Take it To The Book

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is both pleased, and occasionally shocked, by the news stories being run surrounding the death of Pope John Paul II.

In a story that is far from shocking, he reads that there are lots of people (in Ireland at least) laying odds on who will be the next Pope.

Allow your Maximum Leader to make a (half-way serious) prediction. He thinks the next Pope will be…..

<drumroll>
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger of Germany, current Dean of the College of Cardinals, and head of the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
</drumroll>

And Cardinal Ratzinger will take the papal name Pius XIII.

Carry on.

It’s Tax Deductable!

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader directs those of you who have a little disposable income to go over to Kathy’s site and make her day. She is a worthy cause and quite deserving.

NB: After conferring with his counsel, your Maximum Leader should state on the record that the title of this post does not actually imply that donations to Kathy’s site are, according to the IRS, tax deductable. It is a teaser people! It is to induce you to click through to Kathy’s site and do what your heart (and your Maximum Leader) tell you to do.

Carry on.

Just To Make You Jealous…

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doesn’t want to rub it in, but as has recently been reported, he did attend the The Hatemonger’s Quarterly “Self-Inflicted Tatoos of Destiny and Desire” party. And it is true that your Maximum Leader did have as his escort the lovely and oh-so-desireable Sadie. (Your Maximum Leader left Mrs. Villain and the Villainettes in the company of the Irish Lad for the night. You know, Sadie and your Maximum Leader… Sometimes we need our… Space.)

Anyho…

Reports of his passing out cards reading “Nakedvillainy: It’ll make you go partially blind.” are not entirely accurate. It was really a warning card. It read “Watch out for the Everclear punch, It’ll make you go blind.” Your Maximum Leader figured it was a public service…

Your Maximum Leader thanks the Crack Young Staff (special thanks to “Chip”) for the invite. Next time we have a shindig at the Villainschloss - the whole staff will be invited. (And you will not even have to sit in the corner with the famous Villainschloss dwarves.)

Carry on.

Happy Birthday, Thomas!

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader will be celebrating today. Celebrating the anniversary of the birth of his favourite philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was born this day in 1588.

To mark this day, your Maximum Leader will repost a Hobbes post he did two years ago…

Thomas Hobbes was born in April 1588. His premature birth to a Vicar’s wife in Westport (near Malmesbury), Gloucestershire, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I coincided with the threat of the Spanish Armada. Hobbes was later to comment that his mother gave birth to twins “myself and fear” that year.

Thomas’ father died when Thomas was young, and the young Hobbes was sent to live with a nearby uncle. Eventually, Hobbes left his uncle and secured an education at Oxford. He became a mathematics tutor to the powerful Cavendish family (who were the Earl’s of Devonshire), and eventually a tutor to Charles Stuart (later King Charles II of Great Britain).

Hobbes’ first published work was a translation of Thucydides “History of the Peloponnesian War.” He also published a number of mathematical treatises. But, for the sake of this blog, your Maximum Leader will focus on Hobbes’ political treatise, “Leviathan.” Hobbes published a number of political tracts, but they are all variations on the same set of political beliefs. Of these “Leviathan” is both best known, and most comprehensive.

In “Leviathan,” Hobbes creates a logical model of human nature, the nature of consent to government, and the authority of government. His opening chapters set out in detail the physiological elements of human action. While they are dated by our thinking today, they still accurately depict the modus operandi of human activity. It is when Hobbes begins to discuss human motivation that he begins in earnest his philosophical discourse.

To Hobbes, man is motivated by “appetites” and “aversions.” We act to acquire things we desire, and seek to avoid thing we do not desire or will cause us harm. Human appetites are constant, insatiable, and vary in degree from man to man. Man, therefore, has the power to act of his own accord to satisfy his appetites and avoid his aversions. Man acts to bring the greatest possible good to himself, using the means and methods at his disposal. In order to bring the greatest possible good to himself, man must acquire power over others.

To Hobbes there are two types of power, original (also called natural) power, and instrumental (also called acquired) power. Original power is that power that comes from the man himself. His physical strength is the clearest examples of a man’s original, or natural, power. But also considered an original power is man’s intellect and brain-power (if you will). Instrumental powers are those that flow from their acquisition. They include money, fame, reputation, and everyone’s favourite, God’s favour (or good luck as we might call it).

Having established the nature of man, and defined man’s power, Hobbes starts to get really interesting. He asserts that the exercise or acquisition of power by one man naturally hinders or limits the exercise or acquisition of power by another man. Given that man’s appetites are insatiable; this puts man in an uncomfortable position of always being at odds with other men.

Hobbes then begins to postulate on the nature of the state. First he envisions the state of nature. That i the condition where there is no state or governmental structure that will confine the passions of individual men. That state is the condition of war by all against all. Or to use the famous quotation:

In such condition there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, the continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

Of course, no man wants this kind of life. Man has an appetite for life, and the acquisition of power. Man is also a rational creature and will seek to avoid violent death. This rational aversion to death, is essentially man’s natural right. By limiting the extent to which a man will use his power over other men, he will, himself, enter a state of peace with other men. This is the essence of Hobbes’ social contract. All men, seeing the benefits of peace with other men, will voluntarily, or tacitly as the case may be, limit his own freedom to do whatever he will to whomever he will.

Of course, when one enters into a contract (by agreement, assent, or in the case of man in society - by birth) one is obliged or bound to agree to the terms of the contract. Once a man ceases to be obliged or bound, the fabric of the contract begins to erode, and the state of nature will arise.

Hobbes, at this point, constructs a model of a sovereign state. While he may have seemed to profess a preference for monarchy, closer reading of “Leviathan” shows that a parliamentary system would also be perfectly acceptable. For Hobbes the institutions of the sovereign state are not quite as important as the role of the sovereign state. The first job of the state is to protect the property of its citizens. As every man has a significant interest in the property of his own body, the protection of the lives of men is the most important role of a state. After protection of the body, protection of a man’s riches (possessions) and his means of living are the chief functions of the state. And a state that preserves a man’s life and property is, ultimately, a just state.

Within the context of the state, men have different obligations, based on their different appetites and abilities. Generally, those with more are bound to support the state more. Hobbes describes, for example, a tax code by which those with more pay more, based on how much he consumes in society. (Taxes, for Hobbes, are the price you pay for your very life.) Hobbes also establishes a system of justice based on contracts and rule of law.

Hobbes spends considerable energy in “Leviathan” discussing Scripture. Many facile and superficial readers of “Leviathan” assume that he is doing this to reinforce the authority of the state. Ergo: God orders you to obey legitimate civil authority, therefore one must always obey the dictates of the state. But this is not Hobbes’ goal. He uses Scripture, in many cases, to support his revolutionary idea of a state that gets is legitimate authority to rule, not from God, but from the consent of the governed. A common misinterpretation of Hobbes’ work is that he was justifying the Divine Right of Kings to rule. He was not. He wouldn’t have gone through such an elaborate explanation of the nature of man and the causes of a state to then fall back on Romans 13.

Hobbes’ great work, “Leviathan” details much more about the nature of the state, just rule, and the nature of man. But alas, this medium (the blog) doesn’t always lend itself to a lengthy exposition on a single topic. Your Maximum Leader wanted to take a moment and expound a little on this great man, who very much influenced his political thought.

If my minions would like to know more about Hobbes, and how his thought is still very much applicable to our imes, let me know. Your Maximum Leader will expound further.

Carry on.

Thoughtful Post On Gay Marriage

Better Words Than Mine

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader can admit when he is outdone.

The Velocigod has spoken.

Carry on.

John Paul II - RIP

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader is genuinely saddened by the death of John Paul II. He has been conflicted about what he should write on the subject. So, if this post doesn’t seem to go anywhere, well, consider yourself forwarned.

I am, as you may know, 35 years old. This means that John Paul II has been the leader of the Roman Catholic church for the great majority of my life. Indeed, I remember the death of Paul VI, the election of John Paul I, the death of John Paul I, and the election of John Paul II. That period was both interesting and exciting for a young boy. A young boy who was Catholic, an altar boy, and generally fascinated by the pomp, mystery, and tradition of it all.

I went with my grandmother and tried to see the Pope during his visit to Washington DC in 1979 (or 80 - don’t recall specifically). I have to say I remember crowds and lots of pushing and praying - but I can’t recall seeing the Pope except on television.

I’ve always had a great deal of respect for John Paul. Both as a religious leader and a world leader. Stalin may have joked about how many divisions did Pius XII have; but Yuri Andropov, Constintine Chernyenko, Mikhail Gorbachev, and General Jarwozulski found out that a Pope didn’t necessarially need to have any army divisions to be a force for change.

If you look at the period of the early 1980’s you have a remarkable confluence of three people who really changed the course of human history. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John Paul II. The life’s work of these three great people brought down the communist empire and brought on the new age in which we live today.

I’ve read somewhere that John Paul was being described as one part rock star and two parts St. Paul. That may be a more apt description tan it might look on the surface. John Paul had the charisma and panache needed to harness the communications revolution that took place during his papacy. But at his core he was definately a Pauline. His theology, as you have no doubt heard, was conservative. Pauline insomuch as he stuck with the hard line (like the Paulines did against the Petrines in the early days of the church).

His conservative theology never bothered me. Indeed, if anything it was attractive to me. I was raised Catholic. And even after my parents stopped going to church, I went. I waited until much later in my life to recieve the Sacrament of Confirmation (my 20s as opposed to my teens - it meant more to me and I better understood the whats and whys of Confirmation). I stayed with the church for a long time. I can’t say that I am a good Catholic now. I’ve had some little epiphanies of my own which have changed the overall framework of my personal beliefs. I stopped going to church a few years ago. But, just in the past few months, I’ve started to go back to church. And I’m attending a Catholic church. It appears as though I remain rooted in my own, and the church’s, tradition. I can’t say that my little epiphanies have been undone, they haven’t, but I think that going to church has a healthy influence on me.

John Paul II’s theology has been the source of constant discussion around my house. Mrs. Villain said yesterday that the next Pope should go ahead and change some of those silly stances on birth control and women priests to make the church more popular. To which I responded that it isn’t about being popular, it is about being true to your convictions. The theology John Paul II promulgated was the faith of his convictions. John Paul II was a true believer. Sure other good, honest, and contemplative Catholics might reach differing conclusions on points of doctrine; but they were not the guy in charge.

To John Paul II being a Christian (at least a Catholic Christian) was hard work. That is something with which I agree completely. It is hard to be a Christian. Turning the other cheek is hard. Escpecially if you know that kicking someone’s ass might get you further. Living a modest and humble life is hard - if you are exceptional compared to others. Having free will and taking right choices is hard when easy choices are available and open. I firmly believe that John Paul II lived his life as a constant example of what he believed to be right behaviour. I know I’ve taken many bad choices and done things at odds with good Christian behaviour. And I know that I could do better. John Paul II showed us the path he believed would help us do better. And in a world beset with all sorts of moral relativism, John Paul played an important role.

So, I am sad that another icon of my youth has passed. But, I am glad that John Paul’s earthly suffering has ended. I am confident that the Pope has gone to his reward. It was interesting, last night I found myself falling into the mode of a Catholic I was saying prayers by rote for the soul of John Paul. When I realized what I was doing I stopped for a moment. I focused my thoughts for a second; then started again. The prayers may be rote, but I think I was able to add some serious contemplation of my own.

Carry on.

No Fooling! Congrats To Bill

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader doffs his bejeweled floppy hat to his loyal minion Bill of Bill’s Comments. Today is Bill’s big first blogoversary (or First Anniversary of Blogging - if you prefer).

Your Maximum Leader makes it a point to check Bill’s blog daily (and sometimes more than once daily). It is always a treat to do so. Indeed, just recently Bill placed your Maximum Leader in the stellar company of Dr. Vallicella. Admittedly it was not in the intellectual company of the good Dr, but in his culinary company. (But the company is enough.)

Thank you Bill for one great year. And my best wishes for many many more.

Carry on.

    About Naked Villainy

    • maxldr

    Villainous
    Contacts

    • E-mail your villainous leader:
      "maxldr-blog"-at-yahoo-dot-com or
      "maximumleader"-at-nakedvillainy-dot-com

    • Follow us on Twitter:
      at-maximumleader

    • No really follow on
      Twitter. I tweet a lot.

Giving megalomania a bad name since 2003.

    Villainous Commerce

    Villainous Sponsors

      • Get your link here.

      Villainous Search