The Lexicon of Government

{The following are my notes, drafted in preparation for my January 14, 2019 video, The Lexicon of Government, available on my youtube channel, and embedded at the bottom of these notes.}

The other day, I was watching an “Ask Me Anything” Q&A session by Dave Rubin on his youtube channel, The Rubin Report. One of his viewers asked him what he thought about minarchism?  Not having pronounced the word correctly, it seems pretty clear that this was the first time he had come across the concept of minarchism.  Now, if you’ve seen the Rubin Report, you will know that Dave Rubin has been on journey of political development, and that he only recently discovered himself not to be the leftist he used to think himself to be.  In fact the whole purpose of Dave’s show is to challenge one’s beliefs and to improve oneself in the process.  So it’s not all that surprising that he hadn’t heard of minarchy before.

However, the term minarchy is – at the very least – problematic, and the incident on Dave’s show reminded me of a topic that I’ve been meaning to write about for almost two decades.  That topic is: The Forms of Government, and How to Name them.  And that is my topic today.

Now, at the end of this, I will argue there is only one form of government but, to see why that is so, it will be most useful temporarily to pretend that there are many forms of government.  In that way, I will be able to provide you with a framework of concepts and words that will allow you to see my point, and to distinguish government from all of the things pretending to be government.

Let’s begin.

A government has power and, by that, I mean that government has physical force at its disposal.  The government uses force to cause people to do certain things and to refrain from doing other things.  

Power is at the heart of distinguishing forms of government.  Every form of government is distinguished from all others according to three considerations:

•    The executor of a government’s power;
•    The source of a government’s power; and
•    The scope of a government’s power.

Let’s look at these one at a time.

EXECUTOR

Let’s look at the executor of a government’s power first.

By executor, I am referring to the person or person’s who will wield or execute the government’s power (typically, in accord with laws). I’m referring here to the head of state.

The Greek word for “leader” is “archos“. In English, the suffix “arch” is frequently used to identify different kinds of executors.

So, for example, we have situations were government power is executed by one person. The Greek word monarkhia means ‘the rule of one’, from which we get the Anglicized “Mon-arch”. For example, Canada has a Queen – a monarch. She – on the advice of her various ministers – enacts laws.

Instead of one person being the executor, a government’s executor might be a few people. The Greek word for “a small number” is “oligos“. Therefore, when a few people together wield whatever power a government has, the government is an oligarchy. One could argue that, although Canada has a Monarch, she does not really execute any governmental power because she only does what her ministers – a few people – tell her to do, when they tell her to do it. Therefore, if one wants to ignore those who don’t really exercise the government’s power in practice, one should argue either that Canada’s Prime Minister is its Monarch (because, in practice, a Prime Minister’s decisions usually carry the day), or that Canada is an oligarchy, in which the few who wield power are the various Ministers, such as the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Defence, etc..

We also use the -archy suffix to identify other sorts of executors. For example, if a country’s rich people execute the power of the government, we rightly speak of a plutarchy. We get that by adding the suffix archy to an Anglicized form of the Greek word for wealth: “ploutos”, or, arguably from the Roman god of wealth, Pluto.

If fatherly males together execute a government’s power, then one right word to use is patri-archy. We get that from the Greek word “patriarkhēs”, meaning “ruling father.”

Some people want to refer to a situation in which there is no ruler at all. In that case, the right word to use is anarchy. An- is a prefix meaning “not”, or “without”. In a state of anarchy, nobody wields any governmental power, so there is no government per se.

There is one common kind of executor that I have not yet mentioned. Execution of the powers of government, by all. In other words: a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. Typically, in when all of the people together execute the power of government, they do so by electing someone to do it on their behalf. Someone who will preside. In short: a president, who represents all of the people together. The name for this kind of executor is not borrowed from the Greeks. It is borrowed from the Romans, and it is made up of two Latin words: “res“, meaning “thing”, and “publicus” meaning “of the public”. Putting them together, we get the word “Republic”, meaning “a thing of the public”. In a republic, the executor of the government’s power – the ruler – is all of the people – i.e., the public – typically as represented by a thing called a president.

Now, before closing out this section on a government’s executor, I want to mention that there are a number of really bad, politically junky words that make use of the –archy suffix. They are junky because they confuse the meaning of the suffix –archy. Arguably, the biggest offender – biggest because it is the most common misuse of the -archy suffix – is the word that was presented to Dave Rubin: minarchy. It’s supposed to refer to a government having limited powers.

Minarchy is a junk word because it confuses the identity of the executor with the issue of the scope of a government’s power. One either has an executor or one does not. If one has no executor one has anarchy, but is a mistake to assume that anarchy is a reference to the amount of executor one has. This is a binary situation. There is no such thing as having less executor, or a minimal amount of executor. One does not have an amount of Queen Elizabeth. One doesn’t even have an amount of the famously short Napoleon. Do not make the mistake of speaking about amounts of governance in terms of –archy.

SOURCE

Let’s consider the source of a government’s power, next. 

Now, the Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong correctly stated that all political power grows from the barrel of a gun.  But that’s not what I mean when I say “source”.  By “source”, I mean not a how but a who: From who does that power come?  Does it come from a god? Does it come from all of the various people who are governed?  Does it come from a watery maiden who handed someone a sword?  Who?

Well, each of the various possibilities has a name.  Typically, it is an Anglicized Greek name ending with the suffix “-cracy”.  “-cracy” is an Anglicized version of the Greek word “kratis”, which means: power.  So, whenever you want to identify the alleged source of a government’s power, you should be talking about something-cracy; something-power. 

For example, if the power of a government is said to come from a god, you rightly should refer to that government as a theocracy because “theo” is Greek for “god”.  Theocracy means: god-power.

If the power of a government is said to come from itself, you rightly should refer to that government as an autocracy because “autos” is Greek for “self”.  Autocracy means: self-power.

If the power of a government is said to come from all of the people who are governed, you rightly should refer to that government as a democracy because “demos” is Greek for “people”.  Democracy means people-power.

Now, I can already hear the howls of protest about the word “democracy”.  It is a word that, historically, has been something that is treated by most people to be something good.  Therefore, people have sought to give the name “democracy” anything that they want people to believe is politically good.  The most common example is to use democracy to refer to majority rule or mob rule, or to majority whim.  However, for the purposes of this exercise, I’m going to ask you to just bear with me.  In just a bit, I’ll show you why you should not use “democracy” to refer to majority rule. 

Now, before closing out this section on the source of a government’s power, I want to mention that there are a number of really bad, politically junky words that make use of the –cracy suffix. They are junky because they confuse the meaning of the suffix –cracy. Here’s a list of the typical culprits:

• Bureau-cracy
• Merito-cracy
• Pluto-cracy
• Aristo-cracy

In each of these cases, the person makes the error of using the suffix -cracy (meaning power) when they should be using the suffix -archy (meaning ruler or executor). When a person uses the word “bureaucracy” they mean that civil servants are executing government power. That’s fine, but the suffix that refers to the execution of power is archy, not cracy. I don’t think anyone uses the word “bureauarchy”, but that would be the correct word for what they are talking about. In contrast, a bureaucracy would be a government that gets is power from civil servants, which is not what people tend to mean when they use the word “bureaucracy”. So, bureaucracy: junk word. Purge it from your lexicon.

The same goes for meritocracy (which would mean that the government’s power comes from the meritorious), plutocracy (which would mean that the government’s power comes from the rich), and aristocracy (which would mean that the government’s power comes from the best people). When people use the words meritocracy, plutocracy, and aristocracy, they’re not talking about from whom a government gets its power. They are talking about who is in charge; about who is executing the government’s power. The correct words would be something like meritarchy, plutarchy, and aristarchy. Few if anyone uses such words, but it would be better to use them than to misuse the suffice -cracy, as though it is a reference to the executor of a government’s power. Meritocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy: these are junk words. Purge them from your lexicon.

Okay, now let’s move on to what is arguably the most important consideration when categorizing a government: the Scope of a government’s power.

SCOPE

By “scope”, I mean what can the government do and what can it not do?

Is the scope of the government’s power unlimited? For example, can the government kill you for insulting a religious figure? Can it put you in a prison because of your religion or genetics? Can it take your property because you refused to wear blue on Tuesdays?

Or, is the scope of the government’s power limited? For example, is its power limited to forcing you not to take anyone’s life, liberty or property without the person’s consent?

The right way to determine the answer to the question – what is the scope of a government’s power? – is to consider the SOURCE of that power. The identity of the source of a government’s power is key. Here’s why. You cannot give power that you do not have. You do not give anyone power to do what you do not want them to do with that power.

Consider first an autocracy. You will remember that an autocracy is a form of government in which the power of the government is alleged to come from itself. Therefore, in an autocracy, the scope of the government’s power is limited only by its mental and physical limitations. In theory, the scope of its power is not limited. Thus, an autocratic government is a totalitarian government. Whether it uses its powers for good or for evil purposes is up to the government.

Consider next a theocracy. You will remember that a theocracy is a form of government in which the power of the government is alleged to come from a god. If the alleged source of a government’s power is an all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful god, then that god’s powers are unlimited. If a god is the source of a government’s power, that god has the ability to give that government unlimited power. The power of a god. So, in a theocracy – where the alleged source of a government’s power is a god – the government’s power is limited only by how that god says power should be used. The government in a theocracy can do whatever its god says SHOULD be done with power. The only limit on the government’s power?: it CANNOT do what the god says SHOULD NOT be done with power.

Finally, let’s consider a democracy. You will remember that a democracy is a form of government in which the source of the government’s power is people; the people it governs. Therefore, in a democracy, the question is: what power does a human being have? What power can it confer upon a government? A human being cannot confer power that he lacks. A human being will not confer upon government the power to do things that a human being should not do with his power. Thus, in a democracy, the scope of a government’s power is determined by whatever ethical philosophy is proper to Man.

How does one know what ethical philosophy is proper to Man? That depends upon what is true about the nature of a human being. It therefore depends upon one’s philosophy about what exists, and about how one can obtain knowledge and distinguish it from falsehoods.

But, if one is being honest with oneself and others, there are only two answers to the question of what a human being ought to do. They are: he ought to strive to survive and pursue his own happiness, or he ought to make sacrifices in an effort to help others survive and avoid suffering. Put another way: rational egoism, or altruism. Those are the two options.

If rational egoism is the ethical philosophy that should guide a human being’s decisions and actions, then a human being SHOULD use his power to defend his capacity to pursue his own survival and happiness. He should use physical force only to prevent others from taking his life, liberty, or property, so that he can earn and keep the values that make his survival and happiness possible. He SHOULD limit his use of physical force to the defence of his life, liberty, and property.

If altruism is the ethical philosophy that should guide a human being’s decisions and actions, then a human being should NOT use his power to defend his capacity to pursue his own survival and happiness. He should exercise his powers such that he sacrifices for the relief of others. He should starve himself to feed a stranger. He should work to produce for others the values upon which their survival depends. He should expect nothing in return because sacrifice is his highest virtue, and suffering for others is his highest purpose.

In a democracy, then, the powers of the government depend upon which ethical philosophy – rational egoism, or altruism – is the right guide for a human being’s conduct.

If altruism is the correct philosophy then, in a democracy, the government gets from people the power to use force to ensure that each individual sacrifices of himself for others: the power to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who do not; the power to silence or imprison those who say things that hurt the feelings of others; the power to imprison or kill those who are perceived not to be putting his neighbour, his country, his race, or his supreme leader before himself.

If, in contrast, rational egoism is the right guide for a human being’s conduct, then the government in a democracy gets from people only the power to use force to ensure that each individual has the freedom to pursue his or her own survival and happiness. In other words, in a democracy, the government obtains only the power to use force to prevent anyone from taking your life, liberty, or property without your consent.

So it is not the case that a democracy guarantees anyone freedom. For you to be free in a democracy, the government must accept that rational egoism is the correct ethical philosophy to guide a human being’s life. If the government instead accepts that altruism is the correct guide of a human being’s life, democracy can bring you only tyranny; a tyranny that is not distinguishable, in essentials, from autocracy or theocracy.

WHY THERE IS ONLY ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT

I have submitted to you that one must consider three things when categorizing a government: the type of executor, the source of the government’s power, and the scope of the government’s power. I’ve submitted to you that the scope of a government’s power will be determined by who is the source of the government’s power. I’ve submitted to you that, if the source of the government’s power is people, then the scope of a government’s power will be determined by what ethical philosophy is proper for human beings.

However, I will now submit to you that you have the knowledge needed to see that there can only be one form of government, and it is determined by the issue of the scope of power. If the scope of the power is correct, the source of the government’s power is necessarily implied by that scope. Also, if the scope of the power is correct, it really does not matter who is the executor of that power. While the government is limiting itself to defending your life, liberty, and property, for example, it does not matter whether the person defending you is the president in a Republic, or the Queen in a Monarchy. If he or she starts exercising power that he or she does not have, that’s historically when revolutions or elections have occurred, and should.

Given that the key issue is the scope of a government’s power, it follows that the key question is: what ethical philosophy is consistent with human nature?

I submit to you that, because the dead neither think nor act, the only ethical philosophy that can be consistent with living a human life on this earth is one that says you should act to survive and pursue your own happiness: rational egoism. And, that being the case, it follows that the only possible source of power that is limited by that philosophy is: people. Whether one is living in a Republic or a Monarchy, the source of the government’s power cannot be limited by human ethics unless humans are the source of the government’s power. Limited governmental power requires a democracy.

Now, as I have explained, the scope of the government’s power in a democracy is determined by the ethical philosophy that is regarded to be the correct guide of a human’s life. Rational egoism and altruism provide two diametrically opposed answers to that question. Therefore, in a democracy, if a group of people who limit their activities to defending your life, liberty and property is a government, it simply cannot be the case that a group of people who do the opposite – who murder, rape, enslave, or expropriate you – is also a government. A thing is what it is. A is A. Therefore, in a democracy, only one of the two possibilities is a government. Either a government is that which defends your life, liberty and property, or a government is that which violates your life, liberty and property.

I submit that, be it a Republic or a Monarchy, a government is democratic and defends your life, liberty and property. Any other alleged form of government is not a government at all. Thus, like an autocracy or a theocracy, a democracy of altruists is actually lacking a government at all. It is an anarchy in which a gang of wrongdoers exercise powers that offend human nature instead of defending it.