While going about my business in the 2020s, I am often reminded of the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s rant – truly one of the greatest ever committed to paper – on the subject of being governed:
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.
What is interesting about this passage is that it is not so much the indoctrination, fleecing, clubbing, choking, etc., that gets Proudhon’s goat. Those things are bad enough, of course. But what really galls him is that the people doing it are so patently undeserving of occupying any position of authority. It’s one thing to be spied upon, drilled, commanded, abused, ridiculed and so on if the people doing it are paragons of excellence and have an impeccably rational justification for behaving as they do. It is quite another when these ‘creatures’ lack any wisdom or virtue – when they have so self-evidently attained their positions merely through having the right face, the right connections, and the right views, and from jumping through the right hoops and avoiding causing trouble.
This is the position in which we find ourselves in 2023 – our lives administered in ever more minute detail, and in ever more authoritarian ways, by people who have never really achieved much at all beyond playing the system and making the most of the strong hand which they have been dealt by circumstance (well-off parents; good school; good exam grades; good university and so on). We don’t need to name names: we can all think of a long list of examples of this kind of ‘creature’ and the insolence that they embody in imagining that they have earned any sort of right to impose on society a vision of how to live.
As in many things, this brings us back to Machiavelli. In the greeting to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai with which he introduces his Discourses, Machiavelli gives some very good general advice: “To judge aright,” he says, “One should esteem men because they are generous, not because they have the power to be generous; and in like manner, should admire those who know how to govern a kingdom, not those who, without knowing how, actually govern one.” Is there more to the matter than this? Political philosophy, and political science, should really boil down to the question of knowing how to actually govern, but so frequently comes down to a whole host of other tangential or immaterial concerns. What Machiavelli makes absolutely clear in this one remark is that there is often a huge gulf in quality between those who occupy positions of authority, and those who should; and “knowing how to actually govern” must by implication be the focus of much more of our attention in determining who should end up being in charge.
Machiavelli’s position – contrary to popular myth – was that it was more preferable for the populace to govern than a “prince”. This is simply because, as Machiavelli reminds us, “all do wrong”. Given the choice between republican rule (meaning self-governing rule by the people) and that of a prince (meaning rule by one man), the response is therefore obvious – individual members of the populace may do wrong but, in doing so, affect little; but when a prince does wrong, the consequences can be extremely grave. Put another way, power is best dispersed as much as possible via the ‘wisdom of crowds’, and concentrated power is best avoided (although there may be exceptional circumstances, such as war, where it is necessary).
Our societies have, it seems, chosen to adopt almost a diametrically opposite position to that advocated by Machiavelli. Our elites increasingly seem to believe that power is best concentrated within a relatively small group of ‘high information’ experts who can be trusted much more than the populace can to make the right decisions. Rather than accepting that ‘all do wrong’, they tend to take the view that actually it is the populace who tend to do wrong and the expert class who do right, and it is therefore best for all concerned if society is run along essentially technocratic lines. Thus we inhabit polities that much more closely resemble principalities than republics – governed by a relatively small ‘princely’ group who make decisions on our behalf.
Why has this happened?
At the centre of Machiavelli’s answer would I think be the concept of virtù, often mistranslated as ‘virtue’, but really more properly understood as something akin to ‘virtuosity’ or excellence. One who has virtù is one who has initiative, toughness, fortitude, discipline and competence – one who, in short, is capable of governing his or her own affairs in most circumstances. For Machiavelli, the ideal circumstance was one in which this quality was widespread among the populace. In such circumstances, where there is a robust citizenry imbued with virtù, society more or less runs itself as a self-governing republic; all it needs is a set of laws of general application in order to keep the peace and it will be self-sustaining. People will in short solve their problems for themselves, or in cooperation with others.
It follows that in circumstances in which the population lacks virtù, it may be appropriate for a ‘prince’ to rule (with the ultimate aim, Machiavelli makes clear, of restoring the conditions of a republic). This is not ideal, but may be necessary; the trite analogy would be the ‘prince-like’ rule of the Allies in occupied Germany after WWII, aimed at allowing virtù to flourish where it had been stamped out.
What Machiavelli does not spell out for the reader, but what I think he must surely have meant to imply, was therefore a theory of the circumstances in which ‘princely rule’ will arise, and particularly how it will emerge in what was previously a republic. In short, this will happen where those who are in positions of authority convince themselves that the population as a whole lacks virtù and that there is therefore a necessity for the experts to take charge. Since the population is incapable of self-government it is thus unfit for republican rule, and therefore the ‘princes’, who themselves alone embody virtù, have to put themselves in the driving seat.
Machiavelli therefore gives us a sensible theory for explaining how republics are corrupted into principalities: it may happen through force or revolution, but it is much more likely to be the case that it takes place when those who are in positions of power and influence decide for themselves that ordinary people lack virtù and that a group of technocrats must call the shots.
Does this not aptly describe our present predicament? A proliferating ‘new elite’ of overqualified, overeducated men and women who were born into relative privilege, did well in good schools and then at university, and who have been told all the way through life how clever and disciplined and wonderful they are, taking it upon themselves to boss around a population comprising people who they consider to be ignorant, stupid and incapable? This basic formula plays out all around us – from the lockdowns to ‘Net Zero’ to sugar taxes to EDI/DEI initiatives. At every turn we are treated as though we lack the necessary virtù, and need a cabal of princes to make sure we do the right thing.
In closing, of course, all that is needed is to connect the dots back to Proudhon. The manner in which we are governed, and its underlying rationale, is increasingly prince-like. It should hardly surprise us, then, that we are so poorly governed. The point bears belabouring: “it is beyond question that it is only in republics that the common good is looked to properly in that all that promotes it is carried out; [and] the opposite happens where there is a prince”. Where power is dispersed, good will follow. Where it is concentrated, there will be decline. There is nothing much more to add: those who ‘know how to actually govern’ are we, the people, ourselves, and we should expect bad results when this basic truth is forgotten.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. This article was first published on his substack News from Uncibal, which you can subscribe to here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So let me get this right: it’s OK to blow the enemy into small pieces with a tank.
But it has to be done in an environmentally friendly, net-zero way.
Tanks have always been prone to brewing up when hit. Seems to me, given the experience with EVs that risk is multiplied by around 10, possibly even given a hit from a modest hand held weapon.
It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen today, in a crowded field.
Oh yes, and how many of us have any faith at all in the competence and freedom from corruption of MoD procurement?
Hmm thought not.
Are the latest high explosive tank shells environmentally friendly? I’d hate to think my country was polluting the environment (while killing people)
Armour piercing shells more often use depleted Uranium (DU) whose density is such that the shell has nearly 70% more kinetic energy than a lead projectile of same size. From Wikipedia “The actual level of acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also controversial. Several studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure. According to an article in Al Jazeera, DU from American artillery is suspected to be one of the major causes of an increase in the general mortality rate in Iraq since 1991. A 2005 epidemiology review concluded “In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU.”
An electric tank is a superb idea
Better reliability
Easy maintenance
Quick replenishment – slide battery pack out, slide new one in….and away.
Simpler, less vulnerable logistics
Survivability via system redundancy, several separate electric motors.
Lower heat signature
Improved mobility, acceleration
Deep fording capability
Only one problem – sufficiently reliable, quick charging and reasonably light battery technology does not yet exist.
But, apart from that, quite brilliant.
Or not really………
Or you could fit them with solar panels and make them self sufficient solar powered, you would just have to re-negotiate the rules of war, compulsory ceasefire on dull gloomy days.
And compulsory ceasefire on most sunny days, too.
Nah, big windmills on the roof. A devil to hide in a ditch though.
Paint them camo green!
Just ask the enemy to wait for a day or two until the sun comes out!
They could put a windmill on the top for when the sun isn’t shining.
They could play football while they’re waiting for the tanks to charge up!
And a windmill on top to take over on gloomy days.
You almost had me there, Monro
But seriously, yes, if the weight and charging issues could be solved (I don’t believe they ever will be) an electric tank would be an improvement. A big improvement.
I am waiting for the best mix of CVT and traditional gearbox (with ICE powerplant, obviously). It’s entering exhaustive user acceptance testing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mWJHI7UHuys
One small additional problem – er, ammunition? Tanks need ammo, if they’re going to be effective, and the only carbon-friendly ammunition I’m familiar with are arrows or the rocks that terrorist are said to be fond of deploying in close combat roles in battle. But they’re not very effective against conventional carbon-belching enemy tanks. But that’s just me being picky.
Get real, you idiots.
You could fire the depleted batteries at the enemy and this would reduce your own catastrophic fire risk when you did run out of power.
Thanks for that link – interesting! What would we do without engineers? All we need to do is let them get on with solving actual problems that need solving.
You’ve hit the point right there… ‘actual problems’ vs stupid and pointless made up virtue signalling one’s that don’t actually make FA difference (apart from getting some senior bod a gold star from the people that run the world)
wonder how many EV chargers there are across the desert or in the mountain ranges
And in a war situation, where would the battery packs be recharged,
Solar? Wind? Wind seems to be the most likely given the average squaddies propensity for gaseous discharge after a week on compo rations. ‘Nah then, nah then! Line up, drop your keks and fart into this little tube to recharge the battery things’. It could work.
Will charging stations be installed on battle-fields?
Most of that is a good idea – bolt a generator to bloody big diesel and perhaps a small battery, and it could work well, with no recharging – a hybrid tank! The weight issue tends not to be such a problem with a 70 ton tank already…
What next, solar powered hand grenades and vegan bullets?
“Sarge, we need an extension lead. ”
FFS!
“[electric tanks would reduce] the supply chain vulnerability of liquid fuel”
Nonsense. The National Grid is far more fragile and vulnerable to attack than lots of self contained fuel tanks distributed over multiple bases.
One of the many beauties of liquid “fossil” fuel is that you only need a plastic or metal bottle to store it safely and for the long term, in as large or small a quantity as you wish, wherever you wish, and you can move it at a moment’s notice.
That’s the end of western defence.
An EV tank with a big battery is going to ‘cook off’ quite spectacularly.
saving the planet one genocide at a time
Hit one electric vehicle and take out the whole base! Perfect
So let me get this right, the Government is buying electric tanks which are used in battle fields wherby one set of people try to kill and destroy the people of another territory, country, using bombs, artillery, missiles and nuclear devices, all of which cause death, destruction, pollution and lots and lots of nasty gasses and chemicals into the atmosphere intended to cause death. BUT meanwhile they are helping to save the planet by one less litre of diesel at a time.
God give me strength these people are beyond stupid!
No doubt the same set of morons who believe preventing farts will clean up the planet, can I suggest the Government issues itself, its advisors and all civil servants with corks or butt plugs as it appears the amount of hot air issued from their backsides beats anything the worlds cow population can produce.
To these people, tanks are just government owned and staffed vehicles driving around in Britain. This means they obviously suggest themselves as further vehicles for turning Britain into a clean energy soup power and – that’s the important bit – the guys who want to sell the EVs pay the MPs supposed to implement this plan.
Nothing of this is anyhow for real. It’s just about pour £££ down drain for as long as we physically can.
The money for this comedy is not being poured down the drain it is being directed upwards and ultimately in to the pockets of people like Finky at Blackrock. This activity is all about draining taxpayers pockets. Immiseration in other words. All part of the plan.
I doubt that there’s much of a plan behind this beyond abusing our optimzied-for-corruption so-called representative democracy to fleece taxpayers as hard as they can be fleeced.
Reward the wrong things and you get these crazy behaviours…
Sod disadvantage; how about getting us killed. Dead, off the twig! Kicking the bucket, shuffling off ‘is mortal coil, running down the curtain and joining the bleedin’ choir invisible!
I say us, although I haven’t been in since 1987. MOD were shit then but not as bad as this. Scum!
We are performing seals for China.
I think you have all nailed this mental bollocks but I need to vent & if I get blocked it’s worth the risk ! Soz Tobes!! – this is possibly the most insane rubbish ever
This must come under the scope of TREASON to deliberately cripple your armed forces ability to defend the nation.
Not just loons but EVIL loons.
Much more sensible to put a wind turbine on top of the gun turret. That way soldiers and other tanks would know exactly where they were. The enemy……..oh.
The race to the bottom is battery powered.
The UK will only fight against low carbon enemy’s. —-We are governed by imbeciles that have lost the plot entirely and think the only thing that is important in the whole world emissions, while most of the rest of the world could not give a shit about that.
Pathetic!
Let me see, a tank is heavy, has tracks, and needs to travel 200 miles in a day at 50 MPH. 500 litres of diesel should do that OK. That is about 2 MWhrs of energy. A battery (lithium of course) to store this would weigh about 20 tons, which would need another 1MWhr to move it with the tank, so would have to weigh 30 tons, etc. Does this sound completely impossible to you, because it does to me! Oh and you would need 750 litres of diesel in the generator to charge it up at the destination. So green…. and the crew would not be happy sitting very close to that bomb either.
Excellent approach The Real Engineer. I see too few using numbers to define real performance before coming out with unsupported nonsense. Our main battle tank,a Challenger 2, looks even worse. Weighing in at 65-75 tonnes and carries 1590 litres of diesel to travel a mere 160 miles off-road. Thats about 7.1MWh.developed by the V12 diesel for a fuel load of 1.3 tonnes.
To match that energy capacity would need around 80 Tesla Model X batteries ( capacity 90kWh and 535kg) weighing an extra 43 tonnes. The tracks which already occupy 37 % of the width of the vehicle would need to be nearly 60% wider again to maintain a ground pressure that avoids the tank sinking in soft ground. The tank cannot be made much wider so the small volume available for the batteries is almost eliminated. Oh, and the range is reduced by about 45-50 miles.
As to “….they added: “Never say never.”” I think ” never ever” is more likely.
British General, pointing at a map: “The enemy is vulnerable here. There’s a small window of opportunity. We need the tanks to quickly push an advance at X point. Give the Orders …. Advance NOW.”
Batman. “Yes Sir. We’re just charging them up; it’ll take about 10 hours to get them all done.”
This is hilarious. Or it would be, if this was the subject of a satirical film. Instead, it is a reminder of just how insane the previous conservative, and current Labour governments are.