Honorable mention goes to Murray N. Rothbard for “Who Was Niccolò Machiavelli?” :The Rothbardian perspective is distinctive because he refuses to interpret the actions of states as belonging to a special class of human action. Rothbard holds all people to the same standard of conduct, whereas others give the actions of states special moral considerations. For instance, if one person who is not designated as possessing state authority threatens another person with violence in order to take their property it is considered criminal. However, the very same action if committed by those with state authority is not considered criminal. Nobody can deny that the actions are the same, even if the intentions are different. The difference in these actions is simply a matter of how the actions are interpreted. When the state commits acts of aggression, they are generally interpreted as acceptable. When anyone else commits acts of aggression, they are generally interpreted as unacceptable. But the actions are the same.
If one legitimates the actions of states merely by interpreting their actions differently from all other actions, we can begin to see the essence of their existence. States exist only as a particular classification of human action. There really is no state to speak of. When we speak of "the state" we are not even talking about a collection of individuals, as some have called it. We are talking about the interpretation of certain actions belonging to certain people who are generally regarded as possessing a special ability to act in ways in which others are forbidden from acting. Instead of the "state apparatus" we really should be calling this phenomenon the "state designation." "State apparatus" is just a reified term that gives a false sense of solidity to the state.
...
... Constitutions are supposed to direct the actions of those holding the state designation. Constitutions are said to restrict states, empower them, or both. I argue that constitutions do none of these. Constitutions could not become law unless some were already claiming the ability to tie violence to territory. Constitutions cannot predate states; states must predate constitutions. Therefore, constitutions do not create and empower states.
And constitutions certainly do not restrict state authority. As George Bush once correctly said, the constitution is just a "damned piece of paper." Pieces of paper cannot control the actions of humans by their mere existence. What, then, do constitutions do? Well, if states exist only in the minds of people, then perhaps constitutions exist only to shape the minds of the people residing in the territory over which that constitution rules. Perhaps constitutions exist as points of reference for people when they seek justification for the authority to act with violence that is given to certain individuals in the name of the state. In other words, constitutions serve to make the state appear concrete, to give the appearance of a foundation to a phenomenon that only floats in the minds of people, a corporal point of reference to justify a purely discursive entity.
The actions of those with the state designation are not directed by constitutions. They are restrained only by the same thing that gives them life: the willingness of the people in their territory to tolerate them. Perhaps state aggression is like a liquid: something that flows when it is not contained. Perhaps it is enough to say that aggression will always flow to the point where it is contained by the recalcitrance of people's desire for freedom. Thus, those with the state designation can do anything they can get away with, with or without constitutional authority. And if those with the state designation are restrained only by the wills of those in their territory, we can see that in order to change government one must first change the way people think about government.
Niccolò Machiavelli was reviled throughout Europe during the 16th century and on into the next two centuries. He was considered to be someone unique in the history of the West, a conscious preacher of evil, a diabolic figure who had unleashed the demons in the world of politics. The English used his given name as a synonym for the Devil, "Old Nick." As Macaulay put it, "Out of his surname they have coined an epithet for a knave, and out of his Christian name a synonym for the Devil."
In modern times, Machiavelli's reputation as a preacher of evil has been replaced by the admiration of political scientists as the founder of their discipline. For Machiavelli had cast off outdated moralism to look at power coolly and hardheadedly. A tough-minded realist, he was the pioneer developer of modern, positive, value-free political science.
...
... For what Machiavelli did was to redefine the critical concept of virtú. For the humanists, as for Christians and classical theorists alike, virtú, excellence, was the fulfillment of the traditional classical and Christian virtues: honesty, justice, benevolence, etc. For Old Nick, on the contrary, virtú in the ruler or prince — and for the late humanists, after all, it was only the prince who counted — was, simply and terribly, as Professor Skinner puts it, "any quality that helps a prince 'to keep his state.' In short, the overriding, if not the only, goal for the prince was to maintain and extend his power, his rule over the state. Keeping and expanding his power is the prince's goal, his virtue, and therefore any means necessary to achieve that goal becomes justified.
...
The more naive humanists also favored the prince's keeping his state and achieving greatness and glory. They believed, however, that this could only be done by always maintaining and cleaving to the Christian virtues. In contrast, Machiavelli realized that cleaving to justice, honesty, and other Christian virtues might sometimes, or even most of the time, conflict with the goal of maintaining and expanding state power. For Machiavelli, orthodox virtues would then have to go by the board.
...
... Preaching evil is to counsel precisely as Machiavelli has done: be good so long as goodness doesn't get in the way of something you want, in the case of the ruler that something being the maintenance and expansion of power. What else but such "flexibility" can the preaching of evil be all about?
Following straightaway from power as the overriding goal, and from his realism about power and standard morality being often in conflict, is Machiavelli's famous defense of deception and mendacity on the part of the prince. For then the prince is advised always to appear to be moral and virtuous in the Christian manner, since that enhances his popularity — but to practice the opposite if necessary to maintain power. Thus Machiavelli stressed the value of appearances, of what Christians and other moralists call "hypocrisy."
...
... One of the first atheist writers, Machiavelli's attitude toward religion in the Discourses is typically cynical and manipulative. Religion is helpful, he opined, in keeping subjects united and obedient to the state, and thus "those princes and those Republics which desire to remain free from corruption should above all else maintain incorrupt the ceremonies of their religion." Religion could also make a positive contribution if it glorified strength and other warlike qualities, but unfortunately Christianity has sapped men's strength by preaching humility and contemplation. In a tirade anticipating Nietzsche, Machiavelli charged that Christian morality has "glorified humble and contemplative men" and that this peaceful spirit has led to existing corruption.
Machiavelli thundered that citizens can only achieve virtú if their highest goal is maintaining and expanding the state, and that therefore they must subordinate Christian ethics to that end. Specifically, they must be prepared to abandon the restraints of Christian ethics and be willing "to enter on the path of wrongdoing" in order to maintain the state. The state must always take precedence. Therefore, any attempt to judge politics or government on a scale of Christian ethics must be abandoned. As Machiavelli puts it with crystal clarity and great solemnity at the end of his final Discourse, "when the safety of one's country depends upon the decision to be taken, no considerations of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or shame, should be allowed to prevail."
No comments:
Post a Comment