"Government of the people, for the people, not by the people".

Wei,
If you'd like me to "flesh out"  this very lean simplification a bit, okay.
But I'd like to keep it simple, since my interest resides in where Pound's
views might fit in to this simple formula.

Of the people.  The people must accept the idea that some limits must be
imposed upon human action and social intercourse. Anyone cannot do anything
in the course of pursuing individual happiness. All things are not
expedient.

For the people. The purpose of the imposition of limits upon the people is
for the common good, to protect them from themselves and from each other,
from threats by other peoples and from other powers, and, above all, from
threats the state itself may pose to the people. All governments, of
whatever nature, even those which are "by the people",  tend towards a
State. and so are a threat to the liberty of the people.

By (or not by) the people. A people may accept to be ruled by an individual,
or by a group, or by some combination thereof. A people may or may not
choose the rulers they accept. Even in situations where rulers are chosen,
by popular election, government "by the people" is a matter of degree; if
every decision, great or small, were subject to a vote by all of the people,
rule "by the people"  would still be rule "by most of the people" since
unanimity is rare.  To the extent that a people is willing to accept the
rulings of an appointed judiciary (appointed and confirmed by rulers they
may have voted against) they are not purely self-governed. What, then, is
government "by the people" but a chimera?

Pound is, deep down, a moralist, not a political philosopher. He is
interested in the Culture of Justice and uninterested in Democracy as an
ideal in itself. His focus is on the moral force of immutable law, on the
perpetuation of the idea of the proportionally good act. He has no faith
that democracy is capable of passing the torch. What moralist has ever
believed in humankind?  Read the dantescan Ouang Siaopo passage again and
you'll see that its theme is Greed, and its M.O. is proportional goodness,
i.e. "just retribution".

Tim Romano




----- Original Message -----
From: "En Lin Wei" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 3:35 AM
Subject: A government for the people, but NOT BY THE PEOPLE


> Tim Romano wrote:
>
> <<
> <<
> What does this incident involving Ouang Siaopo and the extortion of the
> merchant class exemplify?  You have said only what it was _not_ meant to
> show, namely, any "sympathy for peasant rebellions" or "the importance of
> class conflict".
>
> Would you agree with this summary of Pound's view of government, that It
> should be of the people, and for the people, but not by the people?
> >>
> >>
>
> Very interesting question , I think  What does "of the people, and for the
> people, but NOT by the people" mean in practice?  How do you view it?  It
> may very well be a concise statement of what Pound believes.
>
> If Pound's ideal of a government is one "of the people, and for the
people,"
> then it is a government by ......"?
>
> Fill in the blank.
>
> And however you fill in the blank, would this be very different from
>
> " a government for the people, but NOT of the people, and NOT by the
> people"?
>
> As regards your first question---  "What does this incident involving
Ouang
> Siaopo and the extortion of the
> merchant class exemplify?"----  the answer may have a great deal to do
with
> the concept "for the people but not BY them".
>
> Allow me to answer after we have fleshed that concept out a bit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Wei
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>