from the glacier

A lot of the anarchist thoughts of Bakunin strike me as interesting. Of particular note is that the governments do not exist for the sake of the common good. Nope. Rather government limits the opportunities of the subjects to realize their virtues. Of course I can't agree with all that the good anarchist says, but this one point I really liked. Power, commanding - are these perfective of man? Analogously, look at the institution of slavery in this country. Not only did it deprive people of their liberty to act, but also reduced them to the level of animals. But what did it do to he who commands? Unfortunately, he who commands life or death of his "chattel" suffers as much from the commanding as the slaves. Bakunin makes a similar point about rulers. He asks us to suppose we had a society of virtuous men. Then this organization would need a leader - so they choose the best and brightest, wisest and prudential men to rule. But the very act of ruling is what perverts them: for every virtuous Platonic philosopher-king, there are a million Neros.
I would love to see a government for the common good. But I fear that with our fallen state, our insipid Western failure to rely on the Sacraments, and our hyper-materialistic capitalist views, the closest thing a government can offer to 'good' is a welfare state. If so, then where's my fucking kick-back? Ah, for a Duma, for the right to peacefully assemble (and make an assembly). I fear revolution can only be messy, and it can only be while on the brink of destruction. And while cable T.V. still operates, we will never be that close to the brink.

I've been doing a bit of history reading lately. But one doesn't just read history to learn about the events passed, but rather as an insight into the 'what must be done'. I touched on this a while ago in the onagainoffagain blog here. Revolution. This idea astounds me. Should I study the theses of Bakunin? The treatises of Lenin?

Practically speaking I would like to see a revolution in this country in a similar manner to the Russian revolution of 1905 (not that messy one in 1917). The U.S. government (particularly the executive branch) is acting less like a Western prime minister, and more like an Eastern Autocrat. In the first Russian revolution there was the formation of the Duma, or parliament, distinct from and in certain cases in opposition to the established rule of law. But this parliamentary body had legal and economic (no, not entirely socialist nor communist pogroms) reforms in mind. I would like to see a peaceful transfer of power similar to this one (of course, this one didn't last, and it wasn't so peaceful, especially given the reprisals of the Tsar and his bureaucracy...).

So, I ask, is the American population educated enough for this? Are our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats virtuous enough to accept this? Could we peacefully re-draft the law of the land?

At the first gathering of an order separate from the established order, swat teams, marines and smart bombs would wipe the whole thing out. The government would fire on the people. But at least then we would be sure that we lived in a terrorist regime.

I answer that, in discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. [he goes on to discuss various ideas of the heavens, Plato, Aristotle et al.] If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds, and not secession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day.

Hmm. . . and I was told that St. Thomas says we need strict six day creation. I guess the person who told me that was misinformed. . .

As promised, further notes on the revolution. I know as moral and upright citizens we are compelled to obey the lawful authority of the land. But as lawful authority is such a nebulous term, I wonder how and where and why a government might lose this privilege.

How seems pretty clear - by losing the consent of the governed. But this is again a pretty loose way of looking at things. How much consent? If one man gives consent is this enough (if there's one good man in Sodom. . . )? Is this a case of simple majority? When is governance simple majority? If the states reject the authority of the federal government does this qualify? Yes or no, depending on your Civil War stance.

Where seems pretty clear too. There have been numerous revolutions throughout history, and some of them even legitimate (I imagine most of us could agree that the American Revolution was just such a case - others get a little more picky).

How. How is difficult. Perhaps if the government disregards its own law. Perhaps if, for example, habeas corpus were suspended. Perhaps if taxation increased beyond bounds necessary to pay for things not in the interests (for the common good) of the people so ruled.

Obviously, we can agree or disagree about the particulars in this regime. I have a feeling that the bleeding hearts and flock-like mentality of the modern American keeps us in line no matter how un-lawful the authority becomes. Rock fights? Molotov cocktails? Hardly. But I have a suggestion, just to get the ball rolling:

I hate to argue. I know that may come as a slight surprise to those who know me, but it's true. Incontinence is the issue. If I read, hear, see anything that I disagree with I can't hold my tongue (or my typing little fingers). Self-justification? Perhaps I see no reason to believe anything unless we believe in it strongly. So, I give a list of beliefs:
1. Catholicism is the only way to heaven.

2. Roman Catholicism should have the primary sacrament according to the Tridentine rite. Novus Ordo is simply an inferior rite.

3. Since God "disposed all according to number, weight, and measure" understanding nature is understanding the mind of God.

There is a corollary to #3:

Mathematics and science are paths to sanctity when coupled with proper living according to Catholic belief.

There is another corollary to #3:
God ordered the cosmos rationally. Number and measure are meant to be understood by man. Therefore, modern science and mathematics are not per se evil but rather good.

4. Philosophy, as an understanding of what is, is essential to mathematics and science in so far as from philosophy mathematics and science derive their principles.

There is a corollary to #4:

Mathematics and science could no more talk about the existence of God than a mechanic could talk about the ideal gas laws. Each is above their corresponding science (or art).

And, on a personal note:
5. Children are the greatest blessing for a married man, far outweighing any material good. (this one gets me into trouble at work sometimes....)

Unfortunately, these five and their corollaries are constantly getting me into arguments. If one disagrees with any one of them, no matter in what small matter, I lose the ability to remain silent. Sometimes, however, silence is the better part. Now if I only had a penguin to blame this all on. . .