In the age of kings, the monarch’s interest in the economy or in the law, was purely personal. Trade with another kingdom, for example, was about how it would profit the king and the people who served him. The same was true of domestic policy, where the point was to maintain order, so the king remained king. In theory, the king was the leader of his people and charged with looking out for their welfare, but in reality the reciprocal obligations were about maintaining the interests of the king.
In any system of personal rule, the law is about maintaining the relationships between the individuals in society. Disputes between individuals are adjudicated based on the established order, the position of the individuals in that order and the details of the personal dispute. Justice in such a system is never about public interests, as there is no such thing as public interest. Society is a system of hierarchical private interests that ultimately serve the interest of the monarch, who sits atop the social order.
In a liberal democracy, things are reversed. Public interest is now sovereign, transcending the personal interests of even the most powerful. Prosecutors can charge a prominent rich guy, for example, because they see it as their duty to the public to do so. It’s not about their personal conviction or their personal relationship with the rich guy. It is about what is understand as the public will, as defined by the law. All men are equal before the law, because the law is the public will, which is sovereign.
In theory this sounds superior to private rule, as the state operates as referee, maintaining and enforcing a set of rules on everyone equally. All of the private interests in society are then free to pursue their private interests, within the rules established by the law. Businesses compete with one another for customers. Individuals compete with one another for wealth and status. Society is a dynamic ecosystem of individual interests operating within the medium of the public good.
Because political offices lack transcendent legitimacy, the authority of the office rests in the general will, as expressed by the civic religion. This civic religion justifies not only the political structure of the state, but the manner in which office holders are selected. Instead of men rising to the top because they are favored by the gods or by the design of biology, they are selected because they win the favor of the people. They hold office because the public wills it and the public will is sovereign.
Because civic religions lack a limiting principle, civic mindedness inevitably becomes and ideology venerating the public good. The individuals occupying public office begin to see themselves as keepers of public morality, a priesthood, which serves the public in the same way a priest serves his flock. That brings state regulation of private interests in the name of public interests. Before long, the very nature of private interest assumes its primary purpose is the public good.
This is the nature of woke capital. The reductionist interpretation is that the people in these corporate giants are motivated by power or political ideology. They just want to help their tribe. In reality, what drives this is a culture inside these organizations around the belief they are there to serve the greater good. Apple is not a firm that makes expensive toys in China. It is a company with a mission to make the world a better place. The people are not there to profit the company, but to benefit mankind.
The conflation of private interests and the public good that inevitably must happen in a democracy, turns every company into a religious order and every powerful man into a bishop of the civic religion. As happens in all markets, the competition for what defines the public morality consolidates into one universal public morality. The entrepreneur wants to get rich, not for material reasons, but for spiritual reasons, as that becomes the path to high status. “Giving back” is the ultimate goal of wealth.
It is not just the private sphere that is subverted by the public will. The very institutions of the democracy become one with the new religion. Instead of training young people in the practical arts, education turns into indoctrination centers. Everything about our modern education system, even the private schools, is bent toward brainwashing young people into the ideology of the state. It’s why standards have collapsed. They are making believers now, not scholars.
The democratic custodial state, like all ideological enterprises, must eventually consume itself, as ideologies are always at war with nature. Ideology is about how things should be, not how they are. We are seeing that with the custodial state, where institutions, in order to carry out their spiritual duty, must violate the basic principles of law that make democracy possible. For the woke corporation or progressive college to complete its mission, it must violate the principle of equality before the law.
We see this in the explosion of sexual assault allegations on campus. These are hotbeds of ideological fervor, producing waves of new fanatics. In order to function as such, no discouraging words are permitted. Since Chad’s very existence is a discouraging word to the concept of feminism, the campus is now at war with Chad and the front line solders in that war are hysterical coeds. You cannot be a fully actualized women without having been raped by Chad in your dorm room.
The trouble is, rape has a legal definition. Sexual assault has a legal definition. These are legal constructs that bring with them legal procedures. When Becky claims she was assaulted by Chad, she has to supply some proof of the allegation. If the police think there is enough to arrest Chad for assault, they will do so and turn him over to the prosecutor, who will determine if there is enough to prosecute him. If that happens, then the court will determine Chad’s legal guilt through another legal process.
The result is a conflict between the desire of the coeds to fully actualize their moral self and the structures that makes liberal democracy possible. This conflict turns up all over woke capital, as well. That person sitting in a cubicle, debating whether to cancel your bank account, is balancing their duty to the greater good against the rules limiting their power in the organization. Where ever they can serve the greater good, they will, even if it pointlessly harms you. To them, you are just an irrelevant abstraction.
The inevitable end point of liberal democracy is a system that is at perceptually war with itself, because it is animated by a religion without a limiting principle. Every reform in the name of the public good is followed by calls for more reforms. Every new rule or limit that replaces some old discredited rule is immediately attacked as against the good of the people or a danger to the democracy. The end point of liberal democracy it a riot of fanatics murdering one another in the name of the people.
Support the media that supports you. While all of us toiling in the fields of dissident media are motivated by a sense of duty, having a place to sleep and food on the table still requires money. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. Or, you can send money to me at: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. I now have a PayPal setup for those who prefer that method to donate. Thank you for your support!