political philosophy

the divine right of kings, as illustrated by Midjourney

The divine right of kings is one of history’s most audacious power plays—a political theory that essentially says, “I’m in charge because God said so.” Monarchs throughout Europe wielded this doctrine like a holy scepter, justifying their absolute rule by claiming they were directly appointed by the Almighty. Forget elections, parliaments, or even the will of the people; in this worldview, earthly rulers were accountable to no one but God. To challenge a king’s authority was not just treason—it was blasphemy.

Core Principles of the Divine Right of Kings

At its heart, the divine right of kings boiled down to a few central tenets, all of which worked to reinforce the unassailable power of monarchs:

  1. Divine Authority: Monarchs didn’t just claim political power—they asserted that their right to rule came straight from God. No earthly institution could grant or revoke this authority. In the grand cosmic hierarchy, the king was just one step below God Himself.
  2. Absolute Power: Under this system, the monarch had total, unquestionable power. Whether dealing with rebellious nobles, restless clergy, or the murmurs of an unhappy populace, the king was above it all. No parliament, no council, and certainly no commoner had any right to challenge royal decrees.
  3. Accountability to God Alone: This was the ultimate trump card. If a king was unjust, cruel, or tyrannical, only God could judge them. The people were meant to suffer in silence, trusting that divine justice would eventually come—likely in the afterlife, but certainly not on the earthly plane.
  4. Sacrosanct Rule: Any attempt to restrict or overthrow the monarch wasn’t just an act of political rebellion; it was an affront to God’s will. Deposing a king was painted as sacrilege, a sin of the highest order.

Justifications and Interpretations

Monarchs and their theologians weren’t content with just making grand claims; they sought to root their power in religious texts and metaphors that reinforced their divine legitimacy.

  • Biblical Backing: Monarchs often cited verses like Romans 13:1 (“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers…”) to suggest that their rule was divinely sanctioned. The Bible became a political tool, shaping earthly governance with the weight of holy writ.
  • Metaphorical Comparisons: Kings weren’t just leaders—they were God’s lieutenants on Earth, strict father figures to their subjects (parens patriae), and the heads of the body politic. This imagery elevated their role from mere mortal ruler to something quasi-divine, making any opposition seem unnatural.
  • Pre-selection by God: Some went even further, claiming that kings were chosen by God and predestined to rule others before they were born. This preordained selection made their authority seem as inevitable as the rising sun.
the divine right of kings stained glass style

Historical Context and Evolution

The divine right of kings didn’t just spring out of nowhere—it was the product of centuries of theological and political evolution.

  • Medieval Roots: The seeds of the doctrine were planted in the medieval period when rulers were seen as having been granted power by God to maintain order on Earth. But it wasn’t until later that the idea was fully weaponized by monarchs to cement their grip on power.
  • Reformation Impact: The Protestant Reformation inadvertently turbocharged the doctrine. As monarchs in Protestant countries broke away from the Catholic Church, they claimed not only political but also religious authority. The king was no longer just a ruler but also the defender of the faith—a potent combination.
  • Peak Influence: The divine right of kings reached its zenith in the 16th to 18th centuries, particularly under figures like James I of England and Louis XIV of France. These monarchs were its fiercest proponents, with Louis famously declaring, “L’état, c’est moi”—“I am the state.”

Implications of the Divine Right

This doctrine wasn’t just abstract theology—it had real-world consequences that shaped politics, religion, and society.

  • Absolutism: The divine right of kings was often used to justify absolute monarchy, where the king held total control over the state. It concentrated power in the hands of one individual, with no checks or balances to limit their rule.
  • Religious Authority: Monarchs also claimed the right to enforce religious uniformity. In Protestant nations, kings became heads of the church, dictating what their subjects could believe and how they could worship. This fusion of political and religious power only made them harder to challenge.
  • Resistance to Reform: The doctrine was a powerful bulwark against efforts to limit royal authority. Calls for more representative government or constitutional limits on monarchical power were met with accusations of heresy or treason.

Decline and Legacy

As potent as the divine right of kings was, it eventually met its match. The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason, individual rights, and the social contract, dealt a fatal blow to the idea that kings ruled by divine mandate. The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution all demonstrated that the people—and their representatives—were no longer willing to accept unchecked royal power.

But even as the doctrine waned, its echoes can still be felt. The idea that rulers are chosen by a higher power hasn’t entirely disappeared—it just takes on new forms. From autocratic strongmen who claim destiny to religious leaders with political power, the shadow of the divine right lingers on, reminding us of the dangerous allure of absolute authority cloaked in divine justification.

In the end, the divine right of kings was a masterful fusion of theology and politics, granting monarchs an iron grip on power that was, for centuries, unassailable. But as history shows, even claims to divine authority can’t stand forever against the rising tide of human agency and the demand for justice.

Read more

When using the Broken Record method, think K.I.S.S. for quick and dirty media strategy: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Then, repeat those short phrases or sentences frequently.

Themes to Broken Record for 2022 (and beyond):

Fascism / Authoritarianism warnings

Optimism > Pessimism

Buddhism and Stoicism were hopefully about humanity — these were philosophies that placed humans squarely at the center of an ever-expanding self-awareness journey that we could all commit to as a matter of personal growth. The locus of control was inside the individual.

Christianity changed all that. Now the locus of control was outside of a person — it resided with Jesus and, in turn, God. Considering their pernicious absence on the face of the planet however, numerous human beings claimed to have the bat phone to God, by which to issue allegedly celestial orders to others. The game of telephone always seemed to conspicuously privilege the claimant — God always coincidentally seemed to have great things in mind for the interlocutor, and not much concern for the rest of His creation.

The religious philosophies of Luther and Calvin would debase the popular conception of humanity even further, teaching that no amount of self-humiliation could get us low enough to match our undeservedness — and yet we ought to exhaust ourselves trying to prove it to be the case nonetheless. Under the edicts of the Protestant work ethic, one needs always to be consumed by frantic activity in order to appear worthy of God’s salvation — despite the fact that the core precept of predestination means that none of your obsessive ablutions can actually move the needle. Do it anyway — drop and give Calvin a Moral 20!

Read more

Elder wisdom, Thinkers, and Creators Since Antiquity

Some say there’s nothing new under the sun. Maybe we don’t need to go that far — but we should definitely appreciate the voluminous contributions of the ancient thinkers and great philosophers of antiquity, who figured out a dizzying array of complicated concepts long before the modern era.

We have much to learn from our ancestral teachers. Here’s a place to start — which shall grow over time as the knowledge is passed down yet again, age unto age. Things that stand the test of time are valuable, no matter what the currency of the day.

The Great Philosophers

NameKnown forBornDiedWhere livedInfluenced

Read more

The right wing is full of contradictions — a defining trait, almost. Chief among them is this bit of cognitive dissonance:

  • hatred of liberals
  • love of “freedom”

You can’t have this both ways, philosophically speaking. The entire concept of individual liberty (hint: it’s right there in the name!) is a core insight of the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment Inspired the United States

This 18th century philosophical movement grew large in Europe, predating the French Revolution of 1789 and influencing heavily the American Revolution. Resting on the then recent revolutions in science, math, and philosophy including the works of Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, and Leibniz, The Enlightenment has its roots in 1680s England with the political philosophy of John Locke.

Locke argued that human beings are capable of self-improvement via rational thought and accumulated experience. His philosophy was a break with traditional assumptions that knowledge came only from authorities, and that truth was opaque and unknowable. Working in the same era as Isaac Newton, Locke’s ideas about human nature were highly informed by the Scientific Revolution well underway by this time. The two strains of philosophy have a common commitment to reason and empiricism at their core.

Political ideas of The Enlightenment

You can appreciate why any number of authorities would find the radical ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers potentially threatening — their age-old power structures were in jeopardy. It represented the democratization of knowledge, removing a dependency of the less powerful upon the powerful as a singular source of truth. The church, monarchy, and aristocracy were all on the chopping block — sometimes literally — during this age of philosophical and political revolutions.

The following philosophical and political ideals emerged from The Enlightenment:

  • Reason is the primary source of authority and legitimacy. Phenomena can be examined in the real world to understand more about how things work and what is true. Everything should be subject to critical examination, versus simply being taken on faith.
  • People have natural rights, and prime among them is liberty — or freedom to pursue the kind of life they so choose, without infringing upon the natural rights of others.
  • Equality is the concept that all members of a nation or society are equal members and have equal standing in terms of their political influence and power. These are expressed in the American concept of equality before the law (14th Amendment), free speech, and one person/one vote.
  • Progress as the collective project and meaningful unifying force for a nation or group. The goal is to create better societies and better people by discarding outmoded traditions and embracing rationalism.
  • Religious tolerance as a rational way to prevent civil unrest. Appears in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) and in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
  • Consent of the governed is one of several foundations of liberal thought from philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who stated that to be legitimate, political power must be representative and agreed to by the people bound by it.
  • The social contract is a foundational concept from both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, extending the consent of the governed and placing it as the true basis for governmental authority.
  • Constitutional government has its underpinnings in a 1748 work by French judge and political philosopher Montesquieu, titled The Spirit of the Laws. This tome is the principle source for the concept of separation of powers in government as a system of healthy checks and balances to protect political liberty.
  • Fraternity in a philosophical sense is concerned with an ethical relationship between people, based on love and solidarity as the foundation for how individuals in society should treat each other.
  • Separation of church and state is a logical outgrowth of freedom of religion. The idea is older, but its introduction to the United Sates is attributed to Thomas Jefferson who declared the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to be about building a “wall of separation between church and state.”
  • Property rights as a natural outgrowth of natural rights and labor (Locke).

Freedom is self-determination, but is not unlimited

The history of political philosophy reveals the evolution of Enlightenment thinking over the course of centuries, and how the ideas underpinning our government have deep roots. Freedom isn’t a new idea, and it does come with some caveats.

The first caveat is that freedom cannot be unlimited if we are to have a civil society. As Hobbes put it, if men are left to their natural state our lives will be “nasty, brutish, and short.” Also, we cannot preserve equal rights for all citizens if some members of society are allowed to trample on the rights of others.

That’s why the concept of liberty is so important. It’s important to our democracy, and it’s important to our day to day lives and how we treat each other. Freedom and liberty are similar and we often use these words interchangeably, but there is a very important distinction between them.

Liberty flows from equal rights

Liberty means that I have freedom, but only insofar as I don’t intrude upon your freedom. I must respect your rights and not invade your sovereign boundaries of life and property. For all persons are created equal, and the rights of one another shall not be infringed.

Political liberty has its foundations in Greek philosophy and was closely linked with the concept of democracy. Aristotle and Plato among others planted the seeds that would later be picked up by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and John Stuart Mill — giving us our modern concept of liberty today.

Read more

fund or maintain civic necessities such as:

  • clean water delivery
  • sewage removal
  • electricity generation and delivery
  • garbage and recycling removal
  • public safety
    • police forces
    • fire protection
    • emergency response
    • flood control
  • a justice system
    • courts
    • jails
  • transportation
    • road planning and construction
    • bridge planning and construction
    • street lights
    • traffic lights
    • driver licensing
    • airports
    • railroads
    • subways
    • buses
    • parking
    • snow plowing
  • mail service
  • sidewalks
  • parks and recreation
  • schools
  • libraries
  • property and county records
  • land surveys
  • research and development
  • public health
    • hospitals
    • pollution control and remediation
    • food supply testing
  • legislation
Read more

For friends of the Open Society who, like me, would prefer not to block the movement of people, ideas, and trade — some arguments for an open world:

  • Trade agreements are net contributors to economic growth
  • Immigrants are net contributors to economic growth
  • Money spent on the security industrial complex economy has low ROI vs. education, infrastructure, and research spending
  • A diversity of ideas more likely leads to the best outcomes vs. a paucity of ideas
  • Companies with more women leaders are more profitable
  • The more the merrier!

It’s the opposite of tribalism

Philosopher Karl Popper defined an open society as being opposed to a tribal or collectivist society — one driven by magical beliefs and magical thinking. He theorized that because all knowledge is provisional, we should always remain open to alternative points of view that may offer new information and perspectives. Critical thinking is paramount, as individuals are confronted with personal decisions that have no ready-made ritual to apply to their solution.

Values of an open world:

  • cultural and religious pluralism
  • humanitarianism
  • equality
  • political freedom
  • critical thinking in the face of communal group think
Read more

I’ve been reading John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” and am reminded of the quintessential liberal definition of the term:

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
(emphasis mine)

It seems to me that Libertarian proponents tend to make a systematic error in portraying liberty as only commensurate with the first part of Mill’s description: essentially interpreting it as, “I should be able to do whatever I want, and have no constraints placed upon my person by the government whatsoever.” The idea of “cancel culture” is a reflection of this ideal, whereby the right wing complains that moral constraints that apply to everyone should not apply to them.

This mentality misses completely the essential boundary established by the second part of Mill’s quote: that doing what one wants has limits attached, and that those limits are a proscription on engaging in activities which either harm others, or deprive others of their own rights in pursuit of liberty. An essential part of the social contract, the concern for others’ rights naturally stems from concern for your own — as the collective will bands together to guarantee our rights in common, everyone has a stake in preserving the system.

Harm

Being fixated with avoiding taxation, the Libertarian will proclaim that the government is coercing him out of his hard-earned monies — but this fails to recognize the real harm being done to the lower classes by the deprivation of funds to support the basic level of public goods required to preserve life at a subsistence level as well as social mobility: the essence of the American dream.

In short, Libertarian dogma tends to be singularly focused on the self-interest of the upper classes without any attendant regard to the rights of others that may be trampled on by either class oppression or the capturing and consolidation of political power in the hands of the wealthy. It fails systematically to recognize the perspective of the “other side,” i.e. those who are harmed by the enactment of the Libertarian ideology — much as a narcissist lacks empathy — and with it, the capability of seeing others’ perspectives. You could in some ways consider it yet another form of denialism, as well as a cousin or perhaps even sibling to authoritarianism.

The Libertarian narcissist Venn Diagram is practically a circle.

Libertarianism sees itself in control

It believes its ideology should dominate others despite its extreme minority status. The Libertarian narcissist wants to get the benefits of the social contract and civil society, without having to pay back into the system in proportion to their usage of public resources at scale. The Libertarian political philosophy violates the fundamental, cross-cultural principle of reciprocity — exhibited in societies through the ages.

Read more