- Jan 14, 2016
The state, as has been imposed on us in the 26 counties, is a so called bourgeois state. It's founding ideology follows the ideology of the so called "Social Contract." The idea here, as propagated by the likes of Rousseau, is that the state is comprised of atomized and sovereign individuals, who surrender part of their sovereignty to an organ called the state, so as to maximize their private utility. Adam Smith carried this idea into the sphere of economics. In his famous book, The Wealth of Nations, Smith imagines atomized individuals in the world, with no connection to each other. They all privately seek their personal utility without reference to each other. However, after a very long period of millennia, it occurs to them that if they pooled their labour in some way, this would give them greater utility, and so Capitalism was born.
Of course, in the light of modern biology, we can say that all of the above is laughably wrong. Humanity emerged in family and tribal form first. Atomization only began to occur in the last few centuries. Rousseau and Smith managed to put the cart precisely before the horse. Sadly, however, the bourgeois world continues to act as if it didn't know that Rousseau and Smith were wrong. The ideology of bourgeois institutions like the EU or the US state is completely based on this fallacy.
That being the case, let's leave aside the fact that the so called "Social Contract" account of human development is completely wrong, and, for a little while, join the bourgeois economists and philosophers in pretending that it might be right. What position would that leave us in? Well, not a very pleasant one, because a new contradiction then confronts us - how could the bourgeois state ever emerge as a legitimate authority over all those who live within its boundaries?
Because Rousseau says that each atomized individual surrenders part of his or her inherent sovereignty to this state. And that's well and good. If there are 100 individuals living in a forest, who have no relation to each other, and no responsibility for each other, they each seek their private utility as they wish. Say then, that 70 of them decide to pool their sovereignty and form a state. Well and good. But, what about the other 30? They have no relation with the 70 who have pooled their sovereignty and no responsibility towards them. In fact, the only way that the 70 can turn this forest into a state is by carrying out acts of violence against the 30 and forcing them to submit to the state against their will. The bourgeois state, although it claims it is the result of consent between sovereign individuals, is really the result of one group of individuals using force and violence against another group of individuals.
So, we see that the bourgeois state cannot be formed without illegitimate violence against supposedly sovereign individuals. But, once the foundational crime has been committed, can the bourgeois state be maintained in a legitimate manner? The answer, of course, is no. Because, if we are to accept bourgeois ideology, each individual is born sovereign - if they are lucky enough not to have been murdered in the womb. That means that each individual must be able to individually surrender their sovereignty to the state. However, this never happens. Each child and young adult is just brainwashed into believing that he or she was just born as a citizen of the state. And if they do try to exercise any sovereignty of their own, they are put in prison. In short, as time goes on, every child born joins the 30% of the initial forest who were violently forced into the state. In its maintenance, the bourgeois state adds exponentially to its crime and illegitimacy.
So, why is any of this important today? Is it not too late to worry about all of this? Well, we still have the very same bourgeois ideology being used to push mass immigration. On the one hand, we are told that the Irish have no particular connection to each other - we are all atomized sovereign individuals surrendering part of our sovereignty to the state. And if a sovereign individual from India wants to surrender part of his sovereignty to the Irish state, then we can have no complaint about that, as being a citizen of the Irish state does not imply any family or tribal connection between us. A man from Dingle has no more connection with a man from Bantry, than he has with a man from New Deli. Each of those three can individually surrender part of his sovereignty to the Irish state, and neither one of those three can have any complaint about it.