April 25, 2023
"The denial of
the existence of God is individual and speculative atheism, the
sovereignty of the people is the denial of the sovereignty of God,
political and social atheism.
"Men whose whole metaphysics is the
darkness of a false mind, and all politics the raging desires of a
corrupt heart, have advanced the idea that sovereignty resided in the
people." It is a general or abstract proposal; but when one wants to
apply it to history or by history, it turns out that the people have
never been and can never be sovereign: for where would the subjects be
when the people are sovereign? If one wants sovereignty to reside in
the people, in the sense that he has the right to make laws, it turns
out that nowhere have the people made laws, that it is even impossible
for a people to make laws, and that they has never made, and that they
do not can never do anything but to adopt laws made by a man called by
this reason the legislator: or, to adopt laws done by a man is to obey
him; and to obey is not to be sovereign, but subject, and perhaps
slave. Finally, if one claims that sovereignty resides in the people,
in the sense that the people delegate the exercise by naming those who
fulfill its various functions, it turns out that the people do not name
anyone, and cannot even name anyone; but that a agreed number of
individuals, which we have agreed to call a people, named individually
as they please, observing certain public or secret forms which we have
also agreed. Conventions are not truths; for human conventions are
contingent, i.e. they may or may not be, or be other than they are;
rather than truths are necessary, i.e., they must be, and cannot be
other than without them cease to be truths . So this general or
abstract proposal: Sovereignty resides within the people, has never
received and cannot receive any application; therefore it is a mistake.
"
LdeB- Theory of Political and Religious Power - 1796.
"The People" are not a single concrete entity. You can't point to something and say "see the People". It is an abstraction.
I would add it is this notion that was radicalized by Rousseau and morphed into socialism in it's many-headed hydra forms.
When "The People" are sovereign then everything eventually is up to a democratic vote, including reality itself. But of course there is no actual taking of the public view, but rather the view of those who control the levers of power and of influence aka the media and educational systems. All the Sovereignty of the People is is an indirect form of oligarchy. Instead of ruling outright the true heads of society are rather puppet-masters, pulling the strings from the shadows.
The democratic system was workable at a time when the public was spread out and largely ran it's own affairs. But now with government so important a part of everyday life and everyone on top of everyone else we are witnessing the inevitable result of this theory. We now believe we can change reality by education and polling numbers.
Radical individualism does not mean the individual is sovereign over himself so much as that the state guarantees the individual can behave as they choose and be kept safe - even from their own folly. Quite different from true Sovereignty which says you can chart your own course in life provided you are willing and able to deal with the consequences. Modern radical individualism obligates others; it is not individualistic at all. It requires others to play along, hence it is collectivism.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:20 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 619 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Replica Watches at May 09, 2023 07:14 AM (MjvTm)
37 queries taking 0.4066 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
