[ctrlp]

I appreciate your points and why one might want such things. I don't, however, think it's possible for the government to enforce a few minimal, overarching "rights" except over populations capable of self-governance. If something isn't possible, then there's little point in spending too much time thinking about it, (except theoretically). At worst, it can be a kind of "opiate of the masses", who can spin their wheels thinking about such things like "profit maximizing rational actors" and other myths, while the real power is controlled by those who practice realpolitik.

There is a real cure for the disease, but it involves creating enclaves of such populations. The early American settlers were such a population. Barring a new frontier and settler population capable of self-government, then we look back to the conditions that allow for culture to develop. Culture cannot develop without separation and boundaries.

Think of the culture of any organization. If you've ever been part of a growing corporation, you'll have experienced culture changes in person as the org becomes larger and larger. With more diverse personnel, the surface area of commonality becomes smaller and smaller. HR starts to take on more and more of a role in dictating the rules of the org. Disputes must be arbitrated by the corporate "government". Compare to how things were in the beginning, when much agreement could be assumed and people could generally "manage themselves".

The analogy, obviously, is to society and government. When people don't have the "moral law within," then we start to see all kinds of new rules to constrain a multifarious population that doesn't constrain itself. You can have a very diverse society with many rules, or a very homologous society with very few official rules (but many implied). You can't have both at the same time. The irony is that the effect of having many rules is that the individual people become all the same, because they have delegated their moral decision-making apparatus to the state. Morals are just an indirect way of saying Values. Values are what people think are better/good and worse/bad. So, basically, the State is deciding what is good/bad. Hence, the people running the State (those practicing realpolitik) decide what is good or bad.

[vacuity]

> This has ever been the great problem of Government. The powers of Government are of necessity placed in some hands; they who are intrusted with them have infinite temptations to abuse them, and will never cease abusing them, if they are not prevented. How are they to be prevented? The people must appoint watchmen. But quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who are to watch the watchmen?—The people themselves. There is no other resource; and without this ultimate safeguard, the ruling Few will be for ever the scourge and oppression of the subject Many.

- James Mill

I fear we have doomed ourselves from the start by forming societies. There is always some risk of corruption no matter the extent of education. If the government does wrong, will the people rise up? Indeed, how right and wrong are decided lies in the hearts of every person. When angels seem as devils and devils angels, what recourse does one have? There are but words that proclaim ideals and actions that rage to enact them. To set one's soul on fire, and hope there will be those who take up the torch in turn.

[ctrlp]

I don't think there is a point where we were not already in societies. Society is what is natural to man. I agree on this with Aristotle: "Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god."

Your quote from James Mill is interesting for many reasons but also for it coming from such a political radical as James Mill. He was one of the formulators of what would become liberalism/progressivism and himself a proto-technocrat. The Latin quote itself is much older, as you would suppose, and the sentiment goes at least back to Plato.

The same idea pops up in J.S. Mill in the context of laying out a justification for technocracy, i.e., large societies are complex, managing complexity takes skill, skill takes time to acquire, lives are short, therefore, managerial skill must necessarily be invested in a small number of dedicated civil servants (technocrats), and not in the hands of representatives in parliament/congress. The question "who watches the watchers" refers to the bad judgment of Parliament vis a vis the technocrats:

"The bad measures or bad appointments of a minister may be checked by Parliament; and the interest of ministers in defending, and of rival partisans in attacking, secures a tolerably equal discussion; but quis custodiet custodes? who shall check the Parliament? A minister, a head of an office, feels himself under some responsibility. An assembly in such cases feels under no responsibility at all; for when did any member of Parliament lose his seat for the vote he gave on any detail of administration? To a minister, or the head of an office, it is of more importance what will be thought of his proceedings some time hence, than what is thought of them at the instant; but an assembly, if the cry of the moment goes with it, however hastily raised or artificially stirred up, thinks itself and is thought by every body, to be completely exculpated, however disastrous may be the consequences. Besides, an assembly never personally experiences the inconveniences of its bad measures until they have reached the dimensions of national evils. Ministers and administrators see them approaching, and have to bear all the annoyance and trouble of attempting to ward them off."

Had JS Mill lived to see our modern administrative state he might have been less enthusiastic for the integrity and farsightedness of bureaucrats.

My own answer to this is that the watchers must be aligned with the watched at a deep and abiding level. They must come from the same places, same economic conditions, same religion, same value system, same history. Their children must go to the same schools, marry and reproduce with their constituents, their own family's welfare must be tied up with the health and success of the community overall. No amount of "education" can substitute for a lived reality of sharing in the commonwealth of the community. And this societal health cannot be reduced to material welfare. That is the great flaw (angel-seeming devil) in secular materialism. Whatever the ultimate reality is or isn't, there is nothing in secular materialism that can provide for the incorporation of the leadership into the body politic the way a deep and successful culture can. The American WASP culture was that for a few hundred years. In contrast, our present political "consensus" has no solution to moral dissolution (except to double down on a kind of anti-morality). The only way out is down and through some kind of large-scale re-calibrating event, like a global war, which no one wants to experience.

[vacuity]

> I don't think there is a point where we were not already in societies. Society is what is natural to man.

That's fair. I guess alien societies would also have problems of their own, so wishing to not be human probably isn't good enough.

> therefore, managerial skill must necessarily be invested in a small number of dedicated civil servants (technocrats),

Ah yes, the sufficiently smart (and benevolent!) bureaucrats TM. Works every time, 50% of the time.

> My own answer to this is that the watchers must be aligned with the watched at a deep and abiding level. They must come from the same places, same economic conditions, same religion, same value system, same history. Their children must go to the same schools, marry and reproduce with their constituents, their own family's welfare must be tied up with the health and success of the community overall.

I agree, but how do we go about selecting them? It would be nice if politicians felt less otherly, but that's more wishful than realistic. With power comes responsibility, and the gap between citizens and politicians is unhelpful.

> In contrast, our present political "consensus" has no solution to moral dissolution (except to double down on a kind of anti-morality).

I feel like people are moreso doubling down on their beliefs.

> The only way out is down and through some kind of large-scale re-calibrating event, like a global war, which no one wants to experience.

Be optimistic; maybe it'll just be a few civil wars.