

If two groups have to come to a consensus to live with each other, they'll either bleed it out or they'll find a way to compromise and find a set of rules that they can both live by. Then, it's only the proud nails that have to get hammered down.

One could speak of civilized man as one who is sovereign over his own passions - as is illustrated in your analogy, but it does not impinge upon the idea of collective sovereignty (which is our topic). Sovereignty is the exercise of a collective will. Your analogy speaks only of individuals.

You seem to hold much more of a distinction between individual people and groups of people, especially large groups of people, than I do. In my mind, the only difference between the two is that the latter is typically much more powerful.

[Michael]

The stronger the moral consensus in a large group of people, the less moral deviance will occur-- and the only way to come to an honest moral consensus is if everyone, or at least almost everyone, has a voice at the negotiating table.
I disagree. The stronger the moral consensus of a group of people, the more likely we will have extremist reactionary immoral deviance.

And any dominant majority morality has a strong tendency to 'guard its turf' in a way that is not condusive to human freedom.

A moral consensus is a good thing to have - but at the price of giving up all freedom, that's not worth it. I guess I'd be one of the 'proud nails'. Give me liberty or give me death.

If two groups have to come to a consensus to live with each other, they'll either bleed it out or they'll find a way to compromise and find a set of rules that they can both live by. Then, it's only the proud nails that have to get hammered down.
A majority doesn't have the right to eliminate the minority.

You seem to hold much more of a distinction between individual people and groups of people, especially large groups of people, than I do. In my mind, the only difference between the two is that the latter is typically much more powerful.
Yes, I draw a very large distinction between individuals and groups. Individuals are what human beings are. That is the locus of the law and morality.

Human groups are whole other social dynamic entirely. Indeed, much more powerful, but equally subjective and unpredictable (and not entirely subject to the law). They are also easily led by a charismatic madman (perhaps more so than individuals). Groups are so much more dangerous than individuals, and no individual is as powerful as when they attain the following of a large group.

[Korimyr the Rat]

A majority doesn't have the right to eliminate the minority.

If the majority does not have this right, where do rights come from? The majority certainly has the power, and when the task is done, they will be the ones writing the history books to justify their actions.

Yes, I draw a very large distinction between individuals and groups. Individuals are what human beings are. That is the locus of the law and morality.

Morality, perhaps, in the sense that morality exists solely in the mind. But the law is primarily a group activity, with one group writing the laws, one group enforcing them... and a very large group, including both of the former, that is expected to abide by them.

And, indeed, there are many laws which pertain specifically to the actions of groups. Everything from the tax code, to laws on corporations, affirmative action, industrial subsidies... all of these are laws that focus specifically on interactions between groups.

American law even holds the concept that corporations are legally persons, that these accumulations of property that are owned and operated by two separate groups are somehow themselves persons.

[Michael]

If the majority does not have this right, where do rights come from? The majority certainly has the power, and when the task is done, they will be the ones writing the history books to justify their actions.
That a majority may use its power to eliminate a minority is only a fact of history or an act of violence. It does not confer any 'moral right'.

Morality, perhaps, in the sense that morality exists solely in the mind. But the law is primarily a group activity, with one group writing the laws, one group enforcing them... and a very large group, including both of the former, that is expected to abide by them.
Generally true, but it is only individuals that can be charged with violating the law.

And, indeed, there are many laws which pertain specifically to the actions of groups. Everything from the tax code, to laws on corporations, affirmative action, industrial subsidies... all of these are laws that focus specifically on interactions between groups.
Sure, but these are only fines as penalties. That's a cost of business.

American law even holds the concept that corporations are legally persons, that these accumulations of property that are owned and operated by two separate groups are somehow themselves persons.
And I've always held that this is one of the most monsterous advancements of US law. This is a 'cake and eat it too' situation in that corporations may enjoy all the conveniences and privileges of legal persons without any of the duties, responsibilities or punishments that pertain to actual human persons. This is a monstrosity of law suitable only for fascism.

[Korimyr the Rat]

That a majority may use its power to eliminate a minority is only a fact of history or an act of violence. It does not confer any 'moral right'.

That is my point. Rights are not conferred, they are taken. Justification comes after the fact.

This is a 'cake and eat it too' situation in that corporations may enjoy all the conveniences and privileges of legal persons without any of the duties, responsibilities or punishments that pertain to actual human persons. This is a monstrosity of law suitable only for fascism.

Oh, I certainly agree. But I think that the example establishes that individuals are not necessarily the basis of the law.

As for morality, just because moral vision is subjective and bound to individual experience, does not mean that the individuals who experience morality must draw a sharp distinction between individuals and groups. Since human beings naturally exist in social groups, it is natural-- and, I would argue, appropriate-- to treat them primarily as extensions of the groups that they belong to.

[Michael]

Oh, I certainly agree. But I think that the example establishes that individuals are not necessarily the basis of the law.

As for morality, just because moral vision is subjective and bound to individual experience, does not mean that the individuals who experience morality must draw a sharp distinction between individuals and groups. Since human beings naturally exist in social groups, it is natural-- and, I would argue, appropriate-- to treat them primarily as extensions of the groups that they belong to.
I think you have this one backwards. The classification of corporations as legal entities (legal persons) has the effect of removing some legal responsibility from individuals acting in the name of a corporation.

Focusing legality upon 'groups' has the effect of excusing individuals from individual legal responsibility.

These are 'loopholes' in the law. One cannot use 'loopholes' as the foundation of a philosophy of law.