Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

The Treatise on Greed and

the Qualities of an

Exemplary Statesman
By Hanz Kyle M. Velez

For Polsci 71 Under Professor Maria Editha B. Enumerabellon


Introduction

Political systems are always in evolution just as the tides and the sand they are ever shifting

transforming from one thing to another undistinguishable object. Such is the nature of political

systems it enables swift adjustments for the prevailing good of the citizenry and most of all the

state. But what brings forth the origins if the state how did it come to being from the chaotic

pecking order of the great apes to the sophisticated systems that are in place. Human nature is

practically governed by three primordial components, Necessity, Reason and lastly Belief. It is

these core components which govern human reason and best embody what a man must carry

in order to succeed in this politically chaotic world. But firstly let us first look into the origin of

such thoughts and their implicatons and processes in the vicious uncontrollable cycle called life.

Let us begin with the first and most powerful mouthpiece of life “Necessity” while the three

may have only few differences between each other, the yoke of necessity is significant due to

its primacy in our daily life. “Necessity” is the raw rational process which provides the thoughts

and aspirations of survivalism, thoughts like i am hungry, i have to drink, i need shelter and so

on. Whereas the process in which one satiates one’s needs through the life and blood of others

is the principle of “Greed”. The principle of Greed dictates that to act upon necessity one must

deprive others of resources, mates and fulfillment of their own basic needs. While the

permissive thoughts of such beliefs are wrong based on the established cultural indoctrination

necessarily Greed is never evil it is only an output of necessity.

Reason on the other hand deals with the most advanced development of the human mind

wherein man is seperated from any living being for his ability to differentiate the plausible and
the improbable hence being able to determine what is logically right from what is illogical. With

this faculty of thought man stepped from the shadows and into the light of enlightenwent

which under the influence of necessity led to the birth of clans, nations, weapons and so on.

With reason he can discern tha favorability of his conditions and those attached to him as a

whole, for it is with reason that he distinguishes his family from another family and his friend

from foe.

Belief unlike the two arises is codependent upon the two prior components it is either the

byproduct of higher logical reasoning of the mind or the byproduct of the lesser illogical

thoughts, conversely it could be a product of the minimal side of necessity whereas it could also

be the hedonistic side of the necessity taken to the extremes. Hence Belief is the most

complicated of the three components it dances and sways with the various thoughts of those

who weild it and encapsulates the various unyielding thoughts of humanity despite it being

an immaterial resource. Belief becomes a immaterial resource for belief can be manipulated in

order to further the ambitions and moves of a cause. By instilling the seeds of warped reason

and feeding it with illogical necessity that breeds irrational action, Belief can equip peaceful

people into a warlike mob bent on bloodshed.

With these three components Mankind developed from the uneducated and uncivilized savage

that he was to the highly sophisticated creature he came to be. But it begs the question, of the

three which was first in the development of humanity? Was it the doctrine of Necessity? The

Rationality and logic of Reason? Or the prevalent and unrelenting force that is Belief?

Nevertheless Humanity developed due to these three major components and these three still
take center stage even today. Let us then open our minds to the sound of reason, necessity and

belief. In order to better understand the treaty of Greed.

Necessity

Long before the rise of nations and states the world was a bestial and simple place ruled by the

law of necessity and greed. Humankind was still animalistic defined by her core nature of take

and take, wherein the primordial form of man acted upon the greed wrought about by his

necessity in an indiscriminate uncalculated manner without seeing into the possible outcomes

of his actions. In this stage man due to him being a social animal existed as small singular family

units bent on proactive defense against the forces of nature, wherein he was exposed to

predation, natural disasters and change in habitat.

The Rise of civilization

Civilization as we all know was never a byproduct of higher reasoning and the development of

belief. But prior to that what was life like? If one were to study prehistory the most ancient

component of nature would be Necessity long before the rise of reason and belief it has

dominated the lives of all living beings to the first ancestral bacterium to the highly evolved

great ape. Life before the rise of reason was governed by Greed, due to almost all creatures

competing against each other and doing what they see is necessary in order to keep themselves

fully functional. This greed also corresponds not only to resources but also privelages like

mates, territory and power. Due to this rampant survivalism only the fittest, smartest and most

advanced creature were able to mate and survive hence setting the stage for humanity. Due to
the dangers that the ancestral human faced he eventually formed family groups as opposed to

the solitary life.

As knowledge was transmitted from one generation to another man slowly acquired the

component that became later known as reason. With this new found reason man was able to

form more highly organized groups, craft weapons as a means of self defense, and enable

themselves to be more highly efficient in food gathering. While reason enabled the specific

necessities of man to be satisfied, some individuals because of the state of lawlessness started

to engage in behaviour that was against the collective Greed of the group. These behaviors

were regarded with displeasure and hence were frowned upon by the collective community

hence the establishment of Belief.

Now these specific beliefs would eventually later on evolve into a more stratified form of beliefs

called Norms. These so called Norms enabled the community to repress these unwanted

behaviors and as such establish a rigid system of control over their individuals. This control

limited the violence that always coincided with every individuals greed, hence needless

violence was resolved through the faculty of reason. As violence was displaced in the personage

of man a structure later on evolved, these structures evolved from the ancient natural behavior

of seniority wherein individuals through force or experience led the collective group. Ancient

natural behavior later evolved into a more complicated system wherein Leaders were created

in order to better decide for the collective good for the community. These leaders had to be

individuals who were the smartest, strongest and the most prestigous amongst the group.

These leaders eventually through their deeds established a new form of belief that was to

called a Cult.
These Cults were later further developed to give heirachal authority to the leader and to

extand his powers beyond leadership to command over life and death. Some of these leaders

then created supernatural beings as to placate the fears of their collective group towars

unexplained phenomena hence the birth of the belief system called Gods. Through these Gods

the leaders became the prime medium or they chose to appoint certain people tasked with

appeasing these so called Gods. Implications of rule may vary but one thing was certain the

leaders who made use of Gods formalized their construct through religion. And religion

dictated that these respective leaders where appointed or given by the Gods to rule over their

fellow men in their stead hence becoming irremovable and utterly beyond the control of the

original collective group. These leaders who were established through their divine right became

knows as the first kings of the world.

These kings later on made use of the established norms and religion modifying them into a set

of strict rational and definitive constructs that limited the rights of fellow beings hence the birth

of Laws. Laws as were defined by aristotle is “Reason, devoid of passion” in a sense he was

right laws indeed had no passion but laws also were devoid of morality. They embodying their

creators designs and machinations. With the existence of laws the previously unowned

resources became substatcually possesed by others. As laws enabled concepts of ownership

and of the belief in idividuality while being rendered codependent on the hierarchal society set

by the kings. The once equally distributed forces were later split up in an uneven ratio between

those who were favoured by the king his nobles and those who were unlucky to be of no

acquaintance to him. This system produced a highly opressive society which entailed that those
with lesser standing with the king would be dependent on him and his nobles rule and

protection.

This state of rule was highly volatile as commoner could rise to nobility and royalty was

deposed in favor of more outstanding leaders. The rise of deposition paved the way for a more

rational society as more and more people became aware of the massive controlling attempts of

religion and the king. These individuals more often than not, were members of the nobility,

some of them however were of the peasant class, idividuals with an overdeveloped sense of

reason these people came to be the philosophers. The philosophers were not always looked

upon with merit by rulers as they brought with them ideas that challenged the established

belief and reason. Being the rabblerousers of their time many of the were persecuted while

others were heard by their rulers. Due to the discontentment of many towards the opressive

system set by the monarchs, the populace enlightened by the philosophers regressed to an

advanced form of that collective group leadership that was ever so prevalent in the past. Hence

the birth of the system of Democracy.

Democracy dictated the rule of the many wherein even the poorest farmer could voice his

concerns amongst the thoughts of the nobility. But even this system had its very own flaws that

canceled out its merits. Due to the democratic “rule of the majority” chaos ensued as the

majority made up of the poor and opressed were also consequently made up mostly of

illiterates. As these people grabbed power and shifted it around, their decisions come to

endanger the collective group which had known evolved to a state of advancement called

Society. Society was dominated by desire as opposed to reason hence the collective greed of

individuals was never realzied and what occured was the consistent clash of the individual
greeds of all those in society. This phenomena ruptured the class system until constitutional

government was enacted to supress the faults of the democratic mistake.

The constitutional government was based on a military government wherein the flaws of

democracy were supressed by a code of strict laws which limited the individual greeds of the

citizenry once more. With these rational and legal based government everyone got their fair

share of the wealth that poured out from their state. Law enabled man to become better and

rise above his station under the pretext of equity man thrived in the constituional government.

However irregardless of the favourability of such a system elements of the old still existed and

wanted their own chance at power. Hence the previous nobility with all their wealth and power

eventually deposed and established their own set of rule where they felt that they the most

educated class should rule, hence the rise of aristocracy.

Aristocracy being made up of the select at first was pleasant as it contained the finest minds of

the society. The system they set up which favours other nobles was not as oppressive as those

of the monarchy. But as with everything that is under the grasp of human nature the individual

greeds of the nobiity eventually won over. Transforming the once decently just aristocracy to a

highly opressive and unliberating oligarchy. With their collective rule the populace was strained

by the burdens of their extravagance, the wealthy enriching themselves and the poor only

getting worse. In such a system the masses once again with the establishment of their collective

reasoning as in their past experience with king Deposed the oligarchs thus ensuring the

repetition of the vicious cycle of Monarchy, Democracy, Aristocracy. With the cycle complete

many societies had formed significant identities that enabled them the oppurtunity to consider

all those in their land as kin hence the birth of States and the rise of the early social contract.
The early social contract differs from the one John Locke proposed as it was far more crude and

simplistic in its ventures. Focusing far more on the adressing of the due rewards of those who

were in the position of workers as opposed to the wellbeing of the social spectrum of Locke’s

theory. The early social contract was plain and simple those who ruled regardless of monarchy,

Aristocracy or a democracy must sustain the needs of the people. Should the ruler or system

fail to do so the populace could go into two choices, either withdraw support and pledge theirs

to another ruler or system, or simply take power into their own hands and lead a rebellion of

massive scale thus shifting power back into the hands of the populace. This simplistic social

contract ensured that states had to meet the demands of the public lest they are ousted out of

power. This social contract would later on go hand in hand with the acquisition of knowledge by

the populace, and would serve to further the development of states.

With the establishment of knowledge of the systems that all human beings had undergone the

collective identity of human beings decided what ever system would suit their specific states.

These so called states arose in cities hence the birth of city states wherein the city controlled a

significant amount of territory and firmly defended it from enterlopers lest it lose its power.

States were composed of 4 components, sovereignity, territory, a population and government.

All city states had each of those respectively city’s who did not have their own sovereignity

eventually became protectorates of those established city states with these cities becoming

eventually part of the territory of the state and its people initially being absorbed into the

collective identity of the state which became known as culture.

Culture defined the identity of the nation, it had strict measure of beliefs that overstretched the

reason of law. For these cultural beliefs while beyond the demands of reason were certainly
were the main centerpiece that held this specific people despite their own personal belief. As

cultural beliefs are indoctrinated mass, pumped and conditioned into a young mind, Due to the

prevalence of such belief child in question rationalizes that what is practiced by many is

necessarily the right form of belief. Hence with these cultural and cognitive bias that their

culture is superior to others and their outlandish preference for it, the rise of nationalism was

evident. With which states would be able to exercise control over their own specific ppopulace

and mobilize it in defense of the ideals and goals of the state.

Nationalism was the cornerstone of power for the fledgling states with no form of professional

army, it was the primary means of defense against conquest by other states and their attempt

to undermine the states defenses. A nationalistic state would entail the loyalty of its citizenry

thus ensuring that all support is always afforded by the state, and should the state which to levy

troops it would have a constant supply of eager volunteers willing to protect the states

interests. This Nationalistic fervor also made sure that agents who were educated would be less

likely to defect, as abandonment of the state would result in grave dishonour for the traitor and

his relatives in question. Nationalism also brought forth a considerably more powerful

diplomatic position, since as opposed to the appealing to numerous cultural leaders states were

dealing specifically with the representatives of all those people. Nationalism thus is the arm

strength of the state, forged from the faculty of her respective bodies.

And with these advancements fledgling states became nations, and these respective nations or

kingdoms slowly transformed into empires. As with the passage of time countless forms of

statemanship rose up to fit the needs of the particular state, whether culturally, spiritually,

militarily and so on. As time and time again has proven states who were unwilling to change
were eventually swallowed up by those more flexible states. Hence all states and political

systems are in constant motion always developing and establishing better ways of government,

National defense, Public health, Equal rights and the list just goes on. Therefore all states have

to be flexible enough to adjust to political climate of their respective era, while also respecting

and learning from the past mistakes of other states. States should also be centered on the

construct of a form of government wherein the populace and the needs of the state go hand in

hand in the form of a social contract. As such no ideal system of government exists as each

system’s effectivity depends on the people in power. Hence with these fulfillments civilization

arose and led into the states we have today.


The Philippine State

The Philippines as a state is special as with all states but what makes it all so extraordinary is its

sytem of rule. The philippines was colonized by the spanish and the americans. And naturally

this created a government and a culture that is firmly entrenched in colonialism. Wherein the

common Pilipino does not grasp the efforts of his countrymen and by selective bias always opt

towards foreign goods believing in their superiority through years of indoctrination. This proves

to be our nations downfall as the belief in our own arms is severely underestimated and

degraded thus lowering our own productivity. Colonialism has all brought with it a barrage of

rational views on running the country this naturally creates a divide wherein east clashes with

west and those in the middle clash with the other powers as well, effectively canceling their

influences out. The root problem however is that almost all business men in the country

operate in a state of unecessary greed wherein they take more than what is deemed necessary

for their subsistence. Because of this imbalance in greed, majority of the country lies below the

middle class and must earn out a living in a highly competitive world. When the people are

beyond the means of a good education his reason is underdeveloped and severely biased,

which in the long run causes problems in alleviating the social position of man in the country.

And repeating the brutal cycle which obstructs the development of the country as a highly

developed and powerful state.

Hence the Philippine state can be considered a fledgling state due to its over reliance on foreign

influence and its highly marginalized economy. With its string of unrelenting opressive policies

in regards to land reform, little progress is being made. While the country has a highly capable

work force this work force is negatated due to the prevalent system which in job competition is
tampered in by corruption and a patronage system. Hence rendering the most competent

workforce useless with most aiming for greener pastures abroad. Divisions in culture and

idealogy also becomes an obstacle for progress as disunity is apparent due slights by previous

administration towards certain groups hence fueling a heated clash of beliefs and biases that go

against the necessary unity for nationalism. With a oppressive economic system , cultural

conflict and the lacking of nationalism the philippines is prone to be a non progressive state

should the right measures not be taken on at the right time.

The Traits of an Exemplary Statesman

Every state must have a fitting ruler in order for its needs and interests to be put forth into

motion. Each state needs a specific ruler in mind, what necessarily works for one will not

necessarily work for another. But in general the head of state should be first and for most an

Exemplary statesman. A farmer put into the place of head of state will simply have no idea

regarding the comings and goings of trade, politics, warfare and even his knowledge in

agriculture will most likely be limited to what he understands from his own experiences. Hence

to give the state to those who are not fit to rule them will lead to chaos, as a sheep who rules

over wolves will soon find it self being devoured by his subjects. A ruler hence should be one of

fitting station, one who must be educated in most manner quite akin to plato’s the philosopher

king. While not necessarily as grand and intelligent as the philosopher king any statesman who

best embodies the general knowledge of all the affairs of his country is gifted with an enormous

advantage as opposed to those who simply specialize only in some. Statesmanship after all

comes with knowledge , awareness and a solid sense of reason. For more often than not many

unreasonable, unknowledgable and unaware leaders had plunged their own countries and
kingdoms into ruin through their pathetic leadership. And any leader who does not embody

such traits should easily be discarded as a candidate.

A leader must all so be popular with the masses, in history many kings and statesmen have

often fallen into such unfavourable conditions but due to the loyalty of the populace they

managed to stay a float. A leader therefore must always have the support of the people in

order to further the nations agenda. As a leader who lacks the love and support of his people

will regress to periods of unproductivity as public opinion will scathe all his carefully layed out

plans. However a leader who carries with him the love and respect of the majority will more

often than not have numerous policies, as regardless of his actions the people’s loyalty will

secure the legitimacy of his actions thus allowing to make more sucessive moves despite the

pressure of those against him. In the philippine setting few leaders have the undevided total

support of the majority, one of these would be Magsaysay and the Incumbent Duterte. If one

were to look at the progress of their rule as opposed to others who struggled with control.

Theirs is a more active and reactive system which propagated movement not just in

Government but also in the citizenry it self. To better achieve the unity of the nation a practical

unmarried leader should marry into the Sultan of sulu’s family. Why this you ask? By uniting all

sides of the country the christian majority and the Islamic majority, one would be able to pacify

the problem of insurgency and gain enough popularity with the masses by resolving all

conflicts. And with the pacification of the insurgents in this country the state can turn its

interests to other crucial fields of attention that necessarily empowers and feeds it to the

hghest regard. Hence the Leader becomes a Hero of sorts by bringing all sides of the nation into
the fold and ushering what the next necessary step to our nation’s rise and our essential

leader’s decisive trait, Nationalism.

A good leader should also be nationalistic putting the needs and interests of his countrymen far

above his own. While this may seem necessarily impossible in the philippine setting but should

a leader of such type be elected he would be able to ease and reverse what is necessarily the

foreign monopoly of foreign nations over our motherland. A not so perfect but decent example

is Duterte’s policies regarding foreign companies by kicking out abusive chinese mining firms

duterte is able to protect first of all our natural resources from unfair exploitation, while also

safeguarding said natural resources for our very own future use. By showcasing his tough guy

act one could say Duterte is a highly biased nationalist who seeks to strengthen the country. His

statements about exiting the UN while necessarily being a bad move showcases his thoughts of

how national development can be furthered without outside influence from other powers. As

after all not all aid is free their is always a catch in all these economic and political endeavors.

Hence a good nationalistic leader is essential to protect the interests of our people and to

prevent a rapid reliance on foreign good and investors and while at the same time securing our

selves from further exploitation.

The struggles of the nations working class is one of the most concurrent themes in politics and

nation building. If the working class is unable to supply itself with the necessities of life then the

nation and the people as a whole become subservient to those oligarchs who monopolize

business. An exemplary leader must have a good understanding of the social contract, it is not

just a mere suggestion but a necessity. Any leader who does not understand the weight of his

government is either a fool or a tyrant in the making. He should keep the balance favorable for
those who work to sustain themselves and those who profit to sustain all. It is an utmost

necessity that he has a clear enough understanding of his nation’s social problems in order for

him to strike decisively at the system of opression. The leader after all must embody the

interest of all parties and not just one side of the spectrum. Thus he must reconcile the land

owning class to give up their land and facilitate agrarian reform while also providing subsidies

for small opening local industries. By following such a clear cut plan a leader prepares his

people for nationalist construction while also necessarily satisfying the Greed of both the rich

and the workers. By feeding this necessary greed the conflict between the two sides are

resolved which leads to a more cooperative economy.

Belief is what breaks or makes a good leader, should religions oppose his motions more often

than not he brings about enmity of the populace and soon loses favor. A leader hence must

also be a master of the manipulation of belief. He earns and gains the favour of the religous

sector and gets them to convince the People to serve his Earthly city heartily in order to ensure

all goes well in God’s good graces. By making use of religion the leader becomes a symbol of

hope to the people, and as such shape their respective belief and reason to his will. Making

them see the necessity of his actions and policies in order to protect them from the perilous

dangers of the global community.

And lastly and most importantly a leader must be Machiavellian in nature, he must do what

necessity entails him to do. Forgoing thoughts of familial relationships and so on only aiming for

the necessary in order to keep order. He as a leader must always and always make the best

choice following the supreme maxim of being feared over being loved. A leader must go to the

highest extent to protect his position to undermine attempts to disrupt his rule either to
cunning manipulation or through direct yet decisive moves. He is also careful in employment of

skills as his too much of shaking up the waters could stir the giants in the depths. He must be

prudent in his judgement being careful that all his moves be for the good of his state, while also

protecting his person for the sake of his plans for progress. He therefore must do what needs to

be done regardless of belief. For he is reason and necessity in human form. And he is the living

embodiment of the state and the necessities and reason of the people without the illogical.

Hence the political leader should be a competent leader that embodies all of the

aforementioned traits in order for him to reverse this highly unfavourable political, cultural,

social and economic position. Otherwise he would be unable to resolve the necessary issues at

hand, he must embody the mastery of the components of human nature if he is to become a

fierce competitor in the global arena. Excersing caution and dexterity and handling the

information that circulates within his domain, he must secure his nation from all assailants and

be sure to limit the amount of intelligence being leaked to foreign powers. While at the

sametime he must make himself known to the world and garner the respect of all nations

through his wit and rhetoric. And lastly and most importantly he must be the master of his own

soul and not some pathetic little puppet that dances through the infinite strings of the major

powers of the world. He must be a philosopher with his own clear and defined vision that

renders him above the rest of his people, and thus embodying the living essence of the state
Bibliography
Plato, ., Grube, G. M. A., & Reeve, C. D. C. (1992). Republic. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

Rousseau, J.-J., Falconer, T., & Wokler, R. (1762). Du contrat social, ou, Principes du droit
politique. À Amsterdam: Chez M.M. Rey.