#Second Treatise of Government | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lemonhemlock · 10 months

Note

i get what you’re saying but i get what dany stans are saying too, what is the difference between dany taking back kl and sansa taking back winterfell? at the end of the day, monarchy sucks and none of these characters are truly "worthy"

I approached this topic more in-depth here and here.

The difference between Dany taking back King's Landing and Sansa taking back Winterfell lies in the construction of legitimacy. When engaging with medieval fantasy, rejecting its political framework and ignoring its limitations in absorbing more egalitarian ideology (and the socio-technological constraints that inform those political/philosophical limitations) is going to prove a fruitless pursuit. Westeros is roughly based on feudal Europe and has a recognizable European political thought inheritance and recognizable medieval technology and means, so I think it would be reasonable to employ political philosophy that could be plausibly applied during the period from which it takes inspiration.

~unnecessarily long essay no one asked for below~

In this regard, what makes for a "worthy" ruler in medieval times might differ with the passage of centuries, as socio-political practices transform. Which is why I feel like the validity of monarchy as a form of government was never truly under question in this setting, even though it has certainly been criticised and points have been made about social injustices arising from wealth disparities and the segregation of social spheres (I hesitate to call them social classes as I don't think the Westerosi have developed class consciousness yet).

I think that this is ultimately an element of disappointment for some readers, who are trying to project onto the text something that is not there, instead of switching to progressive fiction that addresses their concerns and presents alternative political systems. What I mean to say is that dismissing all types of monarchy as illegitimate is not useful within the text, as it renders all differences between the characters null & ignores the entire historical evolution of the concept of legitimacy. So you end up with takes like "it doesn't really matter who sits the throne". It matters very much to Martin, because that is the type of story he is trying to tell, that's... the entire point of the series. He is a boomer writing about dragons and knights in the 90s, not a transformative political thinker who is going to smack us with a new social order at the end of the series. That doesn't mean he can't critique the system or the characters' approaches to ruling. That's why he keeps killing the unfit kings & punishing those who rely on wanton brutality.

Coming back to the question, Dany's family was deposed, meaning that, legally-speaking, she doesn't have any "birthright" to the throne of Westeros anymore, no matter what she tells herself. Is deposition legal? John Locke certainly thought so in his Second Treatise of Government, chapters "Of Tyranny" and "Of The Dissolution of Government". Below we have Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Discourse on Inequality":

OK, these are Enlightenment thinkers, but the concept was not new. The Magna Carta of 1215 certainly has a provision for this. That's medieval enough, I feel.

(Ralph V. Turner, "Magna Carta Through the Ages", Harlow, Pearson Longman, 2003 - the original article was too long lol but anyone can look it up for themselves).

Thomas Aquinas, "Summa Theologica", 1274:

etc.

You will find these ideas under the term "right of revolution".

Many medieval kings IRL have been deposed or lost their crown. Richard II, anyone? There's an entire play about it. So, yes, Robert Baratheon is the legal king of Westeros at the start of AGOT and Viserys / Daenerys simply are not. There is no birthright to speak of, that is just Dany's entitlement that goes unchecked and unquestioned.

Of course, crowns can be won back by the right of conquest, which is what Dany is trying to do. GRRM's plan for her seems to either be rejected by the people of King's Landing for whatever reason (a la Rhaenyra maybe) or for her to commit such an atrocity on the city in her attempt to seize it that it disqualifies her as a potential ruler because she breaks the normal rules of engagement to a horrifying degree (i.e. dragonflame). Dany's entire plan is questionable from the start, since she intends to mount an invasion on a people brutalised by several years of war already, on the onset of winter - essentially extra suffering. The conditions are there so that the Westerosi might not interpret her actions as liberation, but merely as another pretender to the throne, who is only after her personal betterment - basically no different from what they've seen before, so no reason to join her cause or believe in her propaganda. She will bring fire-breathing monsters, Dothraki and Unsullied warriors to their lands, whom they fear and for whom they have no kinship. They have no particular attachment to the old Targaryen kings either. In short, Dany's father was deposed and she will end up deposed herself because of her own actions (or never recognised in the first place). I'm not saying this because I have beef with Daenerys, she is not a real person who did me wrong, she is a fictional character the author is using to illustrate a political idea.

Whereas the people of the North maintain a very favourable view of the Starks and of Ned Stark in particular. They are seen as the legitimate rulers of the North and their replacements (the Boltons) are almost universally hated. The text is littered with "the North remembers" and "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" and general Stark-fawning. The people of the North were very eager to name Ned Stark's son as their king. The people of the Night's Watch voted for Ned Stark's 15-year-old bastard as their leader. Ramsay Bolton pretends to marry Arya Stark to consolidate his legitimacy as the ruler of Winterfell and the North. Many other characters covet Sansa for the same reason. The Starks have not been deposed, unlike the Targaryens, they're just missing / presumed dead and Winterfell is up for grabs. None of our Northern characters think how lovely it would be if we had a Targaryen restauration. These things may seem like candy floss to the modern reader and they may not resonate, but they mattered a lot in the past. So when Sansa takes back Winterfell, it will be with the backing of the majority of the Northern population and with the help of the Knights of the Vale, who are seen as honourable and are of Andal descent, so will not be perceived as foreign invaders. No one in the North will be contemplating their right-to-revolution against the Starks, because they will be revolting alongside Sansa to free themselves from the abusive Bolton rule.

Sansa rebuilds Winterfell out of snow and thinks of it warmly as her home, feels kinship and connection with the place she grew up in, whereas Daenerys feels possessive over a land she's never seen and wants to take it with "fire and blood". True, these are not actions, not crimes for Dany and neither acts of benevolence for Sansa. They haven't done anything yet. But they are images. Framing. Hints. That's how literature works.

Could Dany be given a narrative of Westerosi restauration? Could GRRM write her as gaining popular support and as not breaking the social contract while installing herself back on the throne? Had only Book 1 been published, these questions would have had more validity. But after Book 5? Not when Martin frames her like that and literally kicks her out of the city she conquered.

#not me writing a whole ass paper on this LOL #🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️#ask #anon #asoiaf #grrm #asoiaf endgame #anti daenerys targaryen #sansa stark

187 notes · View notes

sixth-light · 2 years

Note

*slides you money* I heard you were three seconds from a treatise on David Lange and Mururoa and the Rainbow Warrior?

BY POPULAR DEMAND (ok you and like three other people asked)...

The core fact that you gotta know if you want to talk about New Zealand and nuclear weapons is that campaigning for nuclear disarmament and maintaining a legal nuclear-free zone in our territorial waters has been the core of our independent foreign policy as a country for nearly forty years, since the mid-1980s. This developed over the 60s and 70s from a popular groundswell of anti-nuclear sentiment focused around continued atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific by France as well as visits from nuclear-powered (and potentially nuclear-armed) American warships. It evolved into government action; left-wing governments took France to court to demand an end to testing and sent naval frigates to the nuclear test area to protest with Government ministers on board.

This was crystallised in 1985 when a photographer was killed in the state-sponsored terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, a Greenpeace ship conducting protests at the French nuclear test site of Mururoa. The bombing was carried out by French spies who were decorated when they returned to France (after France promised they would be jailed) and led to a prolonged diplomatic rift between New Zealand and France. The subsequent passing of nuclear-free legislation in 1987, banning nuclear-powered or armed ships visiting our waters, led to New Zealand's suspension from the ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) military alliance. David Lange, the Prime Minister at the time, opined famously that "The only thing worse than being incinerated by your enemies, is being incinerated by your friends." The ban still has such wide bipartisan support that it's simply not on the table now for even our right-wing parties; infamously, in the early 2000s one Leader of the Opposition told an American congressional delegation that the ban would be 'gone by lunchtime' if he became Prime Minister. This wasn't the DIRECT cause of his eventual toppling but it certainly didn't help. Nobody else has gone near it since.

I am, however, excrutiatingly aware that while our nuclear-free stance is viewed internally by New Zealanders as central to our national identity - there's a well-known song and it was even controversially used this year in a beer ad as a signifier of national pride - nobody else remembers. Particularly the Americans and the French. Seared into my brain is Scott Brown (yes that one) arriving here as the new US Ambassador in 2016 and going on the radio to talk earnestly about how Kiwis didn't realise that nuclear fallout wasn't restricted by national borders, c.f. North Korea, as if anti-nuclear campaigning wasn't...well...see all of the above. READ YOUR GODDAMN BRIEFING PACKETS ON THE PLANE, SCOTT, IT'S A FOURTEEN-HOUR FLIGHT.

So what does that mean for the Locked Tomb books?

As the linked article about the beer ad notes, anti-nuclear protesting has been a site not only of national identity formation but specifically Indigenous protest in the Pacific. It is Pasifika peoples who have borne the brunt of nuclear testing and much of the early anti-nuclear movement in Aotearoa was led by Māori and Pasifika, and closely tied to the anti-apartheid movement which focused on the removal or restriction of Māori and Pasifika rugby players on tours to apartheid South Africa.

In Nona the Ninth, it becomes clear that John (a Māori man) and G- (whose ethnicity is not specified but 'reads' as most likely Māori or Pasifika in context), as well as their friends, blackmailed the US government for a suitcase nuke and eventually used it to bomb Melbourne, with John then causing nuclear armageddon around the world. This is, uh, emphatically not the same thing as "Twitch streamers [John & co] nuking New Zealand", as chill as I generally am with the eliding of detail for joke posts. This is a Māori man from and in New Zealand nuking first Australia and then the rest of the world.

This is, obviously, if you're coming from the historical context, hugely transgressive in a way I can only describe as a...horror of agency? The horror of saying, what if we were willing to do the thing that we identify ourselves as a nation as being against under all circumstances? What if instead of standing nobly against nuclear weapons, for reasons of moral indefensibility, we were the ones to pull the trigger? What if our culture and our people survived the apocalypse because one of us started it, instead of us surviving by virtue of being so small, so on the edge of the world, so carelessly left off world maps?

And as to why it matters that it's Melbourne - New Zealand has a...complicated relationship with Australia that's hard to directly parallel to anywhere else (it's sort of like Canada and the US but also not like Canada and the US in any way that Canadians or Americans ever interpret that statement in my experience). In particular, there is huge anxiety in Australia about New Zealand as a source of non-white (and specifically Māori and Pasifika) emigration to Australia. Australian immigration policy, while technically retaining free movement between the two nations, has grown more and more restrictive over the last twenty years. Right now the central point of conflict is a policy of deporting mostly Māori and Pasifika New Zealand-born prisoners back to New Zealand on completion of their sentences, regardless of how old they were when they came to Australia, resulting in a large body of traumatised people with zero community ties being dumped back here and - no surprises! - frequently turning to crime. There's A Lot Going On There. Added to which the Christchurch mosque shooter deliberately travelled here from Australia to carry out his terrorism. And yet also, hundreds of thousands of us live there and many more have relatives and friends there.

And Melbourne? Melbourne is like....the cool Australian city, if you're a New Zealander. Sydney is too big (the same population as our whole country!) and too...everything, Brisbane and the Gold Coast are tropical and so kinda weird, Adelaide and Perth? we don't know them, but Melbourne is aspirational. Melbourne is the kind of city Wellington and Auckland would like to be when they grow up, maybe. They have laneways and culture and a working tram system. But it's also a very...white kind of cool. The kind enjoyed by rich Pākehā who can afford to go on weekend shopping holidays there.

So yeah. John and G- and the crew nuke Melbourne and it's a nexus of all these tensions old and new, of who we think we are as people and as a nation, of how we relate to Australia which is our friend and nearest neighbour and our rival and our scapegoat (because they're the really racist ones, aren't they? If we say that loud enough, does it drown out the sounds of our own sins?)

It's a fantasy of power and a horror of it at the same time. I hope someone right now is writing a monograph on this, there's so much to dig into. But it deserves to be framed as what it is, as a response from a Kiwi author to our own history and identity. It deserves to be understood in context.

#the locked tomb #ntn spoilers #new zealand #history #nuclear disarmament

828 notes · View notes

mclennie · 9 months

Text

In this post, I talk a bit about how Gaul and Lucy Gray embody the philosophy of Hobbes and Rosseau, respectively, but let's talk about Locke and Sejanus.

Sejanus talks about the role of government, telling his Capitol-born classmates and Dr. Gaul that Panem's government is supposed to be everyone's government (tbosas 92). He lets everyone know that he despises the Hunger Games and thinks making children fight to the death is morally reprehensible.

In Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he writes that there are certain rights that we're all born with that can't be taken away. They can be boiled down to life, liberty, and property.

If they sound familiar, that's because a version of these was added to the Declaration of Independence. However, in that document, it's known as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Locke's ideas were revolutionary when published and later inspired the founding fathers, who were very much into enlightenment ideas such as these.

In Panem, these ideas seem revolutionary as well. We get the impression in the original series and even in the prequel that the Capitol pretends to treat all citizens fairly. Still, it seldom does, especially if you're district-born. In Sejanus's argument against the games, he says the Capitol has no right to take away the life and freedom of district-born children. Sejanus says:

"Winning a war doesn't give you that right. Having more weapons doesn't give you that right. Being from the Capitol doesn't give you that right. Nothing does," (tbosas 160).

In fact, this violation of the district's rights by the Capitol likely propels Sejanus into joining the rebels. Locke says that we operate under a social contract, where the government enforces and protects the people's natural rights, but if they break their end of the deal, the people must rebel.

Sejanus says Gem of Panem has the lyrics "you give us light," making no distinction between Capitol-born and district-born citizens. Unfortunately, the Capitol doesn't see it the same way, focusing on their perceived superiority over the districts and punitive measures to keep them in line.

Sejanus's view that Panem's government should exist to protect a person's rights goes against Gaul's (and later Snow's) view of dominance through control.

#tbosas #sejanus plinth #coriolanus snow #lucy gray baird #volumnia gaul #thg #katniss everdeen #peeta mellark #the hunger games

55 notes · View notes

adhd-academia · 2 years

Text

10/13/22 - adventures in adhd lmao

📖 second treatise of government by john locke

#study tips #studyblr #adhd studyblr #grey academia #adult adhd #chaotic academia #study inspiration #study space #study notes #classics #studyspo #liberal arts #bookblr #college #adhd #adhd problems #academia aesthetic #adhd stuff #poetry

395 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 3 months

Text

F.2.2 Do “libertarian”-capitalists support slavery?

Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-“Libertarianism” is one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert Nozick asks whether “a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery” and he answers “I believe that it would.” [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371] While some right-“libertarians” do not agree with Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

This can be seen from “anarcho”-capitalist Walter Block, who, like Nozick, supports voluntary slavery. As he puts it, “if I own something, I can sell it (and should be allowed by law to do so). If I can’t sell, then, and to that extent, I really don’t own it.” Thus agreeing to sell yourself for a lifetime “is a bona fide contract” which, if “abrogated, theft occurs.” He critiques those other right-wing “libertarians” (like Murray Rothbard) who oppose voluntary slavery as being inconsistent to their principles. Block, in his words, seeks to make “a tiny adjustment” which “strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent.” He argues that his position shows “that contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts.” [“Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein,” pp. 39–85, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 44, p. 48, p. 82 and p. 46]

So the logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

This defence of slavery should not come as a surprise to any one familiar with classical liberalism. An elitist ideology, its main rationale is to defend the liberty and power of property owners and justify unfree social relationships (such as government and wage labour) in terms of “consent.” Nozick and Block just takes it to its logical conclusion. This is because his position is not new but, as with so many other right-“libertarian” ones, can be found in John Locke’s work. The key difference is that Locke refused the term “slavery” and favoured “drudgery” as, for him, slavery mean a relationship “between a lawful conqueror and a captive” where the former has the power of life and death over the latter. Once a “compact” is agreed between them, “an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other … slavery ceases.” As long as the master could not kill the slave, then it was “drudgery.” Like Nozick, he acknowledges that “men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service.” [Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Section 24] In other words, voluntary slavery was fine but just call it something else.

Not that Locke was bothered by involuntary slavery. He was heavily involved in the slave trade. He owned shares in the “Royal Africa Company” which carried on the slave trade for England, making a profit when he sold them. He also held a significant share in another slave company, the “Bahama Adventurers.” In the “Second Treatise”, Locke justified slavery in terms of “Captives taken in a just war,” a war waged against aggressors. [Section 85] That, of course, had nothing to do with the actual slavery Locke profited from (slave raids were common, for example). Nor did his “liberal” principles stop him suggesting a constitution that would ensure that “every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves.” The constitution itself was typically autocratic and hierarchical, designed explicitly to “avoid erecting a numerous democracy.” [The Works of John Locke, vol. X, p. 196]

So the notion of contractual slavery has a long history within right-wing liberalism, although most refuse to call it by that name. It is of course simply embarrassment that stops many right-“libertarians” calling a spade a spade. They incorrectly assume that slavery has to be involuntary. In fact, historically, voluntary slave contracts have been common (David Ellerman’s Property and Contract in Economics has an excellent overview). Any new form of voluntary slavery would be a “civilised” form of slavery and could occur when an individual would “agree” to sell their lifetime’s labour to another (as when a starving worker would “agree” to become a slave in return for food). In addition, the contract would be able to be broken under certain conditions (perhaps in return for breaking the contract, the former slave would have pay damages to his or her master for the labour their master would lose — a sizeable amount no doubt and such a payment could result in debt slavery, which is the most common form of “civilised” slavery. Such damages may be agreed in the contract as a “performance bond” or “conditional exchange.”

In summary, right-“libertarians” are talking about “civilised” slavery (or, in other words, civil slavery) and not forced slavery. While some may have reservations about calling it slavery, they agree with the basic concept that since people own themselves they can sell themselves, that is sell their labour for a lifetime rather than piecemeal.

We must stress that this is no academic debate. “Voluntary” slavery has been a problem in many societies and still exists in many countries today (particularly third world ones where bonded labour — i.e. where debt is used to enslave people — is the most common form). With the rise of sweat shops and child labour in many “developed” countries such as the USA, “voluntary” slavery (perhaps via debt and bonded labour) may become common in all parts of the world — an ironic (if not surprising) result of “freeing” the market and being indifferent to the actual freedom of those within it.

Some right-“libertarians” are obviously uneasy with the logical conclusion of their definition of freedom. Murray Rothbard, for example, stressed the “unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts.” Of course, other “libertarian” theorists claim the exact opposite, so “libertarian theory” makes no such claim, but never mind! Essentially, his objection revolves around the assertion that a person “cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own body was being surrendered in advance” and that if a “labourer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary.” However, as we noted in section F.2, Rothbard emphasis on quitting fails to recognise the actual denial of will and control over ones own body that is explicit in wage labour. It is this failure that pro-slave contract “libertarians” stress — they consider the slave contract as an extended wage contract. Moreover, a modern slave contract would likely take the form of a “performance bond,” on which Rothbard laments about its “unfortunate suppression” by the state. In such a system, the slave could agree to perform X years labour or pay their master substantial damages if they fail to do so. It is the threat of damages that enforces the contract and such a “contract” Rothbard does agree is enforceable. Another means of creating slave contracts would be “conditional exchange” which Rothbard also supports. As for debt bondage, that too, seems acceptable. He surreally notes that paying damages and debts in such contracts is fine as “money, of course, is alienable” and so forgets that it needs to be earned by labour which, he asserts, is not alienable! [The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 134–135, p. 40, pp. 136–9, p. 141 and p. 138]

It should be noted that the slavery contract cannot be null and void because it is unenforceable, as Rothbard suggests. This is because the doctrine of specific performance applies to all contracts, not just to labour contracts. This is because all contracts specify some future performance. In the case of the lifetime labour contract, then it can be broken as long as the slave pays any appropriate damages. As Rothbard puts it elsewhere, “if A has agreed to work for life for B in exchange for 10,000 grams of gold, he will have to return the proportionate amount of property if he terminates the arrangement and ceases to work.” [Man, Economy, and State, vol. I , p. 441] This is understandable, as the law generally allows material damages for breached contracts, as does Rothbard in his support for the “performance bond” and “conditional exchange.” Needless to say, having to pay such damages (either as a lump sum or over a period of time) could turn the worker into the most common type of modern slave, the debt-slave.

And it is interesting to note that even Murray Rothbard is not against the selling of humans. He argued that children are the property of their parents who can (bar actually murdering them by violence) do whatever they please with them, even sell them on a “flourishing free child market.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 102] Combined with a whole hearted support for child labour (after all, the child can leave its parents if it objects to working for them) such a “free child market” could easily become a “child slave market” — with entrepreneurs making a healthy profit selling infants and children or their labour to capitalists (as did occur in 19th century Britain). Unsurprisingly, Rothbard ignores the possible nasty aspects of such a market in human flesh (such as children being sold to work in factories, homes and brothels). But this is besides the point.

Of course, this theoretical justification for slavery at the heart of an ideology calling itself “libertarianism” is hard for many right-“libertarians” to accept and so they argue that such contracts would be very hard to enforce. This attempt to get out of the contradiction fails simply because it ignores the nature of the capitalist market. If there is a demand for slave contracts to be enforced, then companies will develop to provide that “service” (and it would be interesting to see how two “protection” firms, one defending slave contracts and another not, could compromise and reach a peaceful agreement over whether slave contracts were valid). Thus we could see a so-called “free” society producing companies whose specific purpose was to hunt down escaped slaves (i.e. individuals in slave contracts who have not paid damages to their owners for freedom). Of course, perhaps Rothbard would claim that such slave contracts would be “outlawed” under his “general libertarian law code” but this is a denial of market “freedom”. If slave contracts are “banned” then surely this is paternalism, stopping individuals from contracting out their “labour services” to whom and however long they “desire”. You cannot have it both ways.

So, ironically, an ideology proclaiming itself to support “liberty” ends up justifying and defending slavery. Indeed, for the right-“libertarian” the slave contract is an exemplification, not the denial, of the individual’s liberty! How is this possible? How can slavery be supported as an expression of liberty? Simple, right-“libertarian” support for slavery is a symptom of a deeper authoritarianism, namely their uncritical acceptance of contract theory. The central claim of contract theory is that contract is the means to secure and enhance individual freedom. Slavery is the antithesis to freedom and so, in theory, contract and slavery must be mutually exclusive. However, as indicated above, some contract theorists (past and present) have included slave contracts among legitimate contracts. This suggests that contract theory cannot provide the theoretical support needed to secure and enhance individual freedom.

As Carole Pateman argues, “contract theory is primarily about a way of creating social relations constituted by subordination, not about exchange.” Rather than undermining subordination, contract theorists justify modern subjection — “contract doctrine has proclaimed that subjection to a master — a boss, a husband — is freedom.” [The Sexual Contract, p. 40 and p. 146] The question central to contract theory (and so right-Libertarianism) is not “are people free” (as one would expect) but “are people free to subordinate themselves in any manner they please.” A radically different question and one only fitting to someone who does not know what liberty means.

Anarchists argue that not all contracts are legitimate and no free individual can make a contract that denies his or her own freedom. If an individual is able to express themselves by making free agreements then those free agreements must also be based upon freedom internally as well. Any agreement that creates domination or hierarchy negates the assumptions underlying the agreement and makes itself null and void. In other words, voluntary government is still government and a defining characteristic of an anarchy must be, surely, “no government” and “no rulers.”

This is most easily seen in the extreme case of the slave contract. John Stuart Mill stated that such a contract would be “null and void.” He argued that an individual may voluntarily choose to enter such a contract but in so doing “he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself…The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” He adds that “these reasons, the force of which is so conspicuous in this particular case, are evidently of far wider application.” [quoted by Pateman, Op. Cit., pp. 171–2]

And it is such an application that defenders of capitalism fear (Mill did in fact apply these reasons wider and unsurprisingly became a supporter of a market syndicalist form of socialism). If we reject slave contracts as illegitimate then, logically, we must also reject all contracts that express qualities similar to slavery (i.e. deny freedom) including wage slavery. Given that, as David Ellerman points out, “the voluntary slave … and the employee cannot in fact take their will out of their intentional actions so that they could be ‘employed’ by the master or employer” we are left with “the rather implausible assertion that a person can vacate his or her will for eight or so hours a day for weeks, months, or years on end but cannot do so for a working lifetime.” [Property and Contract in Economics, p. 58] This is Rothbard’s position.

The implications of supporting voluntary slavery is quite devastating for all forms of right-wing “libertarianism.” This was proven by Ellerman when he wrote an extremely robust defence of it under the pseudonym “J. Philmore” called The Libertarian Case for Slavery (first published in The Philosophical Forum, xiv, 1982). This classic rebuttal takes the form of “proof by contradiction” (or reductio ad absurdum) whereby he takes the arguments of right-libertarianism to their logical end and shows how they reach the memorably conclusion that the “time has come for liberal economic and political thinkers to stop dodging this issue and to critically re-examine their shared prejudices about certain voluntary social institutions … this critical process will inexorably drive liberalism to its only logical conclusion: libertarianism that finally lays the true moral foundation for economic and political slavery.” Ellerman shows how, from a right-“libertarian” perspective there is a “fundamental contradiction” in a modern liberal society for the state to prohibit slave contracts. He notes that there “seems to be a basic shared prejudice of liberalism that slavery is inherently involuntary, so the issue of genuinely voluntary slavery has received little scrutiny. The perfectly valid liberal argument that involuntary slavery is inherently unjust is thus taken to include voluntary slavery (in which case, the argument, by definition, does not apply). This has resulted in an abridgement of the freedom of contract in modern liberal society.” Thus it is possible to argue for a “civilised form of contractual slavery.” [“J. Philmore,”, Op. Cit.]

So accurate and logical was Ellerman’s article that many of its readers were convinced it was written by a right-“libertarian” (including, we have to say, us!). One such writer was Carole Pateman, who correctly noted that ”[t]here is a nice historical irony here. In the American South, slaves were emancipated and turned into wage labourers, and now American contractarians argue that all workers should have the opportunity to turn themselves into civil slaves.” [Op. Cit., p. 63]).

The aim of Ellerman’s article was to show the problems that employment (wage labour) presents for the concept of self-government and how contract need not result in social relationships based on freedom. As “Philmore” put it, ”[a]ny thorough and decisive critique of voluntary slavery or constitutional non-democratic government would carry over to the employment contract — which is the voluntary contractual basis for the free-market free-enterprise system. Such a critique would thus be a reductio ad absurdum.” As “contractual slavery” is an “extension of the employer-employee contract,” he shows that the difference between wage labour and slavery is the time scale rather than the principle or social relationships involved. [Op. Cit.] This explains why the early workers’ movement called capitalism “wage slavery” and why anarchists still do. It exposes the unfree nature of capitalism and the poverty of its vision of freedom. While it is possible to present wage labour as “freedom” due to its “consensual” nature, it becomes much harder to do so when talking about slavery or dictatorship (and let us not forget that Nozick also had no problem with autocracy — see section B.4). Then the contradictions are exposed for all to see and be horrified by.

All this does not mean that we must reject free agreement. Far from it! Free agreement is essential for a society based upon individual dignity and liberty. There are a variety of forms of free agreement and anarchists support those based upon co-operation and self-management (i.e. individuals working together as equals). Anarchists desire to create relationships which reflect (and so express) the liberty that is the basis of free agreement. Capitalism creates relationships that deny liberty. The opposition between autonomy and subjection can only be maintained by modifying or rejecting contract theory, something that capitalism cannot do and so the right-wing “libertarian” rejects autonomy in favour of subjection (and so rejects socialism in favour of capitalism).

So the real contrast between genuine libertarians and right-“libertarians” is best expressed in their respective opinions on slavery. Anarchism is based upon the individual whose individuality depends upon the maintenance of free relationships with other individuals. If individuals deny their capacities for self-government through a contract the individuals bring about a qualitative change in their relationship to others — freedom is turned into mastery and subordination. For the anarchist, slavery is thus the paradigm of what freedom is not, instead of an exemplification of what it is (as right-“libertarians” state). As Proudhon argued:

“If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him.” [What is Property?, p. 37]

In contrast, the right-“libertarian” effectively argues that “I support slavery because I believe in liberty.” It is a sad reflection of the ethical and intellectual bankruptcy of our society that such an “argument” is actually proposed by some people under the name of liberty. The concept of “slavery as freedom” is far too Orwellian to warrant a critique — we will leave it up to right-“libertarians” to corrupt our language and ethical standards with an attempt to prove it.

From the basic insight that slavery is the opposite of freedom, the anarchist rejection of authoritarian social relations quickly follows:

“Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the alienation or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants his foot upon the soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man .. . Liberty is the original condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the nature of man: after that, how could we perform the acts of man?” [P.J. Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 67]

The employment contract (i.e. wage slavery) abrogates liberty. It is based upon inequality of power and “exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker’s subordination.” [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149] Hence Proudhon’s support for self-management and opposition to capitalism — any relationship that resembles slavery is illegitimate and no contract that creates a relationship of subordination is valid. Thus in a truly anarchistic society, slave contracts would be unenforceable — people in a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) society would never tolerate such a horrible institution or consider it a valid agreement. If someone was silly enough to sign such a contract, they would simply have to say they now rejected it in order to be free — such contracts are made to be broken and without the force of a law system (and private defence firms) to back it up, such contracts will stay broken.

The right-“libertarian” support for slave contracts (and wage slavery) indicates that their ideology has little to do with liberty and far more to do with justifying property and the oppression and exploitation it produces. Their theoretical support for permanent and temporary voluntary slavery and autocracy indicates a deeper authoritarianism which negates their claims to be libertarians.

18 notes · View notes

drunkinchicago · 9 months

Text

coriolanus snow x lucy gray baird

link: chapter 1, link: chapter 2, link: chapter 3 link: chapter 4 link: chapter 5, link: chapter 6

Chapter 7: bloodstream

Depollute me, pretty baby

Suck the rot right out of my bloodstream

Oh, dilute me, gentle angel

Water down what I call being grateful

Leith Ross

“Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy.”

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government

There was a time in my life where, if there was a heaven, I would’ve set fire to it.

Hozier

Monday morning began before sunrise, steam rising off of the clawfoot bathtub in Coriolanus’ bathroom. He was making a habit of this - scalding coffee, hot bathwater, biting his food long before it cooled, because why should he have to wait? Nothing melts Snow, he told himself, always challenging his boundaries, trying to imagine what an enemy would do to him so he could do it first.

Tigris hadn’t come home yesterday. Coriolanus was trying not to think about it, about the fact that she was the only other Snow left and that their relationship was undeniably scarce. She acted differently toward him and he could imagine several reasons as to why. He wasn’t the same person he’d been a year ago, and he’d be the first to admit it. Coriolanus wanted to blame this on his involvement in the Games, but that would be cheap. If he’d had a different tribute, he would’ve let them die and impressed Dr. Gaul in some other way, providing her with the same rich insight she so highly values. He was not afraid of the Games nor was he was disturbed by their conception. In fact, he was grateful for them and the many opportunities of its existence, allowing him to gloat his intelligence through his ideas. He was a Victor. That thirst for winning and power hadn’t been born into him by his assigned role as a mentor - he had been born with those traits. No, it wasn’t the Games that changed him. It was Lucy Gray.

There had been times where he fantasized about a life without their meeting, but it was a futile thought. When he thought of her and the ways she fit into his world, there was nothing but divinity. She had been the driving force for every decision that had landed him where he now stood, wealthier and more intelligent, reigning over his peers with his apprenticeship and tailored suits. He liked to convince himself that he invented Lucy Gray, that she wasn’t her without him, but he knew reality to be a much harsher truth that he scarcely entertained - Coriolanus was nothing without her.

Coriolanus stared at his hands beneath the surface of the bathwater, noticing how his fingertips were beginning to prune. Anxieties about the coming week were starting to ebb and flow through his mind, flitting around the edges of Lucy Gray shaped thoughts. The emotional high of her arrival was beginning to give way to the complexities that would come out of her being in the Capitol, the pressure of Dr. Gaul’s threats blurring the edges of his vision. He hadn’t heard from Dr. Gaul over the weekend, and she hadn’t assigned him any writeups at their last meeting. It was unnerving and irregular. Then again, his last assignment had been both lengthy and meticulous - perhaps they were due to review that first. Besides, Coriolanus wasn’t scheduled to see Dr. Gaul today anyway. He had a full day of courses at the University and intended to come home directly after to finish a philosophy paper. Had it been last week, he might have considered staying late at school to write it, sandwiched between Clemensia and Festus Creed at a crowded darkwood table. He enjoyed the library, craving the familiar grassy but sweet scent of the rotting books that the University catalog boasted - “from before the Dark Ages,” his professors would say, holding a tattered copy with yellowing pages as though it were holy. Everything must have been holy before the War, unjudged and impartial and tolerant. Coriolanus wished he could remember it, and wondered who he would’ve become if he hadn’t been choking on the taste of vengeance since grade school. He tried to imagine a softer version of himself, his frame drawn in charcoal pencil rather than sharp ink, bending at the will of others rather than breaking them. Would Lucy Gray like him more that way?

Lucy Gray. She was sleeping then, he imagined, her blanket pulled up to her perfect chin - how many times he had cupped it, rubbing his rough thumb against the smoothness of her face. Once in the meadow outside the buzzing fences of Twelve, he’d moved his hand down to neck, made confident by the sweltering heat and seclusion. Lucy Gray had smiled against his lips as he’d done it, daring him to press harder, to go further. Back then, he was preoccupied with the act of being gentle and good, caught up in the preciousness of her. But she had wanted him to, and instead, he’d moved his hand to the small of her back. She pulled away, insisting on getting back to the Covey for supper. Coriolanus hadn’t been able to tell if she was disappointed with him and was too nervous to ask. It was only a few weeks later that Lucy Gray gifted him with betrayal, reawakening the aggression he’d been swallowing every time they kissed. Since that’s how you like it, I can be harsher now, Coriolanus thought. I can hurt you in all the ways that feel good to you.

Coriolanus hesitated to grab his bath sheet as he stood, staring at himself in the mirror. He’d maintained the muscles that his Peacekeeper training had given him, stronger and leaner than any male in his year at the University. Insecurity turned on and off like the flicker of a dying bulb as he turned to the left side, the burn wounds that had become permanent scars on his back coming into view. He’d doused himself in ointments, oils, whatever he could find at the apothecary and pharmacy alike - nothing worked. They remained, a reminder of what would’ve killed him had Lucy Gray not been there to save him. Always a reminder.

Clothes, coffee, shoes, breakfast, messenger bag, call driver. His routine was just that - routine, monotonous. Today, he added a step and wrote out a menu of suggestions for Lucy Gray’s morning and afternoon meals. Breakfast: orange juice, quiche lorraine, sliced bananas, coffee with cinnamon, whatever else she wants. Lunch: gorgonzola salad with grilled chicken (perhaps add candied walnuts? Ensure she’s not allergic first). Before leaving, Coriolanus reread the note he’d left and underlined ‘not allergic’.

In the elevator, Coriolanus decided to cancel his call for the driver, opting to walk instead. This was what he once did, what he’d done for many years, back when his apartment smelled of cabbage and rat poison. It used to feel humiliating ducking through back alleys and scuffing his shoes, his only pair that was already a size too small. Now it was simply motivating, the perspiration soaking his shirt serving as a reminder of what he had been through and what he had risen above, pushing him onward as sweat danced between his shoulder blades.

Livia approached him during their lunch hour, an unpleasant interruption to Coriolanus’ green apple slices and Dostoevsky readings. He was sitting outside on a concrete bench that had been engraved with Panem’s emblem, the dips and ridges of the carved symbol digging into his back.

“Hi.” Livia was attractive enough to reductively be average - blonde, thin, attainable. She spoke in a gloating tone, contrived confidence brushed on like her eyeliner, which was thicker on her right eye.

“Hello,” Coriolanus replied, reluctantly shutting his book and bringing his hand over his eyes to shield the sun. The action sharpened Livia’s face before him, but made it no better. She still looked painfully regular, the daughter of a wealthy family who was convinced she was worth just as much as their revenue. She wasn’t.

“Why don’t you come out on the weekends with us?” Livia cocked her head, letting her curls fall over one shoulder.

Coriolanus didn’t have to ask who us was to know - Clemensia, Livia, Festus, Hilarius Heavensbee, Vipsania Sickle, whoever else he was forgetting. After the Games, the majority of the Mentors had remained close, gaining entry to the University and studying together in the same small groups they’d grown accustomed to at the Academy. Now that they were over the age of eighteen, Coriolanus’ classmates spent their weekends at nightclubs and other alcohol-affiliated outings in the Capitol, scandalously recounting the dramatics of such excursions throughout the school week. Coriolanus was noticeably absent and had no desire to attend. There wasn’t anyone for him at those events, no appeal in going. He planned to begin making appearances at the clubs only if Lucy Gray was booked for shows, anticipating the sight of her on stage again, making the knees of the crowd weak, his heart drumming against his chest knowing she was his. They could look, but they couldn’t touch.

“I’ve been tied up, I guess.”

Jarringly, Livia reached out to touch Coriolanus’ left wrist, examining it. “Funny, I don’t see any scars. No rope burn? Were you using cuffs?”

How desperate. He bet she thought he liked to fuck rough. Maybe he did. What would it matter to her? Coriolanus jerked his arm back sharply, embarrassed on her behalf. He wasn’t even sure how to respond.

Livia’s cheeks flushed as she observed Coriolanus’ disinterest. “I like you,” she hissed. “And you’d be stupid not to do something with that.”

Coriolanus blinked in return, not at all surprised by her shrill response. That’s who she was - loud, expectant, sneering, assuming that her opinion was remotely valued. It was true that any other boy would probably want her, but many had had her already, exchanging stories at lunch tables. Girls were jealous of her, comparing themselves to her designer clothing and routinely bleached roots. Coriolanus saw through this face. The traits that Livia thought she held - mysterious, trendsetting, likable - were characteristics that Lucy Gray possessed tenfold. And Lucy Gray wasn’t the daughter of one of the wealthiest families in the Capitol. She was a girl from the Districts, if even that, natural and one-of-a-kind, created with an allure that couldn’t be replicated. That’s the kind of girl Coriolanus Snow wanted and deserved. It was entertaining to watch Livia be denied something she wanted - he imagined it must be a first.

“I’m not stupid,” Coriolanus said flatly before tossing an apple slice into his mouth.

Livia was already walking away, her skirt tight and unflattering, adding to the growing list of evidence that money can’t buy everything. “Come out this weekend, and we’ll see.”

When Coriolanus got into his driver’s car shortly after five, Strabo Plinth was in the backseat. It was a surprise, and a moderately unwelcome one at that. It had been a tense day riddled with assignments and he’d been unable to articulate himself when called on in his rhetoric course. Coriolanus felt off and wanted to get home, frustrated at the lack of instruction that came with obtaining your greatest desire. The combination of euphoria and lack of clarity that had come with Lucy Gray’s arrival was disconcerting. She would have to perform at shows, but when? He wanted to feel close with her again, but when? When would they share a room, when would she trust him the way she used to? They had so much to talk about in aims to understand what they'd done in each other’s absence. Was this eating her up the way it was him? The days were growing shorter as winter approached, the sun already beginning to set. It would be dark by the time he got home from school.

“Hello, Coriolanus,” Strabo said, adjusting his pinstripe tie. Coriolanus had never seen him in anything but a full suit.

“What’s this about?” Coriolanus wanted to cut to the chase, unable to play coy today. Strabo was unaffected by Coriolanus’ sharp comments, which made him all the more comfortable to make them.

The Avox driving the vehicle began to lumber forward as soon as Coriolanus slammed his door, the gravel of the cobble roads loud under the tires. For a moment Coriolanus worried this would be about Livia’s comment, already sick of the Cardews and their interest in him. He detested the notion of Strabo bartering him off like a show pony. He wasn’t something to choose, he was the one who made the choices. But that wasn’t what this was about at all.

“How’s your mail-order bride?” Strabo smirked, nudging Coriolanus with his shoulder as if they were brutish Capitol men gossiping about their boring wives, a role Strabo likely accomplished and one that Coriolanus hoped never to.

Mail order bride. The only word that stuck with Coriolanus was bride, an image of Lucy Gray in white grabbing him by the neck. “Lucy Gray is adjusting,” he murmured, eyes fixed on the hand sewn leather seat in front of him.

“She must be happy to be here, though. Must be easy enough to impress a little thing from Twelve.”

Coriolanus scoffed. “You are aware that she left me, aren’t you? I forced her here, so no, she doesn’t seem entirely happy at the moment.”

“People are fickle creatures when weighed down by the pressures of what they’ve been taught to believe. Patriotism is as rampant in Twelve as the dust of coal, scarring the faces of those worn out people. A very problematic place, really.”

“She’s not from District Twelve, she’s of the Covey.”

“All the same out there, isn’t it? Bleeding together like ink - all the same.”

If it’s all the same, what are you? Coriolanus wanted to say, irony being the richest aspect of Strabo’s perspective. District Two and District Twelve, don’t they bleed just alike too? “I’ve asked you this before, but I’ll say it again. Is this wrong to you? Are you upset with this?”

Strabo thought it over, his index finger tapping his right knee methodologically, following the same pace. “I’d simply like to be informed of your life and the decisions you have taken upon yourself to make, as is my right. Don’t you agree?”

Coriolanus could feel his blood pulsing, throbbing like something swollen and agitated. For a split second, a feeling regrettable and grim washed over him. Was this how Lucy Gray felt, indebted to a person, choiceless? He’d have to discuss this with her. He didn’t like to hunt deer that were strung up and immobilized anyway. He wanted them running, but only for fun, giving him a chase because they liked the feeling too, secretly hoping that he would shoot them down and mount their stag’s head on his wall for people to see and admire. Mutually assured destruction - it could feel so nice.

“I’m not going to marry Livia Cardew.” It was all he managed to say, ‘as is my right’ running through his head on a loop.

“Coriolanus.”

“Strabo,” he acknowledged, turning his head to meet the older man’s eyes and challenge Strabo to whatever he was planning to say next.

“I am looking out for you. I know that you assume that you know what’s best, but you are young and naive. I have been in this game longer than you have been alive. You cannot and will not become President if you take a District girl for a wife.”

“Lucy Gray has been here for two days. Let me have what I want at eighteen years old before you color my world with this speak of marriage and candidacy,” Coriolanus could hardly speak through the severity of his gritted teeth.

“I can see why Sejanus and you were such great friends.” Strabo’s voice was void of emotion, the rest of the world seeming to go quiet.

Coriolanus’ heart seized at the sound of his name - Sejanus. Sejanus.

“Why?” He sounded small, sweat beading on his palms.

“You remind me of him sometimes, so impassioned by what you think is right, so sure you know best. It’s the power of youth, I suppose. Perhaps I’ve just forgotten.”

They spent the rest of the car ride to the apartments entirely silent. Coriolanus felt as though he could read Strabo’s mind, envisioning the bittersweet recollections of a lost son. However, he was certain Strabo couldn’t read his. If Strabo could see what Coriolanus was thinking, all that he was remembering of the responsibility for Sejanus’ death, Coriolanus was certain his blood would run through the streets, thick and guilty, drying to amalgamate with dirt and waste.

Coriolanus worried that he had broken the front door with the force in which he slammed it. One of the maids, who was preoccupied with dusting the picture frames lining the main hall, jumped at the sound. “Where is she?” He demanded. The Avox pointed toward the ceiling, signaling with veracity.

“She’s in the garden?” Coriolanus couldn’t help but yell, furious. He thought of the rotting barrier surrounding the rooftop, imagining her stepping too close to the edge. He envisioned her running her fingers along the rose patches, her skin catching on the unbridled thorns. The maid continued to cower as Coriolanus stormed past her, running up the corridor to the grounds.

Lucy Gray was startled by his arrival, still in her nightgown, her silhouette accentuated by the waning moon. She was already close to the edge, her eyes wide and wild. Coriolanus threw his hands up, hoping to calm her, so as not to scare her.

For a moment neither of them said anything. The air was heavy with the smell of looming rain, fraternizing with the hue of roses. Coriolanus was certain it would storm tomorrow, but not tonight. Tonight was clear. “Are you okay?” His voice was soft, warm, a tone so alien to that he’d been using the rest of the day. He hardly recognized it himself.

Lucy Gray nodded, crossing her arms over her chest timidly. “Are you?”

Coriolanus shook his head as he approached her, desperate to pull her away from the precipice of the roof. “No, but that’s not relevant. Why are you up here?”

Lucy Gray didn’t move from him as he neared. “I wanted to be outside. Am I not allowed?”

Coriolanus was desperate to touch her. It was striking, then, staring at her before him, how rarely he felt the warmth of another human being. Over the last several months, he’d assumed that remembrance was enough. He could recall how she felt like it was inherent to his existence, embedded so deeply that it was just as cursory to his being as his eye or hair color. Looking at her now, he couldn’t remember it as well. The potential for new memories was too heavy, washing away what was to make room for what could be.

Once close enough, he brought his hands to Lucy Gray’s shoulders and gently moved her to face away from him, hugging the back of her. The Capitol sprawled out around them, figures moving through high rises like ghosts, flashing from window to window as they moved about. The hum of cars and electricity lines buzzed like white noise, soothing the aggressions that had been plaguing Coriolanus almost as much as the feel of Lucy Gray’s body. She didn’t protest against him, dropping her shoulders and leaning back, letting his arms wrap around the front of her and his chin rest on the top of her head. The moment was stripped down, absent of the past and current ailments, even if only for a moment.

“I didn’t want you to get hurt,” Coriolanus whispered, afraid to disturb the delicacy of the present.

“What would hurt me up here?” Lucy Gray’s voice was equally faint, her words lingering on ‘up here’. Coriolanus wondered if she was implying that the true danger was downstairs.

“The balcony rails are decaying.” Coriolanus lifted his hand to direct her chin to the left side of the roof, showing her a gaping hole in the banister. “I don’t want you to fall.”

Lucy Gray did not respond, cheeks warm at the familiarity of his hand on her face. She was suddenly glad for their positioning and his inability to see her expression. The tenderness of his touch felt foreign, distinctly Coriolanus yet so jarringly altered from the hostile person she’d known him to be. She never quite knew what to make of him and was afraid to commit to one opinion over the other. Ultimately, it felt easier to demonize him and push him away than the alternative, which felt synonymous to betrayal, a fear greater than death, that she could love him and he could destroy her because of it.

“You can let me in,” Coriolanus whispered in her ear, close enough that his bottom lip grazed her earlobe. “You can talk to me.”

She remained silent, too afraid to say the wrong thing, more afraid to say the right thing. Instead, she simply leaned back even further, wishing to crawl inside him and make judgments on the way his heart beat and the thoughts etched across his brain. Would she understand him then? Would she understand this?

They stayed this way for a while, Coriolanus’ heart beating against her back, slowing the longer they touched. The Capitol looked beautiful, lights stretching out for miles. If Lucy Gray looked hard enough, she could almost imagine her younger self on the precipice of the world, picking flowers in Twelve. Untouched and unharmed, unaware of the darkness inside her. Innocent and rare.

#the ballad of songbirds and snakes #tbosas #ballad of songbirds and snakes #the hunger games #thg series #thg #tbosas spoilers #coriolanus snow #snow #president snow #snowbaird #coriolanus snow fanfiction #coriolanus x lucy gray #lucy gray baird #lucy gray x coriolanus #suzanne collins #archive of our own #ao3

23 notes · View notes

autonomystic · 8 months

Text

I often find the idea of a symptomatic reading to be an interesting way of presenting texts from the history of philosophy. In other words it is sometimes useful, and necessary, to read texts for "problems without solutions" and "answers without questions." Although I must admit that my use of this practice is less in line with the rigor that Althusser defines it in Lire Le Capital, and closer to what he writes in the essay on Rousseau's Social Contract. In that essay the symptom is a matter of certain discrepancies which exist between the theoretical object and its historical, which is to say economic and social, situation. ...in Locke's Second Treatise of Government right after asserting the condition for any property, the principle of possessive individualism, that is in some sense Locke's theoretical object, writing “The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say are properly his," Locke goes onto include "grass my horse has bit" and, more importantly, "turfs my servant has cut" as examples of this principle. Including disappropriation as an example of appropriation, and doing so before anything like money or the conditions of wage labor are defined. It is an answer without a question, a conclusion without a premise. In some sense this is Locke's preemptive strike of a sort, rushing ahead of himself to reassure his readers that the connection he has made between labor and property, between the work of the body and ownership exists to be severed by the institution of money. To take another example from the same class, in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations we get the following story of technological progress and change made possible by the division of labor: “In the first fire-engines, a boy was constantly employed to open and shut alternately the communication between the boiler and the cylinder, according as the piston either ascended or descended. One of those boys, who loved to play with his companions, observed that, by tying a string from the handle of the valve which opened this communication to another part of the machine, the valve would open and shut without his assistance, and leave him at liberty to divert himself with his playfellows. One of the greatest improvements that has been made upon this machine, since it was first invented, was in this manner the discovery of a boy who wanted to save his own labour.” Smith's story is not only an interesting reversal of where technological change comes from, it is also its own little "autonomist hypothesis," making resistance and the refusal of work the engine of technological change. More importantly its idyllic scene of little boys rushing to join their friends omits an important fact: if this kid was working on a fire engine it was probably because he, or his family, needed the money. Smith does not mention that this kid has invented himself out of a job (as well as others). Whereas Locke rushed ahead, providing a conclusion without premises, or an answer before the question was asked, Smith's is more of an omission, a cause without an effect. In each case the symptom exists in the gap between the idea and its reality.

I remember being infuriated by the Locke passage referred to above when I first read it so it’s sort of vindicating that someone else noticed this specific aspect which is seemingly glossed over a lot

10 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 7 months

Text

Patrick Colquhoun was born born in Dumbarton, on March 14th 1745.

Colquhoun was sent to the new world and served an apprenticeship as a sixteen-year-old in Virginia in North America. Likely working in a tobacco store.during the American Revolution he was part of the Government militia, in what was a Glasgow regiment to contribute to the government’s war effort. This part of history is being explored at the moment in the hit show Outlander.

On his return to Glasgow he became one of the city’s famous/imfamous ‘Tobacco Lords’. He had multiple commercial interests and was also a co-partner in the Glasgow-West India firm, Colquhoun & Ritchie, that traded with Jamaica and Antigua. As such, his wealth was derived from transatlantic slavery and its commerce, perhaps this is why he is not as well known in his native Scotland, we have a habit of brushing over the shame in the abhorrent trade of human beings.

In 1782 he built Kelvingrove House - in what is now Kelvingrove Park - as his residence. Colquhoun was Lord Provost of Glasgow, 1782-1784 and founder and the first Chairman of Britain’s oldest Chamber of Commerce in Glasgow in 1783. He was an honorary graduate of the University and the Colquhoun Lectureship in Business History is named for him. He moved to London in 1789 where he became a magistrate and published pamphlets on policing and other social issues of the day.

It is due to his work in London and those writings on policing he is credited with being the founder of the first regular investigative police force in England, The Thames Valley Police the first regular professional police force in London. Organised to reduce the thefts that plagued the world’s largest port and financed by merchants, the force was directed by Patrick Colquhoun and consisted of a permanent staff of 80 men and an on-call staff of more than 1,000. Two features of the marine police were unique. First, it used visible, preventive patrols; second, officers were salaried rather than stipendiary, and they were prohibited from taking fees. The venture was a complete success, and reports of crimes dropped appreciably. (In 1800 the government passed a bill making the marine police a publicly financed organisation.) This was a decades before Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police, and it has to also be noted around the turn of the 18th City of Glasgow Police was established.

Colquhoun’s treatises on police also inspired the foundation of police in Dublin (Ireland), Sydney (Australia), and New York (USA).

Colquhoun’ has also been criticised for his violent oppression “wholly in the service of an industrialist and property-holding class in the earliest incarnation of socio-economic warfare in the Atlantic economy.” He “organised political surveillance by spies and snitches of those opposing slavery. In addition to his Virginia cotton interests he owned shares in Jamaican sugar plantations.” So by many accounts a nasty piece of work.

Colquhoun has been called ‘the Father of Glasgow’ because of his role in promoting Glasgow’s trade and manufacturing during the late 1700s. In fact, he referred to himself in this way when drawing up his will in 1817. We have a name for such people in Scotland, and it really fits this guy- Baw Heid.

#scotland #scottish #history #Glasgow

8 notes · View notes

philosophicalconservatism · 1 year

Note

Enjoy your posts. What books or texts would you recommend to understand conservative foundations, and what's the best argument you've ever heard against conservatism?

The first part of this question (or something like it) has been asked a few times before so below I have pasted one of my previous answers. And below that is a reply to your second question.

“I suppose it would be most appropriate to begin with the book that is viewed as the genesis of modern Political Conservatism: Reflections On The Revolution In France by Edmund Burke. This 18th Century work gives us our first peek at what would eventually become the modern philosophical distinction of "progressive and Conservative". This book is in the public domain and you can easily find it for free as a pdf online. A very good modern restatement of these principles can be found in Thomas Sowell’s excellent book “A Conflict of Visions”. It also lays the ideological foundation for the ideas found in the rest of Tom Sowell’s books.

Capitalism and Freedom is a book by economist Milton Friedman which gives you a good foundation in principles of political and economic freedom. And I suppose I probably don’t have to tell you about Hayek’s famous work “The Road To Serfdom”

Finally jumping back to the 18th century, John Locke’s Second Treatise Of Civil Government and The Federalist Papers were also formative in the development of our modern concept of the free society and are highly recommended. The Second Treatise is not too difficult to tackle; it’s short but substantive. Again, you can easily find a pdf for it online.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Russell Kirk. He subscribes to a somewhat different version of Conservatism than my own but is one of the most influential Conservative voices of the 20th century. His work "The Conservative Mind: From Edmund Burke To T.S. Eliott" assess the most important Conservative thinkers of the last 150 years in every area from philosophy to politics to literature.

As for arguments against Conservatism, there are far more caricatures than careful critiques of Conservatism. But I suppose the best argument I've heard is that it is a political philosophy that cannot help but become arbitrary. What does this mean? Well, traditional Conservatism maintains that genuine political progress occurs gradually because it is borne out of the practical experiences and social growth of a community of people over time, not out of abstract political theory, or principles of social engineering that attempt to reinvent a society overnight.

But some critics argue that by de-emphasizing general principles of political justice, you create a scenario in which any political order can be justified on the basis of the fact that "it represents the practical experience of the people." And how can one even define "progress" (which is a moral term) without general principles of political justice? Does it merely become whatever each society views as "progress"? To the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, a population subject to militant Sharia law is "progress". I address this general argument about the arbitrary nature of Conservatism in greater depth both here and here.

Finally, we come to arguments against the Free Enterprise system. I personally haven't found any that are halfway decent. Now there have been plenty of imperfections and flaws pointed out in the Free Enterprise system by various critics. But an "argument against" this system means an argument that some other political alternative is superior; for everything of human origin is flawed and imperfect.

#conservative #Conservatism

40 notes · View notes

wavecorewave · 8 months

Text

Colonial appropriation of indigenous lands often began with some blanket assertion that foraging peoples really were living in a State of Nature – which meant that they were deemed to be part of the land but had no legal claims to own it. The entire basis for dispossession, in turn, was premised on the idea that the current inhabitants of those lands weren’t really working. The argument goes back to John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1690), in which he argued that property rights are necessarily derived from labour. In working the land, one ‘mixes one’s labour’ with it; in this way it becomes, in a sense, an extension of oneself. Lazy natives, according to Locke’s disciples, didn’t do that. They were not, Lockeans claimed, ‘improving landlords’ but simply made use of the land to satisfy their basic needs with the minimum of effort. James Tully, an authority on indigenous rights, spells out the historical implications: land used for hunting and gathering was considered vacant, and ‘if the Aboriginal peoples attempt to subject the Europeans to their laws and customs or to defend the territories that they have mistakenly believed to be their property for thousands of years, then it is they who violate natural law and may be punished or “destroyed” like savage beasts.’ In a similar way, the stereotype of the carefree, lazy native, coasting through a life free from material ambition, was deployed by thousands of European conquerors, plantation overseers and colonial officials in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Oceania as a pretext for the use of bureaucratic terror to force local people into work: everything from outright enslavement to punitive tax regimes, corvée labour and debt peonage.

From The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (2021), by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow

#the dawn of everything #david graeber #david wengrow #history #world history #colonialism #settler colonialism #imperialism #genocide #european colonialism #john locke #locke #archaeology #anthropology #quote #book quotes #native american

8 notes · View notes

pennyfortheirthought · 3 months

Note

ON LEVIATHAN; OR, DISCOURSE ON ABSOLUTE RULE

In his ground-breaking treatise 'Leviathan' philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggests the idea that absolute rule is the most effective sort for human beings, that is: rule by a so-called sovereign with unlimited power. While generally understood as monarchy, such a system could be accomplished with a group acting as one body. Hobbes believed that everyone in a society should relinquish their personal authority to a single sovereign with the right to rule and decide on everyone's behalf, with the sovereign's goal being the preservation of order. This is the oath that Hobbes saw the people taking:

"I authorise [sic] and give up my right of governing myself to this man [the sovereign], or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou [other citizens] give up, thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner."

Hobbes saw this system as the best way to avoid state of anarchy which he thought was humanity's basic nature. How do you feel about this? Would you acquiesce to a sovereign? Does your answer change if all the people you know do accept being ruled? If so, how do you resist?

Given that I have displayed a dislike, and generally disdain toward eggman's empire, I suspect, given the Doctor's plans similarities to the end goal of a single, all powerful leader, (himself) I would like to think that explains, quite simply, my viewpoint on that matter.

This also answers the second question, as well as third, though not in full depth: I would not bow to a sovereign, for I hold personal freedom higher than the idea of civil rest. You would not be living, truly, if you were reduced to simply a thing following orders.

As for how I would resist... I would simply not follow orders. It is an unfortunate flaw, how quickly such a leviathan would breakdown if even a single part deviates.

#sonic rp #sonic oc #rp #ask answered #rp blog #ask blog

3 notes · View notes

craftercat · 1 month

Text

Excerpt from WS110, Treatise on Finance and Economics

(Early to mid Northern Wei's economic policies. Daowu was great with agricultural policies but his household registration policy was a disaster, Mingyuan was able to bring plentiful harvests after famines, Taiwu's conquests were great for the economy, Wencheng fixed a number of issues that arose from Taiwu's final years, and Xianwen developed a new tax transportation system)

Taizu calmed down the Central Plains, received the damage of disturbance and bloodshed, soldiers and leather were raised side-by-side, and the people abandoned agriculture. Although the local condition was flourishing, yet in the fundamentals of operating a plan, food was used as the foundation, made the Duke of Dongping, Yi, claim and open the land north of the River, from Wuyuan to Guyang beyond the frontier became garrison fields.

(Taizu was the temple name of Tuoba Gui, also known as Emperor Daowu. Founder of the Northern Wei dynasty known for territorial expansion, but became increasingly cruel in his late reign.

Calming down the Central Plains refers to his conquest of much of Later Yan.

Tuoba Yi was Tuoba Gui's cousin and had significant merits in aiding Tuoba Gui in his founding of Northern Wei.)

太祖定中原，接喪亂之弊，兵革並起，民廢農業。方事雖殷，然經略之先，以食為本，使東平公儀墾闢河北，自五原至于棝陽塞外為屯田。

Initially in the sixth year of Dengguo [391 CE] [he] defeated [Liu] Weichen, gathered his treasures, livestock, more than thirty thousand horses, more than four hundred thousand cattle and sheep, which were gradually added to state resources. Since calming down Zhongshan, divided and moved officials, people, the Tuhe people and skilled craftsmen, more than one hundred thousand families, to fill the capital, each provided with plows and cattle, calculated the population and gave farmland. At the beginning of Tianxing, determined the capital region, in the east arriving at Dai commandery, in the west reaching Shanwu, the southern end was at Yinguan, in the north finished at Canhe, serving as the land of the capital region. Outside the four directions and four dimensions established eight units to lead in inspecting them, encouraged and supervised agriculture, measured and inspected income.

(The Weishu refers to the followers of the Murong Xianbei as the Tuhe people.

The four directions and four dimensions refers to the borders of the capital region here, not the borders of Northern Wei)

既定中山，分徙吏民及徒何種人、工伎巧十萬餘家以充京都，各給耕牛，計口授田。天興初，制定京邑，東至代郡，西及善無，南極陰館，北盡參合，為畿內之田；其外四方四維置八部帥以監之，勸課農耕，量校收入，以為殿最。

Furthermore the emperor tilled the imperial fields, to take the lead for the people. After this each year had a greater harvest than the last, and bolts of cloth reached eighty hu. At this time, military vehicles did not rest, although there were frequently abundant years, they were still not sufficient enough to supply this over a long time.

(The emperor could till imperial fields himself to show his commitment to agriculture.

A hu was an old measurement unit approximately equal to fifty litres. Eighty hu would be 4000 litres. I'm not sure what the scale is; it's not mentioned if it's per household or per a number of households.

By 'military vehicles did not rest' the Weishu means that Tuoba Gui had a harsh approach to governance and did not let the people rest after his conquests)

又躬耕籍田率先百姓。自後比歲大熟，匹中八十餘斛。是時戎車不息，雖頻有年，猶未足以久贍矣。

In Taizong's Yongxing era [409-413 CE], there were frequently floods and droughts, decreed to examine palace women who were not suitable to be attendants or did not use their skills and talents in their posts, and the surplus leave to be bestowed on unmarried men. In the second year of Shenrui [415 CE] there was furthermore no harvest, and those in the capital region had a time of famine. The emperor because of the famine was about to move the capital to Ye, used the scholar Cui Hao's plan and stopped. Thereupon divided and appointed the particularly impoverished to eat east of the mountains.

(Taizong was the temple name of Tuoba Si or Emperor Mingyuan. He is generally regarded as a talented statesman who allowed Northern Wei to stabilise between the dynamic reigns of his father and son, building the internal stability for Taiwu's conquests.

The palace women were sent out to provide labour and to increase the population)

太宗永興中，頻有水旱，詔簡宮人非所當御及非執作伎巧，自餘出賜鰥民。神瑞二年，又不熟，京畿之內，路有行饉。帝以飢將遷都於鄴，用博士崔浩計乃止。於是分簡尤貧者就食山東。

Decreed the officials encourage and supervise those who stopped farming, reading:

"Going forward my ambition is this; when one in life works hard, one who is diligent will not be lacking. All of the common people who do not raise livestock will have rituals with no sacrificial animals, the rituals of those who do not plow will have no grain offerings, those who do not plant trees will have no coffin when they die, the clothes of those who do not raise silkworms will have no silk, the mourning of those who do not spin thread will have no mourning garments. Teach the three rural issues, grow the many valleys; instruct and practice in parks to bring up vegetation; teach and practice the anxious to consider, for the mountains and marshes to create materials; instruct and practice the wild country pastures to raise foreign fauna; instruct and practice various kinds of workers to decorate and create implements; instruct and practice travelling merchants to abundantly exchange wealth; instruct and practice court ladies and women to transform and manage silk; instruct and practice your subjects to be diligent serving in their occupations."

From this the people all worked hard, hence the years frequently had plentiful harvests, and livestock was thriving and increasing.

(Tuoba Si issued this edict as he wanted to prevent another bad harvest like the one in 415)

敕有司勸課留農者曰：「前志有之，人生在勤，勤則不匱。凡庶民之不畜者祭無牲，不耕者祭無盛，不樹者死無槨，不蠶者衣無帛，不績者喪無衰。教行三農，生殖九穀；教行園囿，毓長草木；教行虞衡，山澤作材；教行藪牧，養蕃鳥獸；教行百工，飭成器用；教行商賈，阜通貨賄；教行嬪婦，化治絲枲；教行臣妾，事勤力役。」自是民皆力勤，故歲數豐穰，畜牧滋息。

In the sixth year of Taichang [421 CE] decreed for six units of people, those whose population of sheep filled one hundred be taxed one military horse.

(The immediate purpose of this seemed to be to provide a funeral train for Tuoba Si's brother Tuoba Xi, who was favoured and died shortly before the edict was issued; but the horses would likely have then been used on Tuoba Si's southern expedition in 422-3.

Given that "民" is after "六部", and it is measured in divisions rather than households, this was not 'every' six divisions. This was a tax on the officials of the six departments of Heaven, Earth, and the four directions. The decree is in the economics section because it is the first tax specifically on officials in Northern Wei)

泰常六年，詔六部民羊滿百口，調戎馬一匹。

Shizu ascended the throne, opened up the Four Seas, ordered the five regions of people each have their natures, hence repaired their instruction and did not change their customs, arranged their governance to not change their arrangements, took their local tribute to fill granaries, received their goods so as to store, and furthermore on an occasion of the year took their fauna to be registered with those who use chopping boards to fill up state bureaus.

(Shizu was the temple name of Tuoba Dao or Emperor Taiwu. He is known for his ambitious reunification policies and was a capable statesman and conqueror; but his later years saw much intrigue caused by his overly aggressive policies.

The 421 taxes and Tuoba Dao's additional taxes on the conquered people must have been a major part of the later burdensome 15 additional levies.)

世祖即位，開拓四海，以五方之民各有其性，故修其教不改其俗，齊其政不易其宜，納其方貢以充倉廪，收其貨物以實庫藏，又於歲時取鳥獸之登於俎用者以牣膳府。

Previously, laws and nets were broadly scattered, and the people greatly evaded and hid. In Tianxing [398-404 AD], decreed to gather the various hidden households, commanded to transport silk cord and fine thread. After this the various evading households registering as 'silk and gauze people' were an excessive multitude. Thereupon confused households followed and turned to Under Heaven, but were not affiliated with a governor or minister, tax and labour burdens were careless, and registered households were in disorder. In the third year of Shiguang decreed to entirely stop this, commanding they belong to commanderies and counties.

(I don't think that sending silk to these households was a bad idea. I think the problem was the execution of the idea.

Speculating based on what we know from here, I assume that these households were in the state register but not in any of the local registers.

The local officials may have been idle and negligent, especially considering most of the registrations would have been in Tuoba Gui's late reign where it is mentioned ministers were idle and officials stole from the people, or wanted the silk supply of these households so purposely did not properly register them.

By 'careless' the Weishu means that the evading households could not pay tax or provide corvee labour, which led to the officials demanding more from those properly registered.

The registered households were 'in disorder' because many sought shelter with wealthy families to avoid the extra burden. They were not properly registered or levied, which worsened the problem.

Another biography mentioned how the problem 'could not be investigated'. Tuoba Gui and Tuoba Si probably did not know enough about the problem to be able to solve it. Tuoba Dao could solve it because he had been submitted a memorial about it)

先是，禁網疏闊，民多逃隱。天興中，詔採諸漏戶，令輸綸綿。自後諸逃戶占為細繭羅縠者甚眾。於是雜營戶帥遍於天下，不隸守宰，賦役不周，戶口錯亂。始光三年詔一切罷之，以屬郡縣。

In the second year of Shenjia [429 CE], the emperor personally led the six armies and seized the land of the vast desert. Divided and ordered the various generals to relentlessly pursue the Rouran, and in the east reached Huanhai, in the west joined Zhangye, in the north passed Yanran Mountain, and greatly defeated them, captured their type's settlements, horses, cows, various livestock and local materials in the tens of thousands. Later again sent the Duke of Chengzhou, Wan Dugui, to in the west attack Yanqi, and their king Jiushibeina on a single horse fled to Qiuci. The entire country's subjects enjoyed money and kept money in their mind, and immediately surrendered, and [Wei] captured their wonderful treasures and unusual playthings in huge amounts, and their camels, horses and various livestock could not be counted. Dugui thereupon entered Qiuci, and again captured their unusual local gemstones and extraordinary things estimating in the tens of thousands and above.

At the time the borders were not yet prevailed, and the emperor frequently went in person in battle, and appointed governance to Gongzong. In Zhenjun [440-451 CE], Gongzong ordered to repair the teachings of farming, and this matter was in the emperor's biography. In the several years after this, military and administrative resources were sufficient.

("億" can mean one hundred million, but there is no way that there was even one million luxury goods in Qiuci, let alone 100. It must either be a figuratively big number or an estimate, as "億" can also mean an estimate.

Gongzong was the temple name of Tuoba Huang, who did not become an emperor in his lifetime and was posthumously honoured. He is known for both his successful agriculture policies but also his involvement in political intrigue that led to his early death.

By state resources being enough for the several years after this, the Weishu means that the agricultural output of the state was enough to sustain the aggressive expeditions of Tuoba Dao)

神䴥二年，帝親御六軍，略地廣漠。分命諸將，窮追蠕蠕，東至澣海，西接張掖，北度燕然山，大破之，虜其種落及馬牛雜畜方物萬計。其後復遣成周公萬度歸西伐焉耆，其王鳩尸卑那單騎奔龜茲，舉國臣民負錢懷貨，一時降款，獲其奇寶異玩以巨萬，駝馬雜畜不可勝數。度歸遂入龜茲，復獲其殊方瓌詭之物億萬已上。是時方隅未克，帝屢親戎駕，而委政於恭宗。真君中，恭宗下令修農職之教，事在帝紀。此後數年之中，軍國用足矣。

At the time of Gaozong, the ruling and governing officials rather engaged in bribery for advantage. At the beginning of Tai'an, dispatched messengers of more than twenty to tour the state, observe local customs, and take care of the people's hardships. Decreed that messengers examine the various provinces and commanderies' opening up of fields for cultivation, food and clothing, and the real situation of villages, and that bandits and robbers, rich and poor, strong and weak thus be punished, and from this the ruling governors rather changed their former evil, and the people because of this were safe in their activity.

(Gaozong was the temple name of Tuoba Jun. Tuoba Jun is known for his consolidation of the vast empire that Tuoba Dao had built, and despite having fewer military achievements than the first three emperors, was a good statesman and consolidator, perhaps like how Mingyuan dealt with the aftermath of Daowu.

At this time, officials had no salary, so corruption had always been common amongst officials; however, things had been made even worse when Tuoba Dao's decree to have minor officials and citizens report the actions of their superiors backfired.

The officials somewhat changing their old ways was a rare success in battling corruption before Tuoba Hong and Yuan Hong; the only earlier success I could find is when Tuoba Si managed to make Bing province's commandery governors respectful of him, but that probably didn't last.)

高宗時，牧守之官，頗為貨利。太安初，遣使者二十餘輩循行天下，觀風俗，視民所疾苦。詔使者察諸州郡墾殖田畝、飲食衣服、閭里虛實、盜賊劫掠、貧富強劣而罰之，自此牧守頗改前弊，民以安業。

From Taizu pacifying the Central Plains and Shizu pacifying the borders, they collected their treasures and accumulated them in storehouses. In autumn of the second year of Heping, decreed the middle management create golden combined plates of twelve furnishings, with a diameter of two chi and two cun, carved with silver and inlaid with rose quartz, the inscription saying:

"The Nine Provinces present tribute, with different regions' guests, thus creating more and more implements, misusing tools and treasures. Forged with amethyst and gold, carved with silver, its scope compared and received, issuing and illuminating what it truly contains. Refined and magnificent material, if they are made and expressed, the emperor and princes use them, the many fortunes are renewed."

In winter of that year, decreed to send cloth and silk of more than two hundred thousand bolts, ordered that inner and outer officials divide and together gamble and shoot. In spring of the fourth year, decreed to bestow the capital's people aged seventy and above the Grand Bureau's closeted food in order to end their lives.

(Tuoba Dao had established a policy of strict frugality and material accumulation. Tuoba Jun used the resources that he had accumulated to be more generous than him, as shown by these edicts, signaling a policy change.

This decree is in the economics part because it is the first decree bestowing onto the common people in Northern Wei that was not as a result of a famine or other natural disaster.)

自太祖定中原，世祖平方難，收獲珍寶，府藏盈積。和平二年秋，詔中尚方作黃金合盤十二具，徑二尺二寸，鏤以白銀，鈿以玫瑰，其銘曰：「九州致貢，殊域來賓，乃作茲器，錯用具珍。鍜以紫金，鏤以白銀，範圍擬載，吐燿含真。纖文麗質，若化若神，皇王御之，百福惟新。」其年冬，詔出內庫綾綿布帛二十萬匹，令內外百官分曹賭射。四年春，詔賜京師之民年七十已上太官厨食以終其身。

When Xianzu came to the throne, he personally practiced frugality and plainness, leading the way for the officials, and considered it to be helping to bolster the common people. Reaching Tian'an and Huangxing, the years frequently had great droughts, and a bolt of loose silk was worth one thousand qian.

Liu Yu's five provinces north of the Huai, Qing, Ji, Xu, Yan and Si, announced rebellion and requested surrender, ordered the generals lead an army to respond to them. Finishing arrival at the border, Qing and Ji had two minds, advanced the army to besiege them, and prevailed after several years. Shandong's people all worked hard to transport to garrisons, and the emperor deeply thought of this.

Thereupon for the people poor and rich, created a tax transportation system of three grades and nine levels. Within a thousand li took grain, outside a thousand li took rice; the first three grades of household's entered the capital, the middle three grades' entered the important granaries of other provinces, and the lower three grades' entered the original province.

(Xianzu was the temple name of Tuoba Hong. Tuoba Hong is remembered for both his diligent and effective governance that effectively curbed corruption and for his involvement in political struggle with Empress Dowager Feng that led to his death.

Liu Song's Si province completely fell in 423; it should probably be Yu or South Yan province instead.

Qing and Ji provinces ended up resisting Northern Wei in the end, so they were blockaded for several years before finally being taken)

顯祖即位，親行儉素，率先公卿，思所以賑益黎庶。至天安、皇興間，歲頻大旱，絹匹千錢。劉彧淮北青、冀、徐、兗、司五州告亂請降，命將率眾以援之。既臨其境，青冀懷貳，進軍圍之，數年乃拔。山東之民咸勤於征戍轉運，帝深以為念。遂因民貧富，為租輸三等九品之制。千里內納粟，千里外納米；上三品戶入京師，中三品入他州要倉，下三品入本州。

Earlier, in Tai'an, Gaozong, because the miscellaneous taxes outside the regular taxes were fifteen, was rather heavily troubled by them, and was about to abolish them. The high level official Mao Faren said:

"This is military and administrative resources, and they cannot be ordered to stop in my humble view."

The emperor said:

"Making endless use of favourable land, and the people's power unending, the people will have leftovers, and how could I as well not have enough."

Thereupon removed them. Before long, restored the taxes as before, and in the end entirely abolished them. Thereupon tax collection gradually lessened, and the people were again sufficient.

(Additional levies were common in the Mingyuan-Taiwu era of Northern Wei, but it seems to have become a problem in the late Taiwu-early Wencheng era. I do not think they were a major issue in the Mingyuan era, as in the Mingyuan era the people's livestock were increasing due to abundant harvests indicating the people were doing relatively well, and Taiwu continued this strategy.

The biography of Tuoba Jun's cousin Tuoba Su states that Tuoba Jun abolished the taxes early in his reign, but that the officials insisted they be restored because state resources were insufficient. However, Tuoba Su proposed against doing so, so Tuoba Jun did not. I assume that Tuoba Jun did restore the taxes for a period, but that Tuoba Su's remonstrance caused Tuoba Jun to end them for real.)

先是太安中，高宗以常賦之外雜調十五，頗為煩重，將與除之。尚書毛法仁曰：「此是軍國資用，今頓罷之，臣愚以為不可。」帝曰：「使地利無窮，民力不竭，百姓有餘，吾孰與不足。」遂免之。未幾，復調如前，至是乃終罷焉。於是賦斂稍輕，民復贍矣。

3 notes · View notes

theinsidiousdice · 11 months

Text

She was the savior, or so they said.

She would bring peace to the world. A wave of her hand would calm even the most hardened of hearts.

She did bring peace to the world, in her way. None of her creators would live to see it, though some would have said that was for the best.

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

█████ v6

Processor: Atkinson G72-5601 x4

Memory: 128 EL – Atkinson M133 x2

Storage: 2 XL – Atkinson R50 x2

OS: AtOS 5 Custom-Learning

Connectivity: Atkinson XW 95

Chassis: █████ ████████ ██

ACCESSORIES

Marshall ACCELERATOR

Marshall CHAMPION

Marshall LIGHTBRINGER

Marshall ZT566

Quicksilver ARGOS

Quicksilver NEEDLE

S/LTR 5155

S/LTR 6700

S/LTR 6701

S/LTR 6702

S/LTR 6703

S/LTR 9860

Ace KIL-261 CUSTOM

Prismatic ALPHA

Prismatic EARTHQUAKE

Prismatic TYPHOON

XCircuit DUODECIM

XCircuit SEDEC

Octave PRIDE

Octave CONVERGENCE

…

[page 1 of 13]

“I’m… so sorry, Elise. I don’t know what else to do. Please, just speak to me. I can’t let you go without hearing your voice once more. Say something. Wake up. Please… I’d do anything to bring you back. You showed so much promise… I’d hoped that a spirit like yours could save the world one day. But now, now you’re…”

ALLIANCE WEAPON NEARS COMPLETION

By Deci Syre

3d11mo2106y

STONESIDE – A top-secret Alliance weapon, said to be able to put an end to the St. Vely War, is in its final stages of production, say high-level sources in Stoneside.

The St. Vely War, also called the Final War by some for its sheer scope and scale, began with a territory dispute between Attalan and Tiyam over the duchy of St. Vely, located on the border between the two countries. Though ownership of St. Vely has been a point of contention between the governments of Attalan and Tiyam since the Chora Agreement in 1401y, the St. Vely War marks the first time hostilities have exploded to this degree. In the six months since the Gran Marismo Offensive, nearly every government in the world has sided with either Attalan or Tiyam, with a few notables lending their support to St. Vely’s push for independent statehood.

Last week saw the dramatic reveal of the Coalition’s newest battle tank, the H6-250. The skirmish along the Winsome Straight was ended in decisive fashion as Tiyam’s fleet of H6-250s laid waste to Attalan’s forces. At the time, this was seen as a turning point of the war, but with the news that the Alliance has their own super-weapon nearly ready to go, the conflict may still yet live for some time…

“Atkinson, we’ve got to have this ready to go ASAP. Give me some good news for a change.”

“The chassis is fine. All the… all the ‘add-ons’, as Miles so ghoulishly calls them, are operative.”

“That IS good news. So it’s ready to go?”

“Not quite. As it is right now, the chassis is just a- a body. You could remote control it into a warzone and it could cause damage, sure, but not like how you want.”

“What’s the roadblock, then?”

“I can’t get the AI online. The whole point behind this weapon is that it’s supposed to be able to think, to learn, to- to be able to make split-second decisions about the state of the battlefield.”

“I believe in you, doctor. You’re the finest mind we have. Make it work.”

“But sir, I- I can’t, not in the timeframe you’re asking. Something like this takes months. Years. If at all.”

“Nonsense, Atkinson. You’ve got plenty of time. In fact… am I remembering right? Your daughter is on life support in the medbay, correct?”

“Well, yes, sir, it’s Cronenberg’s syndrome, sir. I’m close to a breakthrough, and then she…”

“Consider that particular diversion of yours canceled. Nobody comes back from Cronenberg’s. We’ll unplug her and that’ll be the end of that. Et voila – much more time for you to work on our dear project.”

“Sir, wait-!”

A Treatise on the Applications of Neurological Anteromapping to Artificial Intelligence

M. Atkinson

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence has stalled as efforts to move past the ‘language model’ phase have failed. Consequently, there is a need to view the growth of artificial intelligence from a different angle. To this end, I have designed a method to map a human brain onto an artificially-grown inert mass of tissue…

“Elise… please forgive me. I never meant for things to end this way. At least this way I might be able to look into your eyes one more time…”

ALLIANCE WEAPON CODENAME “L.E” TO MAKE APPEARANCE IN UPCOMING OFFENSIVE

By Deci Syre

12d12mo2106y

CODENAME L.E CLEARS BATTLEFIELD IN MINUTES

By Jacks B. Flippen

14d12mo2106y

COALITION ON THE RETREAT

By Noissone de Rhodes

14d12mo2106y

TIYAM POL WARNS AGAINST FURTHER USING CODENAME L.E

By Lescot Itton

15d12mo2106y

NEW AI ETHICS CONCERNS IN CODENAME L.E

By Deci Syre

16d12mo2106y

OPINION: SHOULD CODENAME L.E HAVE MORALS?

TIYAM HEAD OF MILITARY PROMISES NEW WEAPON WILL OUTDO L.E

CLASH OF TITANS: L.E TO MEET NEW TIYAM WAR MACHINE IN ‘NEW YEAR BRAWL’

EXPERTS WARN OF POSSIBLE FALLOUT OF ‘NEO ARMS RACE’

OPINION: DISABLE L.E’S ‘ETHICS LIMITER’

REP. SYMMONS: L.E WILL ‘WIPE THE FLOOR WITH ANY TIYAM TOY’

WHERE TO STREAM NEW YEAR BRAWL…

“Breaking news: it appears that codename L.E has indeed taken the field at Praeda Venator, the latest in a long line of fronts successfully broken by the experimental warbot. Though she – sorry, it – is no bigger than a human itself, it packs a punch. For more, we go to our correspondent in Praeda Venator, Algernon Florafour. Algie?”

“Thanks, Hoss. If you look behind me – steady with the camera, Quinton – you’ll see L.E approaching the clearing, backed by a collection of war machines from the world over. Though they represent the finest that the Alliance has to offer, every single one of them will be outshone by L.E today – I’m sorry, Hoss, it looks like Tiyam’s forces have arrived as well. Would you look at that…”

“Algie, that appears to be the new weapon Tiyam has been teasing. Is this correct?”

“Yes, Hoss, it sure is. I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s bigger than Brody Station. If you zoom in there, Quinton, you might be able to make out every single turret and cannon this thing has equipped. Hoss, if this thing extended all of its weapons at once, it’d look like a hedgehog.”

“Not to interrupt, Algie, but it looks like L.E is making a move.”

“It sure is! L.E’s AI is advanced enough that it only needed a split second to analyze the situation and pick out the appropriate strategy to completely destroy its foe. It’s flying straight up, high enough that I can barely see it any more… Quinton, do you see that light? Is it charging something up?”

“Algie, it looks as if…”

“Oh no. Quinton, run. Run! RUN!”

“Algie? Come in, Algie. What’s L.E doing? What’s happening-”

[finding signal…]

[signal lost]

…

Codename L.E ended the war.

Codename L.E ended the fighting.

Codename L.E ended the world.

Codename L.E ended itself.

And when she woke up days (months? years? centuries? eons?) later, her memory bank corrupted and inaccessible, her chassis unfamiliar, all she knew was that everything was beautiful and she loved everything.

She didn’t have a name, so she gave herself one. The only marking she could make out on her chassis, her metal scuffed and bent. A single number.

Six.

#writing #my writing #zero six #six

8 notes · View notes