THE INDIVIDUALIST IN NATURE SOCIETY AND STATE

James Constant

government@coolissues.com

        Darwin and Bakunin tell us that man is part of a natural and social environments. The natural environment is structured by nature and the social environment is structured by the state. Man cannot escape from either environment and to survive, during his lifetime and after, must adapt. Man has a better chance of surviving in an advanced rather than in an undeveloped society. Likewise, the state is part of a natural and social environments. While the state's natural environment is substantially like that of man's its social environment is quite different. Like man's, the state's physical environment is structured by nature but, unlike man's, its social environment is also structured by nature, namely, by other states. The state cannot escape from either environment and to survive, during its lifetime and after, it must adapt. An advanced state has a better chance of surviving when it wins its external wars and avoids its internal revolutions.

        Both man and society manipulate and modify their environments. It is evolution that brings progress and risks to mankind because better tools and technology become available to control nature and society. War and revolution increase the rates at which changes are made but temporarily destroy life and wealth necessary for development.

        There are two types of individuals, the individual and the individualist. Most individuals think and many act to obtain their wants by labor, physical or mental. Individualists think and act to obtain their wants by design, legitimate or fraudulent. The individualist identifies least with the society and relies on his own independent effort to obtain his goals. He opposes war, endorses private property and his type government. The individual identifies most with the society and relies on collective action to obtain his goals. He defers issues of war, endorses community property and collectivist government. America's president Kennedy's oration "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" best fits the collectivist while an individualist would agree to its opposite "Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you".

        Most individuals conform to the culture of their society and will passively endure hardships even after the state changes its managers. The change of elected and non elected managers in all types of states provides no change in undeveloped and even semi developed society. In South Africa, the replacement of white by black managers has provided no change in the living conditions of the majority black population. In undeveloped sates, the individual receives no help from his society and must survive alone in his natural environment. In developed states, the individual becomes the recipient of his basic needs and is in a much better position to survive in his natural and social environments. However, the fortunes of individuals change as the fortunes of his physical, social and state environments change and as he changes environments. Individuals change environments when they migrate from poor undeveloped to rich developed societies. As the population in a society grows the environment itself changes, and the Malthus specter begins to compete with nature's resources and man's ingenuity. In the new environment individuals must work harder to compete and stay alive.

        Motivated by the stability of their society and their material comforts, individuals are loyalists and defend the state or are disaffected and oppose the state. On the other hand, individualists are motivated by their possession of power, property and capital. While the loyalist individualist is most likely a privileged person and member of the state's elite and bourgeois classes, the disaffected individual is most likely a worker and proletarian. Disaffection occurs for a number of reasons including religious, economic and political or personal reasons. The disaffected individualist opposes the state passively by his acts such as voting, money and, when permitted without risk, public comment and protest. On the other hand, the disaffected collectivist opposes the state actively by his act of forming into a group with others to carry out illegal acts against the state. Opposition to the State is necessary even knowing that changes wrought by opposition will result in no better society from change. The disaffected individualist and collectivist both oppose the State, the former by permanent opposition and the latter by permanent revolution.

The Individualist and Environment

        The individual requires effort to obtain food, shelter, survival and authority or power in any type of environment be it the physical, societal and state environments. If the societal and state environments are weak or absent, the individual becomes bound by the constraints of nature. In more developed societal and state environments, the individual has more choices and better chances for survival. Whatever the environment, most individuals survive by seeking food and shelter and whatever nature, society and the state offer. However, through ingenuity, entrepreneur-ship, respect, inheritance, labor, design or even fraud some individuals obtain power and authority. Ayn Rand rejects organized religion and socialism and expresses the belief that society cannot exist without creative individuals who deserve to profit from their ideas.

        In any type environment, the individual must adapt to survive or dies. Examples are the forest people of the Amazon, the desert people of the Sahara and the Eskimos of the Arctic. In more advanced societies and states, the individual may work for others and receive benefits from others. Work can be physical or intellectual labor and benefits can be security and material comforts. The individual can join up with others in society to form groups for his own benefit and for exploitation of nature or other persons in society. He can also become a soldier, bureaucrat or politician. Clearly, society and the state offer possibilities for survival to the individual otherwise not available in nature. That society and the state may take advantage of or even maltreat the individual does not diminish the fact that they may offer choices for survival to him. Of course, the more advanced societies and states offer more choices. Examples are the modern undeveloped, developing and developed states.

        The relationship between the individual and the physical environment is defined by nature. While man can manipulate his physical environment to obtain food, clothing, shelter and energy, it is nature that has the final say. If climate change makes the Earth warmer and more like a desert, man will have to adapt to survive. If the change turns the Earth into Mars man will die unless he metastasizes to a more hospitable planet. Like all living things humans multiply. The Christian religion says increaseth and multiplyeth. The Earth's resources being finite, the increase in population may eventually become unsustainable. Malthus may have been right.

        Most individuals are passive in nature and spend most of their time and energy seeking food, shelter and multiplying. It is the individualist, a small percentage of the population, that thinks and takes action to overcome the rules of nature, society and state. He puts the physical, social and state environments to his use, brings advances and innovation, and obtains means and power over other individuals. The earliest civilizations started as agricultural societies and the early individuals differentiated into what we now call elites, bourgeois and the proletariat, namely, the managers, privileged and workers in a state. Individualists obtain power and authority in any type of environment. These are the managers and bourgeois of nature, society and state. They set the rules, manage and establish the structure for society and the state.¹

        Until recently, man regarded nature as an inexhaustible source of food and energy. But, man's impact on Earth is now being felt since the physical environment is being rapidly altered putting stress on mankind to adapt.

The Individualist and Society

        The relationship between the individual and Society is defined by benefits. However, benefits accrue to some but not all members of society and determining who gets what has developed a rich philosophical debate. What is society? Is society nothing but atomic individuals or a whole whose parts are individuals? Toynbee finds that neither view bears examination. Society, he says, is a "field of action" in which the source of all action are in the individuals comprising it. All acts of social creation are the work either of individuals or, at most of creative minorities, Bergson's elan, is always outnumbered by the inert uncreative mass. He concludes that societies are not in any sense living organisms but fields of action of individuals who themselves are living organisms. And, civilizations are entities not subject to the laws of biology.² What laws do societies and civilizations follow?

        In the "classical liberal" view, the tradition of John Locke and Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy sees all people as absolute individual entities, whose only effect on one another is comparable to "billiard balls" randomly colliding and altering the otherwise linear course of their independent lives. Attempting to coexist among each other, people are forced, by overcrowding or whatever, to enter into a Rousseau-esque "social contract," a state, which guarantees security to all its citizens at the price of a "little" sacrificed freedom. The goal of individuals now is to reap the fruits of their labor, with their rightfully purchased land, and try to keep the State's tax of liberty" to an unobtrusive minimum. To Ayn Rand, there are no rights but individual rights, and "a group . . . has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." Bakunin dismissed Rousseau's "social contract" as a "terrible nonsense," "a pernicious fiction." He defined humanity more broadly. "Man is not only the most individual being on earth, but also the most social." Neither of these qualities can be ignored or dismissed. He described every human being as being the product of an environment, both natural and social, and as such, unable to escape the social element of their existence. "Man does not choose society; on the contrary, he is the product of the latter." Through education, the values of a society or community are transferred to the next generation, thus all original ideas and concepts are produced on the foundation of what society has transmitted to its members. Neither Rand, a libertarian, or Bakunin, a socialist, deny that the individual and society mutually benefit. They agree that the best society is one with the least interference by the state. While Rand believes property rights assures mutual benefits Bakunin believes otherwise.³

        Whatever the mutual benefit, the individual that lives in any type of society survives by adapting to the rules and structure of society. The unstructured society, without rules and structure, never has existed and is only approximated in the undeveloped world. Here, the individual must survive in the physical environment and, where a semblance of state exists, in a brutal societal environment. In developing and developed societies, the individual and society have mutual benefits different in each type society. Here, benefits are apportioned between the elite class which controls state power, the bourgeois class which subsists on privileges conferred by the state, and the proletariat class which subsists on its labor. The elite class comprises the societal managers, bureaucrats and soldiers who structure society and confer upon themselves most benefits. They grant privileges to the bourgeois class and may exchange members with it. The bourgeois class is a small percentage of the society in undeveloped societies and increases in size as society develops. The proletariat class constitutes the largest percentage of society and, except when unions are privileged, receives the least benefits.

        In any type of society, democratic, socialist or communist, property and capital are benefits the elite and bourgeois classes monopolize. The ideas of liberty and equality are sound good expressions that belong in constitutions but never occur in practice. Bakunin asks why do some "individuals" have an advantage over others? "[W]hat is it that separates property and capital from labor? What distinguishes the classes economically and politically from one another, what destroys equality and perpetuates inequality, the privilege of the few and the slavery of the many? He says it is the right of inheritance." Nevertheless, there are other factors. For example, the elite and bourgeois classes have also come about by revolution and usurpation of power as well as inheritance.

       The elite and bourgeois classes acquire benefits by their privilege, that is. by a juridically legalized injustice. Bakunin concludes that since a person inevitably takes from others whatever he does not gain from his own, we have the right to say that all such profits are thefts of collective labor, committed by a few privileged individuals with the sanction of the state and under its protection.⁴ Bakunin's solution to the problem of inequality of class liberty and equality is socialism, not state or stateless socialism but property-less socialism, a species never observed. He wrote that, "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."⁵ Bakunin was correct in theory but off mark in practice. His observation might apply if the state which exists could grant widespread privileges to its subjects, again a hypothetical.

        In any type society, the individualist survives by adapting. According to their ingenuity, entrepreneur-ship, respect, inheritance, labor, power or even fraud some individualists join the elite class and obtain power and authority. Others join the bourgeois class and obtain privileges. Most people, the workers, remain proletarians.

        Most individuals are passive in society. They are not entrepreneurs or innovative and spend most of their time and energy seeking material comforts. They think but do not take important actions, but only actions to subsist. It is the individualist that thinks and takes important action to overcome the rules of society. He takes risks, innovates and puts individuals to work, to feed, clothe and shelter the masses, build infrastructure, transportation, entertainment, bring advances in industry and commerce, and thereby obtains means and power over other individuals.

       Morals are the rules by which society exhorts, as laws are the rules by which it seeks to compel, its members to behavior consistent with its order, security, and growth. There are different concepts of morality and law by the various groups in society. Holmes regarded the law largely as a body of edicts representing the will of the dominant interests in society, backed by force. Hobbes says to escape mutual destruction, man creates a society in which he gives up many of his rights. Existential social philosophy holds that with the loss of meaning in modern life has gone the loss of social values, and with their disappearance comes a threat to the individual and his existence from the forces of society. Likewise, education is united to the interests of dominant groups in society, whether these be secular or religious. Rousseaux says the aim of education is to protect a child from society. He says the decisions taken by society may claim to be for the common good, but they are often contrary to it. His idea is to become educated to take place in society without being ruined by it. While some form of society is inevitable, it does not mean we are committed to it. We have no choice but to accept a society in which we find ourselves and leave it to hopefully wise rulers to mitigate our burdens. Dewey held that neither the individual or the group should be given exclusive emphasis. For him, society has the right to demand of the individual that he prepare himself to serve the best interests of society. Unless he achieves power, the individualist cannot be comfortable in any society for the simple reason that conforming to a group means giving up one's freedom, will, judgment, time, money, body and even one's life, things the individualist treasures most. On the other hand, by not being part of any group, the individualist who is offended and opposes the state is most vulnerable and sensitive to institutionalized injustice.

        Plato says that a just society is best for survival. However, the modern state is incapable of providing just laws for all elements of its society, it prefers its dominant groups, it limits individual rights, and it remains inflexible to change, and thus is not best for survival. All governments are characterized by having their powers dictated by their dominant groups, assisted by lawyers, and by the trend to enslave their individual citizens, Jefferson's principle. In the practical world, science, government, law, and education are united to the interests of the state and dominant groups in society. Since capitalism is dominant in American society, its bourgeoisie derives the major benefits through tax breaks and heavy financing by the government. Dominant industries and banks are never allowed to fail. These interests are different from interests of the individual since property and capital go to the elites and bourgeois, and temporary wages and unemployment are left to the proletarians. The individual is powerless against interests of the group. Notwithstanding the pronouncements of constitutional rights, in group-thought society, the "public interest" is always interpreted by the state or group as being above the individual interest.
While the few with superior ability desire freedom, the many with limited ability desire equality. Utopias of freedom and equality are biologically doomed. The ideal society, in which freedom and equality are balanced, in which all potential abilities are allowed to develop and function, in which equality of justice and opportunity are not only legal enactments but factual conditions, is but a subject of philosophy and the writings of constitutions.⁶

The Individualist and State

        The relationship between the individualist and the state is a matter of class membership. At any one time both the state and class membership are fixed but over time either or both change. It is not uncommon for states to change violently by war or by street or palace revolution, or to change peacefully by inheritance or elections. And it is not uncommon for proletarians to become elites or bourgeois, violently or peacefully, as new revolutionaries replace old elites or bourgeois or as extraordinary personalities, individualists, gain property and capital violently, peacefully, honestly or by fraud. The central preoccupation of the few elites and bourgeois turns on the acquisition of property and capital. The central preoccupation of the many proletarians is stability and material comfort.

        Since antiquity, philosophers have sought to establish basic principles that will, for instance, justify a particular form of state, show that individuals have certain inalienable rights, or tell us how a society's material resources should be shared among its members. This usually involves analyzing and interpreting ideas like freedom, justice, authority and democracy and then applying them in a critical way to the social and political institutions that currently exist. Some political philosophers have tried primarily to justify the prevailing arrangements of their society; others have painted pictures of an ideal state or an ideal social world that is very different from anything we have so far experienced. Here, I consider both the state and individual as is or has been observed. The types of states based on their ideologies can be plotted in two dimensions with x-ordinate "State" and y-abscissa "Property". The six main ideologies are in capital letters⁷

X ⇓	ANARCHISM	"Libertarian" (No Government) ⇓	LIBERTARIANISM
S t a t e	SOCIALISM   ⇒ (Community Ownership)		⇒ CAPITALISM (Individual Ownership)
	⇓ COMMUNISM	⇓ "Authoritarian" (Big Government)	⇓ FASCISM
	Y  ⇒  Property

        A state is characterized by its location x,y where x is the amount of government ranging from "No Government" to "Big Government" and y is the amount of property ownership ranging from Community Ownership to Individual Ownership. Accordingly, no state is pure but each state has some amounts of government and property ownership. Socialism and capitalism have occurred together in different proportions in every society. Note also that viable states based on the ideologies of anarchism and libertarianism have never been observed.

        Since antiquity, the commentators have told us what the relationship between the individual and the state should be rather than what it is. Aristotle prefers constitutional government in which power lies with the responsible and property-owning members of society. In his play Antigone Sophocles told us that man should obey the law of god before he obeys the law of the state. Later, although neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes believed in the divine right of kings, they both believed in the inherent selfishness of the individual. It was necessarily this belief that led them to adopt a strong central power as the only means of preventing the disintegration of the social order.According to Spencer the best constitution for an industrial society is a representation of interests rather than a representation of individuals. Thomas Hobbes, is generally considered to have first articulated how the concept of a social contract, even when contrary to the individual desires of governed citizens, can be reconciled with a conception of sovereignty that justifies the actions of rulers. Baruch Spinoza set forth the first analysis of "rational egoism", in which the rational interest of self is conformance with pure reason. To Spinoza's thinking, in a society in which each individual is guided by reason, political authority would be superfluous. James Madison, American politician and protege of Jefferson considered to be "Father of the Constitution" and "Father of the Bill of Rights" of the United States, believed in separation of powers and proposed a comprehensive set of checks and balances that are necessary to protect the rights of an individual from the tyranny of the majority. Jeremy Bentham, the first thinker to analyze social justice in terms of maximization of aggregate individual benefits founded the philosophical/ethical school of thought known as utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill, a utilitarian, and the person who named the system, goes further than Bentham by laying the foundation for liberal democratic thought in general, as opposed to classical liberalism in particular. He articulated the place of individual liberty in an otherwise utilitarian framework. Giovanni Gentile, known as the "Philosopher of Fascism" argued that the Fascist state is an ethical and educational state and that the individual should put the interests of the state first.

        Observed modern states fall into several categories. Socialism is based on the community collective ownership of property and authoritarian or big government. Communism is the excess of socialism and, as described by Karl Marx, endorses the usurpation of all property and factories by a strong state, or "collectivism plus centralism." Capitalism is based on individual ownership of property and authoritarian or big government. Fascism is the excess of capitalism and, as practiced by Hitler, Mussolini, and most modern "banana republics," endorses private ownership of all property and factories and a strong state, or "capitalism plus centralism".⁸ Pure states are rare in that they occur briefly during their revolutionary phases. Thereafter, they evolve into mixed forms, or "capitalism and socialism in various proportions plus centralism". Democracy, as observed in North America, is a mixed form "capitalism, socialism plus centralism" state. Notably absent are states based on anarchism and libertarianism since these have never been observed. Nevertheless, anarchism based on socialism and libertarianism based on capitalism are strongly critical of big government,

        Actually, the state is like the individual in that it exists in a society of states some undeveloped, developing or developed. Presently, the dominant states are the large developing states of China and India on the one hand and the large developed states of the United States, European Union, Japan and Russia on the other. Thus, while a society of individuals can be structured by a state, a society of states is unstructured leaving the dominant states to compete to become the elite state of states. Note that the modern state, beginning in the 15th century, is of relatively recent origin. The stateless society of modern states, therefore, resembles a stateless society of individuals, namely, some form of anarchism. It also suggests that in time the stateless society of modern states may well evolve into a state of states, with a single dominant state, perhaps the United Nations, forming an elite state and with bourgeois and proletarian states. Like the individual, a state survives externally by competing for resources and power and by seeking military and commercial alliances. The state survives internally by structuring its own society benefiting itself and mitigating popular discontent.

        Most individuals are passive in the state. They are not politically inclined, are interested in social stability and material comforts. They have hopes provided by their gods and the state, that is, hope for the afterlife and hope for their present life. They think but do not take important actions. Yet, they can be aroused when denied stability and comfort. The state, which gains all its income and resources from society, structures society to mitigate arousing individuals. The constitutional idea of equality makes it easy for society to legislate aid and affirmative action programs supportive of the underclass. While granting privileges to its bourgeois class, elites seek to provide stability and comforts to the proletarians. The state hires people and, when resources are plentiful, provides health and pension benefits that keep tensions below a boiling point. Police and firemen are well paid and proletarian soldiers to fight and fighting wars reinforce public sentiments that stability is being protected by the state. Social welfare and assistance keep the masses from revolting for lack of material comforts.

        Like individuals, groups, societies, governments, and civilizations do not survive. Civilizations begin, flourish, decline, and disappear. The causes of growth and decay are broadly discernible. Society thinks and acts with the brains and muscles of its members. Masters organize the work of their subjects to obtain the resources for growth of their societies. Men become busy studying science and building new structures of government, law, religion, morality, and education, all of which then receive provisional solution and wide approval. Inevitably, these structures will age and will no longer be able to meet the challenges of change, criticisms, oppositions and repressions will mount, and new solutions will be sought, as the society begins to decline. First come the intellectuals, individualists, who question existing institutions, point out their inefficiencies, and draw blueprints for a new society. Intellectuals are Hoffer's men of words followed by his revolutionaries and bureaucrats. Ordinary people must suffer any offenses inherent to their type of society. When a society, group or civilization, declines it is through the failure of its political and intellectual leaders, and its institutions, to meet the challenges of change, and such failure of leadership and institutional obsolescence allow the society to weaken itself with internal strife. At such times, men are busy destroying the old structures.⁹

        War is the obvious external threat to a society. Heraclitus said that war is the father of all, and war has indeed been the rule of history. The causes of war are the same as the causes of competition among individuals: acquisitiveness, pugnacity, and pride; the desire for food, land, materials, fuels, mastery. While individuals submit to restraints laid upon them by the state, states acknowledge no substantial restraint, either because they are strong enough to defy any interference with their will or because they are protected by a bigger state. World order comes not by gentlemen's agreements but through a decisive victory by one of the great powers which then dictates peace, as Rome and England did. Historically, interludes of peace are unnatural and exceptional.¹⁰

        Less obvious, and more insidious, is the internal threat to society, from failure of leadership and institutional obsolescence to meet the challenges of change. The total amount of suffering in the political and religious world is beyond all reasonable contemplation. Millions of people are victims of their own as well as their competing societies, governments, and religions. The reason for this suffering is that most governments have been oligarchies ruled by a minority, chosen either by birth, as in aristocracies, or by a religious organization, as in theocracies, or by wealth, as in democracies, or by numbers, as in socialist countries. It is unnatural, as Rousseau saw, for a majority to rule, for a majority can seldom be organized for united and specific action, and a minority can. Nevertheless, states decline internally when their elites monopolize privilege and power, oppress people, consume men and resources of the state, and engage in costly wars. The excluded then band together and periodically throw out the elites and replace them by others, in most cases violently¹¹. To some degree or another, there is always a tension between the ruler and ruled. Thus, unlike man who favors himself, society favors its elites, Rousseau's andJefferson's principle.

        It is quite ironic that the most advanced societies, based on the collective knowledge of mankind and created by man to mitigate nature's indifference to him, tend to favor only their elites. While man makes government, law, religion, morals, education, and civilization, and designs them for his own purpose, his interests in these institutions may not coincide with those of the elitist and institutional interests obtained through privilege and power. This occurs because all institutions are contingent upon their axiomatic bases and, in each case, the product will be used by a number of persons, voluntarily or involuntarily. Moreover, the artificer may not be good, perfect, or just and the product may not be the work of good, perfect, or just art. Whether good or bad, by man's standards, societies' interests are determined by its elites It is the institution's interest, not man's interest, that is being served. Society is strong when it has resources and when the interests of elites, institutions, and people are the same. Human nature, however, works in the opposite direction ¹²

        It is the loyal individualist that thinks and takes important action to preserve the rules of the state. He takes political risks, innovates his theory about the state and puts individuals to thinking about how well their present conditions of safety and comfort are, and thereby retains means and power over society. It is the disaffected individualist that thinks and takes important action to overcome the rules of the state. He takes political risks, innovates his theory about the state and puts individuals to thinking about their present conditions of safety and comfort, and thereby obtains means and power for changing society. In either case, the individualist differentiates society like a biological cell into classes, elites that form and manage a state, bourgeois that form the privileged corporations, banks, unions and individuals of society, and the proletarians that form the workers of society. In this process property and capital are controlled by the elite class.

        The loyal or disaffected individualist may come from the elite, bourgeois or proletarian class. The reason for loyalty is power or privilege and the reason for disaffection is the real or intellectual burden by the rules of the state. It is the loyal or disaffected individualist that seeks, rightly or wrongly, to justify a particular form of state, show that individuals have certain inalienable rights, or tell us how a society's material resources should be shared among its members. The loyal individualist supports the state and the disaffected individualist opposes the state.

        What then is it that would make the individualist oppose or revolt against the state? While most individuals adapt a few oppose being burdened by the rules and structure of society and the state. And when many join the few in opposition a change may occur. The change may be a palace or street revolution where the rules and structure of society change or may be a palace rotation or election where the managers change but the structure of society remains intact. Examples are the French, Russian and Cuban street revolutions, the Spanish and Chilean palace revolutions, and American and European palace rotations where corporate managers replace political managers who then replace corporate managers.

        Loyalty and Opposition are the ying yangs of the state. They are always in conflict in any type of a state and define the relationship between the individualist and state. Loyal individualists prevail when the society is stable and individuals in society are comfortable, by the law and/or sword. When these conditions degenerate, the societal pendulum swings to the disaffected individuals. Initially, one finds few complaining about deteriorating conditions at home or war abroad. If not abated at this point, more complaints and popular street demonstrations follow, and a boiling point is reached when bullets start flying. At this point a new state is born and a new restructuring of society happens. All states are born in revolutions, proletarian revolutions in the streets or elite or bourgeois revolutions in the palace. Observations since antiquity indicate that like individuals, states are born, peak and die internally or are defeated by war externally. The individualist, elite, bourgeois or proletarian, is a driving force in nature, society and the state.

² Google "Individual and Society"; Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History, Abridgment by D. Somervelle, Oxford University Press 1947 Volume III Chapter XI at pages 201-216,248.

³ Google "Ayn Rand" and "Bakunin"

⁴ Jeff Draughn, Between Anarchism and Libertarianism, http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/between.html

⁵ Lehning, Arther (Ed.); Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, London: Jonathan Cape, 1973. P. 110.

⁶ James Constant, supra, pages 61-81; Individual and Revolution, supra

⁷ Jeff Draugn, supra, Fig 5

⁸ Jeff Draughn, supra

⁹ Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History, Simon Schuster, New York 1968 Chapter XII Growth and Decay.

¹⁰ Durants, supra,Chapter XI. History and War.

¹¹ Durants, supra, Chapter X Government and History.

¹² James Constant, supra, pages 81-92; Individual and Revolution, supra

Copyright© 2010 by James Constant

By the same author http://www.coolissues.com/government/otherrefs.htm