Why Should Religions Pay Taxes?

There is a long history of debate and numerous arguments on both sides of this issue. I am not here to reiterate those points, nor would I be the person for that. However, I do have a couple points to make I have not heard before. First, it is important to know that the central issue behind tax exemptions for religious groups here in the U.S. comes from the old slogan "No taxation without representation". The reverse of the original statement is that if one does pay taxes, then one should receive representation for that payment. Because of the historic separation between religions and federal government, the notion that taxing religious organizations would entitle them to a say in the government was a deciding factor in exempting them. Second, the current state of government and all entities (religious or not) that operate within the U.S. is that everyone benefits from taxes paid. Roads, emergency response (although not all--a topic for another time), and public assistance are a few of the notable items which all citizens and entities gain from having in place. Whether or not your house or office burns down depends on your neighbors' as much as your own fire prevention. Similarly, if your neighbor draws from public assistance, you benefit by continuing to have a stable neighbor who is not incentivized to commit crime to survive. These facts adequately demonstrate the inter-connected-ness of all in the society. This includes religious entities, who draw from the public citizenry and utilize all those same services as other private and public institutions.

On to the big idea. I propose that the benefits religious organizations enjoy should only be extended to groups like Amish, who truly separate themselves and adhere to a dogma which does keep it from engaging in public life. All the other ones should be taxed, regulated, and expected to contribute as any other business, which they are. If religious organizations had no need of "act of god" riders in their insurance policies, and did not influence the insurance of others by their claims, then fine. If they truly were non-secular, uninvolved in contemporary affairs, and not subject to the benefits of government already, then I would support (and agree with others about) religious tax exemptions. If they did not involve themselves in government and have influence over elected officials, I could see how there was a separation. However, those are not the case, and they do all impact the society at large. Even without investigating their impacts on public opinion, policy decisions, and debates about various societal topics (which are many here), it is clear that the so-called separation is a contemporary illusion and needs to be addressed.

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

     We have arrived at the real issue at hand: what makes systems non-democratic is not the monarch, nor slavery, nor a state religion, nor even disenfranchisement. Those are merely outgrowths of the underlying cause. Rather, the reason they are non-democratic is commoners being kept artificially disempowered by a ‘ruling class’ in order to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This can take many forms, and gets re-invented with every iteration of government and economic system. When we citizens are barely involved and have our concerns disregarded until we have ‘enough’ polling numbers or news coverage, that is non-democratic. When only elite individuals and corporations have the ears of legislators, judges, and the executive, that is non-democratic. When income and earning decides the value of a person (especially to the extent that they will be seen as ‘worth saving’ or mourning), that is non-democratic. We are left with the disappointing conclusion that what exists in the U.S. is not—and never has been—a democracy, which can be described as a system designed to be run by its citizenry. We are simply living in a system which disguises the continued oligarchy (or plutocracy) that actually guides the government and therefore the nation. This is far from a democracy; it may be an outgrowth of capitalism, but has naught to do with bettering everyone in the nation by banding together as a society. Democracy is the rule of all for the benefit of all; in the U.S., a “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people….” Again, it doesn’t matter whether the system is called capitalist, socialist, democratic, communist, or otherwise, what matters are the underlying assumptions and principles of the society betrayed by the laws and practices of that society. In the ongoing structure of the U.S., we can see how the foundational beliefs of expansion, conquest, and supremacy have continued in the unwillingness to discuss racism and treaties signed with native peoples, the ongoing resistance to action and legislation on equality (let alone equity), the lack of accountability of elected officials to citizens, and the continued extraction of resources from land and people by business to the detriment of society. We do not have a mindset of democracy-in-action; there is not a basis of mutual respect and willingness to work together which is required of citizens who wish to conduct the administration of their community.
     In order for any change to happen, it must first seem possible. So many people seem to believe that history is over, and that things are set. Similarly, some believe that there is an inexorable march towards “progress” and advancements cannot be lost. Neither is true. This is because we have not “arrived” at some “pinnacle of civilization”, nor are we “done” changing. This is a problem with thinking of society and history as an “evolution” and erroneously thinking of evolution as some “ascension” to an end goal. It is further ridiculous to enshrine the “founding fathers” as some apex of learning and thinking. They were men of their time, and wholly human; flawed and pursuing their interests while blind to the needs of many others. This does not make them bad for their efforts, simply not of a time when they could conceive of actual equality for all citizens. It is absurd, therefore, to dismiss all we have learned since the founding of the country which indicate improvements to be made. In democracy, the government is meant to be the structure which enacts the decisions of the populace to support the continued advancement of the nation as a whole. Sometimes that can mean a radical departure from the original course. Recognize that, if we had held to those original agreements, a significant majority of current citizens of this country would not be considered as such, rather they would be seen as property. We are better than that, both in morality and in knowledge. In truth, the purpose in building something is often in order to bring the next possibility into existence. For example, wooden frames are constructed in order to provide support for the concrete poured into the form. Once the concrete sets, it creates the foundation for the house which is the end goal of all the effort. Those wooden forms are as essential to the process as the finished product, as the foundation could not exist but for those forms. Similarly, one would not consider a plan or blueprint as frivolous. Without a blueprint, we cannot know how to build the structure we seek to inhabit. Just because the plan is not the structure does not mean it is unnecessary. The current iteration of democracy is simply meant to be the form which holds the space for what will be built on top, the next step in our construction project. This essay is an invitation to discuss what we want this next structure to look like. It requires input from everyone to come up with the plan to build a structure such as a democratic government. I submit that the real democratic revolution is about to begin and that the past 250 years have been but the preamble. This revolution of thinking is not just to do away with the few ‘elites’ owning and ruling, since that is not the real issue. It is to establish that each and every commoner is just as valuable a human being as any ruler. Really, that there is nothing special or unique about an emperor, president, judge, or CEO that most others could not fill the same function—given similar opportunities and education.
     Currently, rather than every citizen having an equal voice, people are silenced, marginalized, or preoccupied so they cannot fully participate in decision-making. A participating citizen requires time and education to understand and debate the matters which require governance; without those foundations, a citizen is unprepared and disadvantaged. This is because along with the rights of citizens, there are also responsibilities which accompany democracy, such as acting in good faith and being informed. This is the unfulfilled promise of compulsory education: to provide the skills and knowledge which enable citizens to participate fully. No person (even a legislator whose job is literally to evaluate, negotiate, and enact laws) can possibly do so; without these basics, there is no “informed citizenry”. Even if it were true that some people lacked the skill, knowledge, capacity, etc. currently, it would still be the duty of every person “in power” to help create a system that worked for and included a pathway for such folks to achieve capacity. Living in a society pre-supposes a willingness to be among people who are different than myself (since we are, all of us, unique), as much as recognize what we share in common. Further, in a democracy, it is necessary to accept differences and to work with others to make the community a healthy place for all. This is where mutual respect, compromise, and good faith negotiation are important. This is a suitable introduction of another tenet of democracy, whereby citizens are obligated to participate in the system of governance—not just be subjects. This is as much right as it is responsibility, as much burden as privilege. It is presumed to be the role of citizens, acting in accord, creating consensus, and using their collective agreements to make the laws and enact the will of those same citizens. These cannot be taken lightly, nor from a position of supplication or ignorance. A citizen who does not know how to debate, reconcile, compromise, accept new information, and respect another’s opinion and experience is not in a good position. Finally, we must allow for the sheer time that it requires to participate and debate the issues of our communities. Being forced to work just to earn enough to survive is an absurdity in the modern world. To do so without any guarantee of survival when unable to work is madness. It is this repugnant treadmill which traps people in poverty and despair, eliminating even their children’s chance at improvement. This modern slavery is even experienced by citizens who consider themselves to be “doing ok”—only because this means they can remain in place with less effort than some. It does not mean they have time to spend with family, or improve themselves, and certainly not taking time to participate in community affairs. These issues, along with other obstacles to participation, need to be addressed in order to secure our democracy and create a more powerful citizenry.
     With that in mind, I wish to recognize a few impediments, and acknowledge some facts about power and oppression. It often happens that whenever an oppressed people rise to power, there is a tendency toward retribution. Even without eliminating former oppressors, the ascending group will tend to re-institute a system of oppression, just with the “sides” swapped. Abuse of power does not require villainy, or even ill intent; it can come from a belief that there are persons or groups who are incapable of change or meaningful contribution. However, when people become convinced of such differences, and especially the in-humanity of another group, serious evil can be incited. It can be as simple as “I’m just looking out for me and mine”; this basis of selfishness directs systems towards an imbalanced outcome. It is about controlling the uncontrollable; the notion that the only way I can create safety for myself and my family is by outlawing or owning all potential threats. This inevitably impacts those outside the deciding group, since those peoples’ concerns are not heard or accounted for in the decisions. In order to prevent yet another iteration of oligarchy and oppression, we must act with conscious intent and radical acceptance. The democracy created must have a different basis in order to accomplish this shift away from historical oppressions. A true democracy most likely will need to be imposed upon those currently holding power, as those in control are often loathe to relinquish it—but this must also be done with central beliefs in the worth of each individual and the benefits of including all. Otherwise, there can be no democracy with equality and power for all citizens. We need to be able to make things happen, and can only do that if we are able to talk with each other. It is, after all, the object of community to have conversations and find answers together.
     In saying all the previous, I am pointing out one simple fact: we have tried every iteration of hierarchical structure possible. Every attempt throughout history has a vulnerability to those seeking power in order to consolidate and structure things such that they remain in power. This can be seen in monarchies, monopolies, and disenfranchisement; each concentrates power, and—once concentrated—that power is doled out as pleases those who demanded no one else have it. The issue is less the tendency to organize into hierarchy, but rather the idea that some persons are more suited to rule (or be ruled). This is the fundamental notion which gives rise to many problems we face. Even before the modern concept of “races” of humans existed, there were those considered above and others below. Likewise, in systems of trade before money, there were people considered of a ‘higher class’ than others. These hierarchical notions do not rely on capitalist oppression or racist doctrines to exist, they simply fit in more easily within these constructs. Obviously, a monarch is seen as “better than” commoners; we discussed how this was the argument made for why they were meant for rule. That is the self-evident example which, by abolishing “titles of nobility” we fooled ourselves into thinking we had solved this underlying problem. However, the insidious notion that some are better than others has persisted and continues to disrupt our societies and retard progress. It is time to try out something which is actually different, because no hierarchy has ever brought “liberty and justice for all”. This idea that a ruler had something special and uniquely different about them infects most thinking about ‘rule’ and government. It is this infection that a real democracy would address. In order to achieve actual independence, a lasting justice, and a true democracy, it requires a fundamental shift in thinking about power and each other. It is first by acknowledging this infection as the driving force behind many of our problems that we can discuss ways to correct it. We must stop the cycling of shame, whereby some must be ‘other’ and ‘lesser’ so that others can claim or believe themselves “better-than”. It is imperative that we accept that we are all fundamentally similar with exactly the same worth in our common society. We must also accept the responsibility of our power, individually and collectively; this means to claim our status as valued and respected members of society, as well as demanding that we have the capacity (i.e. time and money) to participate in our government. Once we establish the expectation that each person has a valid perspective and none of us will be sacrificed for the rest will we be able to act in ways different than our history. Only when all citizens truly are equal will we have succeeded in finally overcoming this fundamental obstacle. It is only by distributing power, as in a true democracy, that power cannot become a weapon used by some against the rest.

 

Edit October 2022: for a more scholarly look at this topic see Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

The Future is Waiting, Part Two: the Mythology of Democracy in America

     Once more—for clarity and to ensure we are working from compatible understandings of current systems—let us quickly outline contemporary “democracy”. This will allow us to contrast our circumstances with those historical examples of non-democracy we established above. I will assert that, as with individuals, it is much easier for societies and nations to point to the shortcomings or wrongdoings of others than to admit their own faults. The U.S. often looks out at the rest of the world and says “there is despotism, there is repression, and there is where inequality resides”—even when such abuses at home are evident. I hope that the desire to accurately understand things will overcome this tendency. Also, although I will be using examples from the U.S., I invite you to think of your own which mirror the points outlined here. We previously discussed how non-democratic systems were variations of ‘rule from above with impunity’. The fundamental aspects of democracy are that every person matters equally and the power of governance is shared; that all citizens are able to be heard and participate in the decisions of the community. In this context, “community” means neighborhood, town, county, state, and nation; all public (meaning “not privately held”) areas are subject to the rule of that community. The trouble is that for any discussion to be productive, there need to be parties willing to hear others and accept their own power and responsibility in the issue under debate. What is currently typical is people screaming about their own pain or fear. That is one of the difficulties we face, which stems from the very state of being human, that we must work to communicate and to listen to understand others. It takes time to hear from someone else, and it takes effort on the listener’s part to understand what is said, along with the speaker’s need to know they have been heard. All this work is supposed to be part of the democratic system: to hear the concerns of citizens, to study issues brought to the attention of elected government representatives, and debate the best course of action in order to address said concerns. These truths are expressed in sentiments such as: the government is “subject to the will of the people”, “one person, one vote”, and “liberty and justice for all”. Most modern “democracies” have done away with rulers by dividing the powers of government between different assemblies and persons. In the U.S., there are 3 major sections (often called “branches”) of government: the legislative makes laws, the judicial interprets laws, and the executive enforces laws. It is also common to have a “representative democracy”; this means that rather than directly participating in the particulars of government, citizens elect representatives to deal on their behalf. This allows citizens to go about their personal interests, rather than be consumed by governmental administration: committees, appointing positions, writing bills, oversight, diplomacy, and debating issues. This basic outline leads to a few questions which can demonstrate the current state of “democracy”. These are: why do representatives make particular decisions, how are laws applied, and in what ways are citizens involved?
     It is important to recognize that anytime one person represents another, or a group, that representative has a tremendous responsibility and obligation. This is the reason attorneys require contracts with clients, as well as why there are such serious consequences for malpractice. While it has never been the case that government simply enacts citizens’ wishes (the “will of the people”), we can assume it is partly due to the difficultly of knowing what that really is. Representatives have typically relied upon citizen engagement; this means people caring enough about something to voice their opinions on the topic. In modern terms, it is more of an “opt-in” system than “opt-out”, meaning that as long as there is little objection from citizens, everything is presumed to be acceptable. If it were the opposite, representatives would need to account for each constituent and build consensus which included all. Given the sheer number of both issues and citizens in modern times, we can see that it is quicker and simpler to rely on public outcry. However, it is non-democratic to bring up an issue to representatives and walk away; to hand over to an official the entire process, whereby they will “take care of it” for citizens. This is both because it removes citizen input from the solution, as well as their oversight. Also, while a larger group has more influence and obviously represents a greater number of citizens, it does not mean that minority opinions are invalidated, which highlights the notion of each citizen counting equally. Yet this is the way it is treated currently, whereby the simple majority of folks agreeing to something is taken to mean it will work for everyone. This is patently absurd, as evidenced by disenfranchisement, slavery, and criminalizing gender/sexuality. These all had supposed “majority support”, yet remain morally abhorrent and civilly untenable—aside from being obvious tactics to subjugate groups and prevent equality. Returning to the question of representatives’ decision-making, the complexity of modern systems compel representatives to rely upon subject-matter experts in issues of governance (i.e. taxes, electrical grids, or mining). When there are an equal number of opponents and supporters, it can come down to which group has experts on their side. This can easily lead to business interests steering the debate, and thus policy, related to areas they work in; especially when all the experts on the subject work for a private company. Let us take a step back from this in order to address how representatives get elected in the first place. Those who run for office must be financed in some way, as it takes money to campaign in an election. Once again, this process relies upon interested parties; at least in this case, every citizen is interested. It should be then, according to our understanding of democracy, that every citizen’s opinion and vote will count equally in an election. However, while a citizen is typically only going to vote for and contribute to one candidate for any position, a company is not so limited. While times have changed, and Tammany Hall is no longer ascendant, the manipulation of public sentiment has not been done away with. While most are familiar with a “smear campaign”, whereby a candidate is painted as undesirable or unfit for office, the growth of social media provides a new canvas. The erosion of healthy media and competent journalists and growth of “alternative media” has lead to regular citizens preferring to trust information from their “friends”. This has fed into the tendency to rely on social media platforms—despite the growing recognition of fake accounts and bot farms which propagate false and/or misleading information. Much of what has been learned about psychology is used against citizens, such as disinformation, game theory, investment thinking, and in-group/out-group biases. Rather than buying votes, non-person entities can simply spend money to drive fear campaigns which swing voters. It is not even that people have to switch sides and vote for what that entity wants, it can simply be dissuading voters from participating, creating uncertainty where there was clarity, or clouding the results after voting concludes. It cannot be the case where each vote is counted equally, when influence, advertisements, propaganda, disinformation, and search/suggestion algorithms are all exerting undue influence on the minds of citizens. Let us complete our brief overview of the election process. The simplest way for a candidate to run for an office is to join a political party, as those have the expertise in fund-raising and advertising for campaigns. In recent years the process of elections are treated less as a way of representing communities and their interests than they are seen as a contest between parties. This leads to careful grooming of candidates in order to present their “most likely to succeed”. These will typically be a person from an accepted/majority group, and therefore not connected to those already under-represented. Representatives need never serve in public office again, as donors can certainly profit from a single-term investment—as that official will have a bright future in the private sector upon leaving office. This is a common enough occurrence that people will refer to the “revolving door of public service”: the process of persons achieving public offices and utilizing that station to make decisions favorable to private businesses, then returning to their service in those businesses after leaving office. Another component is that of lobbyists (sometimes those same ‘revolving door’ individuals) whose political experience and familiarity with law-makers allow them greater access to steer representatives towards stances favorable to business. These ideas do not come from the communities they impact, from the citizens who live there, or those elected representatives; they certainly do not reflect a benefit to those communities—despite businesses’ constant claims that they will. Look to the ongoing water crisis in Michigan (and increasingly elsewhere) or mining industry disasters (Exxon Valdez, Rio Tinto, fracking, or Deepwater Horizon) in order to understand how government lobbyists lead to worse conditions for communities. Additionally, this illustrates the ability for the process to silence or marginalize citizens’ voices. It is remarkably difficult to meet and talk with representatives, and more difficult still to appeal to that official in a manner equal to that of a lobbyist. The goal of politics in a democracy is to resolve complex, difficult issues in order to serve society and citizens. There is precious little of this in the past few decades, with politicians preferring to make grand-standing declarations from absolutist positions before walking away from debate and resolution.
    Next, let us address the question of how law is applied by the judicial section of government. Whereas in non-democratic systems there was one rule for the commoners and a different set for the aristocracy, democracy is supposed to apply the same laws in the same ways to all. The judiciary is meant to be “objective” in making decisions about what the laws mean in specific instances.The clearest demonstration of judicial partiality comes from implicit bias tests, although citizens can see the real-world results of different judicial outcomes based upon skin color just by the percentage of incarcerated people of color. Even if the “impartial” ideal were met, it is a system with its own language, paperwork nearly inaccessible and incomprehensible to laypersons, rife with counter-intuitive traps, and subject to obscure previous rulings. The adversarial legal system may allow for spirited debate, but it becomes simply another game of “winner-take-all” based upon who can afford the better attorney. Given the disproportionate distribution of money in the country, it seems self-evident that there can be no “blind justice”. Even given attorneys of equal talent, a public defender (guaranteed by a relatively recent ruling on the 6th Amendment) is overworked, underpaid, and understaffed, as well as facing the difficult task of convincing a biased judge who wants to keep their position in the next election and therefore cannot appear “weak on crime”. The number of forced plea deals and persons wrongly convicted further demonstrates the lack of equality and justice in our legal system; it hints at the central issue with this section of government: that the application of law is about something other than legal protection of citizens. The “corporate citizen” argument is a common one throughout modern history—even outside the legal system. This notion is often invoked when companies argue for concessions from local governments; it is claimed that as an “upstanding, caring, and neighborly corporate citizen”, the company will obviously do all it can to benefit the community once it establishes an office, plant, or hub there. Again, look to the examples in the previous section, or Nike, De Beers, Apple, and countless other companies which utilize slave labor under euphemisms like “sweatshops”. The logical end to the legal fiction of “corporate citizen” is that their “right of free speech and expression should not be infringed upon”; this leads to companies “expressing” politically via money. One recent example of how the judiciary impacts citizens’ voices and ability to participate is the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This was decided in such a way that allows for unlimited political contributions by corporations, obviously placing the general populace at a significant disadvantage.
    Finally, let us sum up the answers to the question of how citizens are involved in this government “of, by, and for the people”. Representatives are elected, by a plurality vote, to work towards the interests of their constituents. If elections are the major time each citizen ‘counts’, then it is indeed vital. I will submit that it is incorrect to relegate citizens’ roles in government to simply that of “voter”. Returning to the matter of elections, the choice of candidates is pre-selected via a “party” process. This demands wide recognition and broad acceptance, leading to the possibility to get enough votes to succeed. Citizens’ opinions are shaped by what they learn from trusted sources, which become heavily influenced by business interests during an election (and, increasingly, outside those brief periods). Once in office, representatives are meant to listen to citizens’ needs and act on them. However, there is no mechanism to compile all citizens’ voices, or for representatives to demonstrate they align with constituents. The decision can come down to who seems to make the most impact on that representative (which can simply mean money) or upon the media (meaning their chance for re-election or removal). This leads to the judicial branch, whereby citizens petition to sanction a representative, remedy some error on the part of the legislature, or make a change that could not be passed into law. Think of the numerous court cases brought to challenge Jim Crow laws and then to force Civil Rights legislation into reality. These judicial actions were always costly and never guaranteed to bring the results that citizens wanted—or even what the laws required. These battles can be with non-person entities afforded the same protections as citizens, without the same limitations and with immensely greater resources. Often, these cases would rely upon media attention to raise citizen awareness of a great injustice. While media is (mostly) outside the government, and so outside the scope of this essay, it certainly demonstrates the need for the public to be accurately informed about issues, especially ones they have no direct experience with. This summary obviously does not include the final component to government, which is the executive. This is because there is little for citizens to do about this single individual besides removal from office. The executive is essentially a “manager” in charge of the administration of laws and government; do not mistake me as calling it trivial, just that there is little influence citizens have in this area except through their representatives or judiciary.
    We can conclude that answer to the above questions about the function of government officials is to maintain power; whether a representative seeks re-election or a private business position, or a judge affirms a decision to maintain “separate but equal” facilities, these functionaries are protecting power. That this is true in particular cases or in general is immaterial, because it is a conclusion we can make based upon the facts of the situation. If it were impossible to make this connection, we could be assured that the government was operating under the will of the people and democratically. I contend that these simple examples demonstrate how democracy is lacking from government and how much is still under the control of a small group of individuals. This leads into the final section of this essay, and the conclusions which we can draw from the information we have outlined.

 

Edit October 2022: for greater examination of historical information, see Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris.

The Future is Waiting, Part One: in the Throes of History

     With all the ‘debate’ (read: protests, vitriol, insurrection, conspiracy theories, disinformation, etc.) recently concerning equality, equity, representation, power, and democracy, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view that I hope is constructive. In writing this, my hope is to encourage a more productive discussion about the systems we live in. As a person who dislikes to argue trivialities, as someone who cares more for what or how something is than what it is called, I look to understand the fundamental aspects of humanity. The current issue we face, as a people and as a world, is the need for a fundamental shift away from a mode of thinking which is ancient—possibly prehistoric—in origin. While we absolutely enjoy a standard of living far in excess of anything possible before, with medicine, sanitation, literacy, and survival all measurably improved, I submit that life is fundamentally unchanged from those ancient times. In order to demonstrate my thesis I will require your forbearance, as I must start with a broad overview of history. These are all drawn from general knowledge available to most contemporary citizens, and designed to give us a common understanding from which to arrive at the conclusions of this essay. At this time I wish to acknowledge a couple truths, in the spirit of empowerment and consensus. I recognize that I am not the only, first, or even best person to write this; it is simply that I have my own way of understanding and expressing these ideas. Also, that my ability to speak to these matters is made possible by, as well as greatly enhanced by, numerous oppressed groups and individuals who have gone before me. Similarly, that I enjoy privilege accorded me that is not given to others, based on the very systems on which I offer criticism. Herewith, we enter the body of the text.
     For much of prehistory—that is the period before we have written records and rely upon speculation based on surviving artifacts—we suppose humans lived as tribal beings. These would be small bands, either nomadic or settled, with little need for governance; generally, we imagine tribal councils or a ‘chief’. Additionally, people often suppose a spiritual leader as a connection to the supernatural. In these tribes, social pressures would protect individuals within the group from each other within the established order. However, in the main, people assume that these tribes were hierarchical in that they had leaders. Once people began to band together, congregate, or converge into groups greater than 150, there became a need for more structured organization. Rather than risk living among strangers who might be killers and marauders, people would likely establish and accept laws—and then bureaucracy—in order to maintain their safety and stability. Sometime around 5000 years ago, Egypt began counting dynasties; we also have written laws from Mesopotamia dating around 4000 years ago. What we know of earliest recorded history is that there were already systems in place that ordered—and, likely, stratified—society. Some of the earliest pieces of writing we have discovered are tabulations of stock, indicating a mercantile system. From that period, we begin to see the characteristic and familiar structures of “civilized” societies. In every human civilization, there were the mass of people (those common to see, or “commoners”) going about their lives. Once agriculture became widespread, specialization followed; this meant people focused on particular trades: farmers, builders, millers, smiths, tanners, and on and on. All these commoners (be they Roman, Aztec, Persian, Celtic, Mongol, etc.) desired security and liberty. The ability to farm, build, mill, and trade without interference from bandits or bureaucrats; to be with family and continue the traditions of their ancestors. These common folk of societies, who were not thinking about conquering or ruling, concerned themselves with how to care for family and enjoy the time they had. Typically, commoners would be subject to a ruler. You will likely recognize the titles pharaoh, caliph, emperor, emir, shah, khan, shogun, or king; when we think of history, these have often been the focus—these individuals who “shaped the world”. We recognize these are non-democratic types of government; the notion that one individual would have total control over an entire nation may even seem “barbaric” to those in a modern, “democratic” nation. However, this system of monarchy was accepted (indeed, expected as the norm) in a wide number of cultures around the world throughout history. Not to exclude those still in existence, of course, however they be organized or labeled. It was oft-purported that these rulers had actually been ‘touched by god’ somehow, and were exceptional. This might nowadays be labeled a theocracy, where the ruler is supposed to be connected to their deity. The laws and structure of such a society would be based on the religion of that god, and thus automatic justification for any action of the government. This demonstrates most clearly how rulers were seen to be—in a fundamental way—different and separate from ‘regular people’. In other cases, the person in charge was ruler because they had the largest army or in some way established rule through military might. This may have been an ancient Roman general or Mongol leader, an African lord or Medieval duke. While it scarcely needs saying, I would be remiss in not including the colonizing forces of European countries here as well. For example, the United States started out as a colony of Britain, justified by both ‘divine right’ and military superiority over the native peoples.
     What, then, was life like that makes these civilizations non-democratic? First, rules came from the top, as mentioned above; also, that rulers were not beholden to the citizenry. Once the monarch made the decisions, those policies were sent out to regional and then local officers. In medieval Europe, the monarch could have barons, dukes, lords, and princes on down to locals such as burghers or sheriffs, these would be the “nobility” or “aristocracy”. The enforcement of royal edicts depended on each local magistrate (and the enforcers they would retain). Wealth and property would be concentrated in and collected by nobles, often with the understanding that ultimately it was owned by “the monarchy”. Conversely, all local decisions were backed up by the threat of force from higher-ranking nobles. If a mayor abused their position there was little recourse available to the citizenry. Officials would likely only be removed if they displeased their superiors, i.e. by embezzling monies those superior nobles wanted for themselves. Information and education were similarly restricted to the wealthy; at times, the only literate persons were those educated and beholden to the established religious order. Mistrust of outsiders or differences was common; therefore, most folks would have stuck to what and who they knew. This relates to the ability and desire to relocate, as most people would remain near their birthplace generation upon generation. For information on the larger world, locals would need to depend on news (or gossip) from travelers or merchants who visited other places. Often, there would also be rigid enforcement of roles; if not de jure caste, then title or trade were handed down from parent to child—similarly keeping people trapped at particular levels of society. Additionally, commoners would be subject to conscription into militia or other forced labor. This could be as punishment for infractions or due to the local magistrate’s desire for greater holdings (property). Fealty (a legal obligation to a lord) or loyalty to town, country, church, or cause could be invoked to bestir commoners to the rulers’ ends. Truly despotic rule meant citizens could not criticize publicly or privately, as doing so would result in fatal, and often public, retaliation. Likewise, meetings would be prohibited or subject to approval and restriction, so as to curtail expression of dissent or discontent in the more oppressive regimes. Finally, slavery has existed since time immemorial. Certainly never as organized and institutionalized as the Atlantic slave trade of the mid- to late-1000s. However, the forced use of another’s work for one’s own benefit has been used to the ends of those in power throughout history. Since we have established the limitations of the citizenry, what did freedom (the lives of the aristocracy) look like? In contrast to the harsh lives of commoners, the “nobles” were able to travel, learn, own, choose, participate in government, were treated with respect or deference, and lived in abundance; food, shelter, clothing, social acceptance and standing, self-improvement, and ability to care for others. If we use a psychological hierarchy of needs, it was only the “upper class” who had access to all the components. This illustrates quite clearly the difference and divide between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, which is not only obviously non-democratic, but also unjust and immoral to modern sensibilities. These are the conditions which lead to the ‘revolutions’ of the 18th century, and our modern ideas about democracy. In a sense, it was a change purported to allow more of humanity to experience what previously had been reserved to the ‘nobility’.
     During the 1700’s (in a period now called the “[Age of] Enlightenment”) a number of political philosophers were writing and talking about government and what legitimacy it had, based on “natural laws” and a presumed “state of nature”. These discourses were, in turn, based on much earlier theories from more ancient civilizations’ philosophers. Written works like Leviathan, Common Sense, and The Social Contract are the results of these Enlightenment thinkers. In the Declaration of Independence, the justification for cutting ties with the British monarchy is almost wholly based on the king’s breaking of this “social contract” between ruler and ruled. It is important, therefore, to familiarize ourselves with these reasonings in order to understand how we have reached the state of today’s societies and governance thereof, which is presumed to be democratic. The essential part is that notion of “contract between ruler and ruled”: that there exists an implicit and/or explicit agreement that the ruler will protect the ruled and, in return, the ruled provide support and obedience to rule. This is considered necessary because the supposed alternative is an “anarchic state” where “each one is against every other” (this is the “state of nature” previously mentioned). The reasoning essentially becomes, “rule by a government is evil, but necessary when weighed against the alternative of bloody, murderous barbarism”. This disingenuous and self-serving argument rings hollow given adequate perspective and understanding of context. However, it is not important in this section to explore criticism of the construct, as we only need understand that this “social contract” has been used as the “justification” for government over the past 250 years. Contained in the theory is a kernel of new thinking: that rulers owe something to the ruled. Still not democracy (since they were not proposing citizens’ involvement in governance), just the notion that the monarch was not all-powerful and inerrant. This thinking then lead to the democratic revolutions in the Americas and Europe, as countries began overthrowing the established monarchies. These changes supposedly resulted in democracy. As if doing away with a figurehead was sufficient to eliminate non-democratic systems and thinking. Given that hundreds of years and numerous laws were required to bring persons of color and women into this “democratic system”, we can begin to see the shift was neither automatic nor immediate. This betrays the underlying truth to the history we’ve been exploring, and we will return to that topic in our last section. At this juncture, I also wish to clarify a fundamental aspect of all this discussion of democracy, which is the relationship between our subject and capitalism (said relationship deserving a separate discussion). While there is much linking of democracy and capitalism, it is a spurious and dangerous equivalence. Democracy is a system of governing a body of participants whereas capitalism is a set of economic precepts by which people conduct trade. In a democratic government the goal is the betterment of life for all citizens rather than just a few, and this is accomplished through a willingness of those same citizens to agree on laws and be governed by them. The economic model of capitalism, in contrast, is predicated upon competition between private holdings with the goal of extracting capital from customers in order to expand those holdings. Because of this fundamental difference, they are analogous to the water and electrical systems in your home: they are both important, but serve distinctly and incompatibly different purposes. Additionally, they cannot be linked and continue to function as intended. After all, you would not plug a cord into the toilet or run a water pipe into the junction box. At best, things just do not work; at worst, you burn down the house. In saying this, I wish to allow us to continue this essay without being further distracted by the conflation of democracy with capitalism.
     To complete this first section, I wish for readers to recognize that we are reviewing most societies over the course of thousands of years; it is, admittedly, difficult to picture much beyond the past hundred years. Additionally, the numbers of persons involved stagger the imagination. For context, the estimated total number of humans who have ever lived is 108 billion. With a current population estimate of 7.5 billion, that leaves over 100,000,000,000 persons having lived through the millennia under the historical conditions that we are considering. While the names and outward particulars may have differed, we are viewing these systems in order to understand their underpinnings—the structure that supports the structure we see. If there are any, the few exceptions serve to prove non-democracy as the general rule. Finally, it is not my conjecture that this is the natural or only form that societies can take.

 

Edit October 2022: for excellent examination of historical information, see The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution, by Francis Fukuyama

Vampires, Werewolves, and Aliens, oh my!

For modern audiences, the "horror" genre has an appeal which seems inexplicable to some. Whether the gory type where blood spurts into the camera or the alluring, Gothic creatures which seduce the audience, there are monsters which entrance watchers of all ilks. The recent zeitgeist of The Walking Dead may be the apotheosis of the movement. All these characters are prevalent in popular culture, and most people have a familiarity with the monsters and tropes, even if they are not "horror fans".

Because of the "in-group/out-group bias", I wonder where the line is between "us" and "them" when "monsters" are made to look like us. When the shape-shifting alien, transforming lycanthrope and vampire, or freshly undead become a stand-in for those we fear live among us undetected. How movie monsters allow for a more socially acceptable expression of the revulsion people feel towards target groups. This leaves aside the intent of the writer or director in the genre, and instead focuses on the experience of the audience. Do audiences find catharsis in the opposition to and killing of movie monsters as a a way of resolving their own frustrations with others in real life? There can be a tremendous appeal, as well as relief, to having a simple answer in difficult and complex situations. In the movies, the enemy is clearly shown to have a weakness, are distinct enough to be easily detected, and all characters agree that the monsters' deaths are righteous.

In various instances throughout recent history, the portrayal of target groups as "sub-human" and "a danger/pollution in our midst" is common enough. This is often used as a pretext to escalating violence against those in the target group. Enslaved blacks in Colonial America, German Jews in WWII, and Tutsi in 90's Rwanda were all described as "looking human" while actually being something else. This is a step which makes it easier to hurt and kill someone: to consider them as not human. In essence, this is not a critique or dismissal of horror; rather, it is an acknowledgement of how influential such entertainment media can be. I would caution folks to be aware of this tendency and, likewise, not dismiss the possibility of this pervasive notion: the alien among us, the monster who looks like us.