in Government, History, Observations, Political Theory, Professor's Classroom, Society 575 Words

Ever Heard Of James Mill?

College of Political knowledge

Since the SCOTUS judgment on the “Citizen United” case there has been a massive argument or exchange or debate on the values or not of letting special interests buy the government (in case there is any doubt….I think the ruling was the most detrimental ruling in a century)……..I have given my readers lots to think about…at least I hope they are thinking and acting……over the years many political philosophers have seen the harm that could be done by special interest cash flowing to politicians……

In case there is any doubt…..I have been a radical from most of my adult life and have studied the radical theories and writings throughout history….I happen to remember something written by an English radical, James Mill not to be confused with John Stuart Mill (that is a post for another day)……however James was his father.

The Utilitarian and Philosophic Radical James Mill (1773-1836) wrote a series of articles for the Supplement to the 1825 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In the article on “Government” he warns of the dangers of the selfish and “sinister interests” all those who wield power, unless checked by an informed people:

We have seen already, that if one man has power over others placed in his hands, he will make use of it for an evil purpose; for the purpose of rendering those other men the abject instruments of his will. If we, then, suppose, that one man has the power of choosing the Representatives of the people, it follows, that he will choose men, who will use their power as Representatives for the promotion of this his sinister interest.

We have likewise seen, that when a few men have power given them over others, they will make use of it exactly for the same ends, and to the same extent, as the one man. It equally follows, that, if a small number of men have the choice of the Representatives, such Representatives will be chosen as will promote the interests of that small number, by reducing, if possible, the rest of the community to be the abject and helpless slaves of their will.

In all these cases, it is obvious and indisputable, that all the benefits of the Representative system are lost. The Representative system is, in that case, only an operose and clumsy machinery for doing that which might as well be done without it; reducing the community to subjection, under the One, or the Few.

When we say the Few, it is seen that, in this case, it is of no importance whether we mean a few hundreds, or a few thousands, or even many thousands. The operation of the sinister interest is the same; and the fate is the same, of all that part of the community over whom the power is exercised. A numerous Aristocracy has never been found to be less oppressive than an Aristocracy confined to a few.

The general conclusion, therefore, which is evidently established is this; that the benefits of the Representative system are lost, in all cases in which the interests of the choosing body are not the same with those of the community.

Since the beginning (well almost) men with far reaching thinking have seen the damage that money and special interests can do when it drives the political agenda…..and what that agenda  can do to the health of democracy….WHY CAN’T WE?

10 thoughts on “Ever Heard Of James Mill?”

  1. Lobotero,

    Have you ever actually read the Citizens United opinion? If so, you would have realized the implications of allowing the ban on corporate free speech to stand. Consider this paragraph from Justice Kennedy’s opinion:

    The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations–including nonprofit advocacy corporations–either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.

    FindLaw: Citizen’s United

    I realize most on the left are opposed to this decision – without having actually read it – simply because President Obama and Democrats in general are opposed to it. But they’re ignorant buffoons with an axe to grind. This decision is just common sense. You cannot allow a law to stand that would imprison environmental activists for urging the electorate to vote to protect the environment…See? Citizen’s United doesn’t sound too bad when you put it like that, does it?

    Reply

    1. Terrance, yes I have read it…..as for the rest of the Left is not my concern….to me all this does is make ANY and I emphasize ANY special interests as having way too much sway over the electoral process…..though any Super pacs are not allowed to coordinate with the campaigns…there are ways around it just like there are ways around the contraception issue or abortion or wall Street policing…..where there is a deep pocket there will be abuses…..

      Reply

      1. Lobotero,

        Your opinion is consistent with the notion that people are too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction. The suggestion that clean-shaven tycoons poison the attention of voters lends credence to the idea that liberalism and arrogance go hand-in-hand.

        Along with the arrogance exists a blinding failure to see the benefit of super PACs. Candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, despite being crippled by finances, were surprisingly competitive against Mitt Romney, the ultra-millionaire. Romney may go on to be the nominee, but it wasn’t easy by any stretch of the imagination. Competitive races are good for democracy.

        The rally against Citizen United is nothing more than a manifestation of liberal hatred for rich people. A rich person using his fortune to spread a political message – that oftentimes is quite the opposite of liberalism – is enough to give liberals a stroke.

      2. Terrance…..corporations are not people not matter what Mitt says……a rich person has as much right to give to a political campaign as me……I agree that competitive races are good for democracy…..in the days of a media controlling thought few are truly competitive……the person is smart and thoughtful…..the people are not…..

      3. Lobotero,

        If you believe a rich person has as much right to give to a political campaign as you, why can’t he or she set up a super PAC?

        You say the media controls thought. Well, you’ve just amplified my point. Super PACS combat the media control.

  2. He also said:

    If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.

    Reply

    1. You must be really busy with school….I miss your daily conserv talking points…LOL Sorry i had to throw that at you……

      Reply

      1. Lobotero,

        Well, if I don’t come up with some money before next semester, I won’t be as busy as I’d like. LOL.

      2. it sucks I know…I worked 2 jobs and sometimes three to get through….good luck with the financing…..

Leave a Reply