Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
I prefer this one myself:“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
|
It's a nice quote by Heinlein--good writers are so able to express the most "basic criteria" in the simplest, most direct, and nearly indisputable way. Sooo . . . since the division being defined is political, we're assuming that we're speaking in the context of some form of government. And government, by definition, assumes some degree of control of people. So the distinction between the two types of people, those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire, is one of degree. Or else we have to assume that those who have no such desire really are absolutely against control, in which case they would be apolitical and not part of Heinlein's political division--they might be considered anarchists, but anarchists are such a small fraction of the human race that the division between anarchists and controllists would be so heavily weighted toward the latter that the distinction would have little to no relevance.
Now, the question is begged, does the group who want people to be controlled include those who want to be controlled as well as those who want to be the controllers? I think they must go together otherwise the concept of control can only work by force. Those who want to control must also, necessarily, want to be in a small minority otherwise dispersing power among a majority over a minority would create an unmanageable conflict among the controllers who would struggle to control each other as well as controlling those who want to be controlled. So a relatively small elite cadre of rulers must persuade their followers who wish to be ruled that they are capable of doing so in a beneficent way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number (those who want to be controlled).
Given that control works best when there is agreement between controllers and the controlled, and given that there are, if the division is meaningful, almost as many or more who have little to no desire to control or be controlled, there must be methods to peacefully institute governance. There must be . . . oh, right . . . laws by which all abide. How then do we get EVERYBODY to agree between controllers and controlled?
Hmmm . . . the American Founders hashed it out a couple of times after fighting for such a concept, and came up with an accommodation among those who seek power, those who wish to be controlled, and those who have no such desire--The Constitution. It allowed those who seek power a limited scope to do so, and allowed those who wished not to be controlled a great degree of freedom to live with limited control and controls of their choice.
It worked for a while. But as time went on, those who wanted to control saw too much disorder in this form of government and that it gave away unbridled power to those who were not elected controllers. So they persuaded their counterpart, those who wished to be controlled, that the Constitution was an obstacle to their relationship, and that it allowed the good people who wished to be controlled to be oppressed by illegitimate controllers. The others, those who had no hankering after control or being controlled, became outnumbered. And, understanding that the law which enabled all to cooperate required acquiescence to the courts of that law, which had been co-opted by the controllers, they reluctantly gave way and became marginalized, ridiculed as backward, outdated. And the form of government--limited enough to allow freedom for those who did not wish to be controlled--evolved, "progressed" forward to a "new" more "modern" and scientific method of control that satisfied the growing numbers who wished to be controlled. And a system of control was instituted which allowed the good, legitimate controllers nearly unlimited power to control for the good of the majority--those who wished to be controlled. And a new cadre of controllers who no longer were hampered by a Constitution nor the obstacle of having to be elected were created as an adjunct to the growing responsibility of the elected controllers--the regulators. And the people, those who wished to be controlled, began to see the wonders of unhampered power in the hands of beneficent controllers. They were given food stamps, and medical care, and housing, and phones, and unemployment compensations that were constantly renewed, and promises of more and perpetual sustenance, and most wonderful of all, at the expense of the controllers and those who wished not to be controlled.