The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude

[Truth Warrior]

The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
by Étienne de la Boétie
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

Long but very worthwhile.<IMHO> :)

Enjoy!

[HOLLYWOOD]

The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
by Étienne de la Boétie
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

Long but very worthwhile.<IMHO> :)

Enjoy!

Short but very Sarcastic!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=034_1200124660 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=034_1200124660)

[Truth Warrior]

Short but very Sarcastic!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=034_1200124660 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=034_1200124660)

Cute! I like it. ;)

Thanks! :)

[Truth Warrior]

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
The Discours sur la servitude volontaire
of ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548

http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

Murray Rothbard writes a classic introduction to one of the great political essays in the history of ideas.

Étienne de La Boétie was born in Sarlat, in the Périgord region of southwest France, in 1530, to an aristocratic family, and became a dear friend of Michel de Montaigne. But he ought to be remembered for this astonishingly important essay, one of the greatest in the history of political thought. It will shake the way you think of the state. His thesis and argument amount to the best answer to Machiavelli ever penned as well as one of the seminal essays in defense of liberty.

Boétie's task is to investigate the nature of the state and its strange status as a tiny minority of the population that adheres to different rules from everyone else and claims the authority to rule everyone else, maintaining a monopoly on law. It strikes him as obviously implausible that such an institution has any staying power. It can be overthrown in an instant if people withdraw their consent.

He then investigates the mystery as to why people do not withdraw, giving what is obvious to him that everyone would be better off without the state. This sends him on a speculative journey to investigate the power of propaganda, fear, and ideology in causing people to acquiesce in their own subjection. Is it cowardice? Perhaps. Habit and tradition. Perhaps. Perhaps it is ideological illusion and intellectual confusion.

Boétie goes on to make a case as to why people ought to withdraw their consent immediately. He urges all people to rise up and cast off tyranny simply by refusing to concede that the state is in charge.

The tyrant has "nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?"

Then these inspiring words: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."

In all these areas, the author has anticipated Jefferson and Arendt, Ghandi and Spooner, and those who overthrew Soviet tyranny. The essay has profound relevance for understanding history and all our times.

As Rothbard writes in his spectacular introduction, "La Boetie's Discourse has a vital importance for the modern reader—an importance that goes beyond the sheer pleasure of reading a great and seminal work on political philosophy, or, for the libertarian, of reading the first libertarian political philosopher in the Western world. For La Boétie speaks most sharply to the problem which all libertarians—indeed, all opponents of despotism—find particularly difficult: the problem of strategy. Facing the devastating and seemingly overwhelming power of the modern State, how can a free and very different world be brought about? How in the world can we get from here to there, from a world of tyranny to a world of freedom? Precisely because of his abstract and timeless methodology, La Boétie offers vital insights into this eternal problem."
81 pages, paperback, 2008

http://www.mises.org/store/Politics-of-Obedience-P529.aspx?AFID=14

[crhoades]

Excellent book. If you enjoy Discourse, check out this site: http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsa4f8.html

Gene Sharp has spent a lifetime writing and lecturing on the same principles of non-violent resistance. Most of the books on his site are free in .pdf. Here is a short summary book to start with: From Dictatorship to Democracy (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf)

[Truth Warrior]

Excellent book. If you enjoy Discourse, check out this site: http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsa4f8.html

Gene Sharp has spent a lifetime writing and lecturing on the same principles of non-violent resistance. Most of the books on his site are free in .pdf. Here is a short summary book to start with: From Dictatorship to Democracy (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf)

:cool: Thanks! I'm a long time fan of Einstein, for a variety of reasons. ;) I added that web site to my list of Favorites.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html

:)

[Truth Warrior]

bump for "New Posts" :p

[constituent]

sounds promising.

file--->print

[Truth Warrior]

sounds promising.

file--->print
It's a "goody".<IMHO>

Being a "cheapskate", I "printed" mine to a PDF. :D

[Truth Warrior]

bump for "New Posts" :p bump

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
by Étienne de la Boétie
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

Long but very worthwhile.<IMHO> :)

Enjoy!

To demonstrate that you read these essays, could you please start posting their thesis statements? If I were a tyrant, the first new law passed by myself would be a requirement that all supposed political essays have their thesis statements underlined. There is just way too much jargon out there while people today are too afraid to admit to it; consequently, the best way to get people to eat crap is to get them to read it first. We just can't pass up a word without thinking we should read it for some reason.

[Truth Warrior]

To demonstrate that you read these essays, could you please start posting their thesis statements? If I were a tyrant, the first new law passed by myself would be a requirement that all supposed political essays have their thesis statements underlined. There is just way too much jargon out there while people today are too afraid to admit to it; consequently, the best way to get people to eat crap is to get them to read it first. We just can't pass up a word without thinking we should read it for some reason. No, ya just get whatcha get. Read it or just STAY ignorant.

[Truth Warrior]

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

a selection from Part I: I see no good in having several lords; Let one alone be master, let one alone be king. THESE WORDS Homer puts in the mouth of Ulysses, as he addresses the people. If he had said nothing further than "I see no good in having several lords," it would have been well spoken. For the sake of logic he should have maintained that the rule of several could not be good since the power of one man alone, as soon as he acquires the title of master, becomes abusive and unreasonable. Instead he declared what seems preposterous: "Let one alone be master, let one alone be king." We must not be critical of Ulysses, who at the moment was perhaps obliged to speak these words in order to quell a mutiny in the army, for this reason, in my opinion, choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Yet, in the light of reason, it is a great misfortune to be at the beck and call of one master, for it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be kind, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As for having several masters, according to the number one has, it amounts to being that many times unfortunate. Although I do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated question, namely whether other types of government are preferable to monarchy, still I should like to know, before casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths, whether or not it belongs to such a group, since it is hard to believe that there is anything of common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. This question, however, can remain for another time and would really require a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts of political discussion.

FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.

Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1551640880/ref=sip_pdp_dp_2

[Deborah K]

Excellent book. If you enjoy Discourse, check out this site: http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsa4f8.html

Gene Sharp has spent a lifetime writing and lecturing on the same principles of non-violent resistance. Most of the books on his site are free in .pdf. Here is a short summary book to start with: From Dictatorship to Democracy (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf)


Wow! Thank you for this.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

a selection from Part I: I see no good in having several lords; Let one alone be master, let one alone be king. THESE WORDS Homer puts in the mouth of Ulysses, as he addresses the people. If he had said nothing further than "I see no good in having several lords," it would have been well spoken. For the sake of logic he should have maintained that the rule of several could not be good since the power of one man alone, as soon as he acquires the title of master, becomes abusive and unreasonable. Instead he declared what seems preposterous: "Let one alone be master, let one alone be king." We must not be critical of Ulysses, who at the moment was perhaps obliged to speak these words in order to quell a mutiny in the army, for this reason, in my opinion, choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Yet, in the light of reason, it is a great misfortune to be at the beck and call of one master, for it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be kind, since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As for having several masters, according to the number one has, it amounts to being that many times unfortunate. Although I do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated question, namely whether other types of government are preferable to monarchy, still I should like to know, before casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths, whether or not it belongs to such a group, since it is hard to believe that there is anything of common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. This question, however, can remain for another time and would really require a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts of political discussion.

FOR THE PRESENT I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A weakness characteristic of human kind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve a single clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.

Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1551640880/ref=sip_pdp_dp_2

Thank you. Now, I really don't think this is a strong thesis statement. Do you? The comment was made that this fellow wrote the greatest argument ever against Machiavelli. Yet, unlike Rousseau and the American Founding Fathers, he doesn't seem to believe that the evil of tyranny has to be a necessary partof government.
Please. Tell me what is so wonderful about this essay? It is a long essay, yes. He is very intelligent, maybe. He probably has far more intelligence than I have in my little toe.

[Truth Warrior]

Thank you. Now, I really don't think this is a strong thesis statement. Do you? The comment was made that this fellow wrote the greatest argument ever against Machiavelli. Yet, unlike Rousseau and the American Founding Fathers, he doesn't seem to believe that the evil of tyranny has to be a necessary partof government.
Please. Tell me what is so wonderful about this essay? It is a long essay, yes. He is very intelligent, maybe. He probably has far more intelligence than I have in my little toe. Now, I really don't care what you think. :p :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Now, I really don't care what you think. :p :rolleyes:

Sometimes we forget that we don't begin reading at the beginning. We only glance at the beginning to isolate the thesis statement. The body of the essay is created to substantiate the thesis statement while the conclusion just restates it.

[Truth Warrior]

sometimes we forget that we don't begin reading at the beginning. We only glance at the beginning to isolate the thesis statement. The body of the essay is created to substantiate the thesis statement while the conclusion just restates it. < yawn!! >

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

< yawn!! >

Students tend to think they only need to isolate the thesis statement while in an English class. They then go to a history or government class and forget. But the rule is always the same. Either an essay has a thesis statement or it is a Chinese parable. Once the thesis statement is known, then the rest of the body of the essay is written to support the thesis statement while the conclusion restates it.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
by Étienne de la Boétie
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

Long but very worthwhile.<IMHO> :)

Enjoy!

Such brilliant web findings as this is one of the reasons you're one of my RPF heroes, TW! :D

[Truth Warrior]

Students tend to think they only need to isolate the thesis statement while in an English class. They then go to a history or government class and forget. But the rule is always the same. Either an essay has a thesis statement or it is a Chinese parable. Once the thesis statement is known, then the rest of the body of the essay is written to support the thesis statement while the conclusion restates it.

Thanks for your worthless post contribution AND for the OFF TOPIC thread bump.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Thanks for your worthless post contribution AND for the OFF TOPIC thread bump.

When posting an essay, a person should isolate the thesis statement for the reader while expressing their opinion on its main ideas. Perhaps the eloquent gentlemen kept his head on his shoulders because the King and the Catholic Church found that the essay lacked a clear thesis statement and main idea?

[Truth Warrior]

When posting an essay, a person should isolate the thesis statement for the reader while expressing their opinion on its main ideas. Perhaps the eloquent gentlemen kept his head on his shoulders because the King and the Catholic Church found that the essay lacked a clear thesis statement and main idea?
Perhaps. ;) :)

The essay was not originally widely read and disseminated, as I understand it.