Despite my near fanatical devotion to Spinoza, I had never read much of his political book (The Theological-Political Treatise, or TTP) until the last two weeks for my Ethics class. He’s got some interesting ideas about what a democracy is and the role of the “sovereign power.” Here are some of the critical points:1. A ‘state of nature’ is defined as an environment where there is no political or governing body. If you were in a state of nature, you would not be a citizen of any state or government. Basically, barbarism, whether it appear noble or malevolent. There is no universal law that dictates what an individual ought or ought not do, and so, there is no “right” or “wrong.” An individual’s natural rights include the right to do whatever the individual wishes to do. This includes killing helpless people and eating babies.
2. All individuals are concerned with self-preservation above all other things (although the meaning of “self” can change somewhat: it can be argued that a mother sacrificing her own life for her own child is a type of “self” preservation, as the child is in some way a continuation of the mother).
3. Individuals can better preserve themselves when they join with others and agree not to do harm to one another and strive to do good for the group rather than the individual. This essentially brings the individual to forfeit their natural rights to the entity of the group in exchange for security.
4. By surrendering their natural rights, the individual has freely chosen to subordinate themselves to the group. The group is governed by a “sovereign power” of some sort.
5. The sovereign power’s will is the law, and it determines what is “right” or “wrong” within the group.
6. Because this new sovereign power is something that the people have freely chosen to subordinate themselves to for their own good, this is called a “Democracy.”
This is the first interesting and counter-intuitive point. We like to think of a democracy as one where no individual holds absolute power over another individual, and that the end-goal is freedom, not security. But this seems to be the opposite. However, Spinoza justifies this by arguing that because the individual has forfeited their natural rights for the sake of preservation, and that they freely chose to pursue preservation, the citizen is more capable of achieving freedom in this state (which is now equated with preservation) because and only because they have subordinated themselves to the sovereign power of the state. Furthermore, this is distinct from the rule of the typical tyrant because the tyrant/dictator commands for the end-goal of the tyrant dictator, whereas this democratic sovereign power, while possessing equal power in ordering, commands for the end-goal of the individual people. Continuing,
7. The sovereign power, because it is identical with the power of the government, is only bound by the state of nature. Therefore, the sovereign power can do no wrong: it’s will defines what is right or wrong.
8. Anyone that disobeys the sovereign power makes themselves an enemy of the state, and the state has the right to destroy that enemy (although it may be more prudent and wise to merely punish or otherwise change the course of the enemy, such as a rehabilitation process).
So the question is, under this definition, do we as Americans live in a democracy? It seems, initially, that the answer is no. First, few people have voluntarily forfeited their natural rights to the state. Second, many people would argue that our politicians work for the end-goal of the people. Third, our “rulers” do not have absolute control.
However, I suspect that Spinoza would say that while our state is not a pure democracy under his definition, we do possess a democracy in more ways than one might suspect. First, although we have not voluntarily forfeited our natural rights, it seems that the originators of our nation largely did. Many people fought for a new government, elected representatives, and those representatives worked to create a nation that, at least on paper, theoretically aimed to treat all people as equals (depite this not being put into practice for a very long time, if ever). And second, it would be incorrect to think of our politicians as our sovereign power in any way. Rather, it makes more sense to treat our Constitution as the soverign power, making us a constitutional democracy. The president, senate, house, and supreme court can break a higher law other than themselves, and that law is the constitution. Even if they are all in agreement with what is legal, that does not make it so.
Because our polititicians are not the soverign power and are capable of breaking the “will” of the sovereign power, it is also possible that the politicians can become enemies of the state. So, Spinoza might argue, if President Bush, members of senate, the supreme court, police officers, etc., are acting unconstitutionally, this does not mean that the United States of America is corrupt or flawed. It means that there are very powerful enemies of the state acting to destroy the United States, whether or not they believe they are or whether or not they intend to do so.
Some might read Spinoza’s political book and conclude that there is no such a thing as just civil disobedience (example, Rosa Parks acted immorally during the famous bus episode), because in any case that one breaks the law, one is doing the “wrong” thing. However, if the law was counter to the “will” of the constitution, then Parks was not fighting against America, but for America against the enemy: our elected and appointed lawmakers.
The implications of Spinoza’s theory are powerful, because in assuming it, the thing that America is has radically changed. We often treat the state as either the actions of the government, military, and citizens. But in Spinoza’s conception, it is the constitution, and if people are behaving unconstitutionally, then these people are not defining what the United States of America is, but have rather made themselves enemies of the state, and it is then the duty of loyal Americans to destroy these enemies.
Am I calling for rebellion? No. Rebellion would be seek the destruction and invalidation of the constitution. In Spinoza’s philosophy, rebellion is always wrong in a genuine democracy. And, if the Bush administration is acting unconstitutionally, then the Bush Administration is the true rebel, and ought to be destroyed.
I have not here stated that the Bush administration is rebellious. I could make that argument, but I didn’t do that here. Just so you’re clear, in case you can’t read well.
Natural Causes 