12/07/11 Baltimore, Maryland – Youâll remember from yesterday that we have some question as to the actual divinity of the Egyptian dynastic rulers. Certainly, either the Egyptians had some doubts themselves, or they were among the most impious people who ever lived. Pharaoh was supposed to be a god. He was supposed to be in charge of everything, even the annual flooding of the Nile, the weather…life, death, you name it. But that didnât stop him from getting the old heave-ho from time to time. Rival groups didnât wait for God to decide who would sit on the throne. Men fought it out.
We donât have any way of knowing about the pharaohsâ divine bona fides. We just note that as a theory of government, it does the job. Government claims the right to tell you what to do. Using the blunt instrument of âgovernmentâ some people are able to categorize, regulate, tax, inspect, dragoon, conscript, enslave, bully, incarcerate, murder and push around other people. Why do the other people stand for it? Thatâs the general subject of these little reflections.
There must be at least 10,000 commandments we Americans are expected to obey. The IRS code probably has that many alone. We cannot build a house or cash a check without fulfilling hundreds of (often invisible) requirements. We pass through an airport and we submit to indignities, usually without question. We know the TSA agent is a moron. But âdressâd in a little brief authority,â as Shakespeare put it, âmost ignorant of what heâs most assur d, glassy essence, like an angry ape, plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, as make the angels weep.â
Whence cometh that authority is our question.
If it comes from God, who are we to question it? We accept Godâs authority, at least when Heâs looking. And if Pharaoh were divine, we would have certainly buckled to his power too. How could we do anything else?
And yet, many people did not. For the two thousand years of the 30 dynasties, men killed each other to determine who would hold the pharaonic power. The last of them was clearly an interloper. The Ptolemies werenât even Egyptian. They were Greeks, who conquered Egypt with Alexander. Then, finally, Julius Caesar and his nephew Octavian put an end to the divine tradition in Egypt forever. God either abandoned His man on the Nile, or he is playing tricks with us.
Caesar took the role of emperor of the whole Roman world. He did not seem to be too concerned about the theory of it. People bowed to him and paid tribute. That was how an empire worked. And he never had too much time to think about it anyway. He was cut down on the Ides of March at the age of 55 in 44 BC.
But the appeal of divinity did not die with the Ptolemies. Four score years after Cleopatraâs death the emperor Caligula declared that he was a god. This didnât seem to take him very far. Romans came to the conclusion that he was not divine at all, but insane. He was murdered soon after by his own guards.
Rome struggled on for another 4 centuries. If there was a theory to dignify one manâs bending to another we arenât aware of it. It was considered normal and natural. Those who got control of the government of Rome were able to exercise the rights of governors. They were victors on the field of battle…and in the halls and assemblies of Roman government.
What did they do with this power? âAd victorem spolias.â Simple enough. You defeat someone. You take his stuff. His land. His wife. His children. At least there was no humbug about it. And the rules were simple. Government operated its naked form. As Mao described it two millennia later, political power came âfrom the barrel of a gun,â not from the Rights of Man or the Social Contract.
In the exploits of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane, too, we find a very pure form of government at work…and a very clear theory about it. Genghis announced his theory of government as follows:
âManâs greatest good fortune is to chase and defeat his enemy, seize his total possessions, leave his married women weeping and wailing, ride his gelding, use his women as a nightshirt and support, gazing upon and kissing their rosy breasts, sucking their lips which are as sweet as the berries of their breasts.â
Tamerlane was no less direct. He saw government as a legitimate enterprise. He raised troops with the intention of conquering other peoples and replacing their governments with his own. His warriors were paid in booty â jewels, coins, horses, women, and furs. He was paid in loot, tribute and taxes.
This is not to say that there was anything wrong with running a government in such a way. We are not giving advice or making suggestions. We are just trying to understand the essence of what government is.
In the case of Egypt, people listened and obeyed â at least, as much as they did â because Pharaoh was, in theory, a god. In the case of Rome â with the exception of Caligulaâs claims â and the Mongol empires, the theory was similarly simple, though different. Tamerlane made no claim to divinity. He merely made it clear what he would do to you if you resisted him. Towns that submitted were generally governed passably, according to the standards of the day…and taxed, but not razed to the ground. Those that contested his authority were destroyed, often with all the inhabitants killed.
In Rome and out on the steppes, those who controlled the âgovernmentâ were in the favored position. They could reach out and impose their will on those who were not favored. Which is exactly what they did. As long as they were able, the insiders took from the outsiders. In both cases, the outsiders were literally outside the ruling group and its homeland.
This is perhaps a good point to introduce our new theory about what government really is. It is a phenomenon, not a system. It is best understood as a fight between the outsiders and the insiders. The insiders always control the government…and use it to conquer and control the outsiders. Why do they want to do so? The usual reasons. Wealth. Power. Status.
Everybody â or everyone who isnât either feebleminded or a saint â wants wealth, power and status. And the easiest, fastest way to get it usually is to take it away from someone. That is governmentâs role. Only government can take something away from someone else lawfully. Why? Because governments make the laws.
More to come…on the Divine Right of Kings…the Social Contract…and the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number….
Regards,
Bill Bonner,
for The Daily Reckoning
The Daily Reckoning is your premier source for making sense of the news Washington and Wall Street generate. Each business day, The Daily Reckoning calls on its stable of world-class writers and thinkers to show you how to get ahead.
Start your 100% FREE subscription to The Daily Reckoning today and youâll get a free research report, âHow to Survive the Fall of Social Security.â Simply enter your email address below to get your free report and join over 495,000 worldwide Daily Reckoning subscribers!
We Respect Your Privacy and We will
Never Share or Sell Your Email Address





In, “Mao, The Untold Story ” the benevolent dictator had opponents eat a sandwich of their own feces.
This is what we need more of from government. This will bring us closer to God.
FREEDOM!
Yes we must submit to the will of the government and its untold thousands of laws. Also to our bosses and wives.
Part of the reason most of us scratch away to build some wealth is that wealth buys at least SOME freedom.
We can get free of the boss with enough wealth. Half our wealth may free us from our spouse if we wish. With wealth we are free to travel and enjoy life as we wish.
But not free of government. We are never free of government and the law.
What kind of bread was used for the sandwich?
Government; Wall Street; Insiders; Outsiders. Quite similar. Almost the same.
Ăvidemment Shawn a faim ce soir.
It would be great if BB expounds on a certain theocratic nation whose CB is now the target of sanctions.
Straight forward and accurate assesment of the nature of government in a general sort of way.
If one accepts the premise that insiders are the power, and everyone else are the fodder for their rapacious greed, then it also stands to reason that there most certainly is a degree of security in anonimity.
To be sure, remaining anonymous, and trying to fly under the radar of the government lacks prestige. But somehow, having the gold coins buried somewhere would seem to be most preferable to having one’s fingers chopped off to liberate the vain gold rings upon them.
And so, in the 21st century, it would seem to me that keeping a low profile and staying away from Twitter or any other social media, would be a smart thing to do. Once the chaos really hits, and the governments of the world are rounding folks up like a scene out of Soylent Green, the smart denizens will be quietly ignoring the mayhem while trying as best they can to pursue their chosen vocation.
“The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its very existence.” Mahatma Gandhi
“If there was a theory to dignify one manâs bending to another we arenât aware of it.”
Haven’t you read Ătienne de La BoĂ©tie?
Ptolemy I and Cleopatra were Macedonian. What is the difference between Greeks and Macedonians?
Macedonians own the restaurant. Greeks work in the kitchen.
Government and private Corporate Bosses.
I didn’t know there was any difference, whatsoever. Both consider themselves gods.
Newt Gingrich spoke of “…creating legality…” at a recent debate when speaking about illegal aliens from Mexico. That is why we have so many laws. Drug laws are merely designed to create jobs. Legalization, the gov found wouldn’t create as many jobs as enforcement. So, they have a drug war that they cannot win, but winning is not in the equation – just the jobs that come with enforcement. No big conspiracy just jobs.
The new European form of government is already taking shape.
Read The Goldman Saching of Europe:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3718160.html
Thank God for the advent of farming that has led us down this path or overcrowding, stupid ideas, and even stupider although meaner governments.