from Google AI:
The phrase "I protect you, therefore you obey me" (protego ergo obligo) is a famous concept in political philosophy from the German theorist Carl Schmitt.
Carl Schmitt's Core Idea
- Protection and Obedience: Carl Schmitt argued that the foundational core of politics and the state rests on a simple exchange. A ruler or sovereign provides physical protection and security to the people. In return, the people owe the sovereign obedience.
- The Political Bond: According to this view, the moment a state can no longer protect its citizens, its right to demand obedience collapses. Conversely, the moment citizens accept protection, they surrender a degree of autonomy and must comply with the governing authority.
To fully understand Carl Schmitt’s concept of protego ergo obligo (I protect, therefore I obey/bind), we have to look at his view of human nature, his critique of modern liberalism, and how this idea shapes the definition of political power.
Here is an elaboration of the mechanics, context, and implications of this philosophical stance.
1. The Foundation: The "Friend-Enemy" Distinction
Schmitt believed that every sphere of human activity is defined by a core distinction:
- Morality is about good vs. evil.
- Aesthetics is about beautiful vs. ugly.
- Politics, for Schmitt, is strictly about Friend vs. Enemy. He argued that humans are naturally dangerous and conflict-prone. Because human groups will always divide themselves into "us" (friends) and "them" (enemies who pose an existential threat), conflict is inevitable. Therefore, you cannot survive without a collective protector.
2. The Mechanics of the Exchange
The relationship between protection and obedience is not a polite agreement; it is a brutal, structural necessity of survival.
+-----------------------------------+
| SOVEREIGN |
+-----------------------------------+
|
Provides Protection
v
+-----------------------------------+
| CITIZEN |
+-----------------------------------+
|
Owes Obedience
v
+-----------------------------------+
| SOVEREIGN |
+-----------------------------------+
No Free Protection: You cannot enjoy the safety provided by a state, army, or ruler while claiming total individual freedom. If you accept the umbrella of security, you are legally and morally bound to obey the rules of the provider.
No Free Obedience: If a ruler demands taxes, laws, or loyalty but fails to protect you from an invading army or domestic chaos, the bond is broken. The citizens are naturally released from their obligation to obey and will seek a new protector.
The "State of Exception": Schmitt famously wrote, "Sovereign is he who decides on the exception." This means the true ruler is the person or institution that determines when a crisis is severe enough that normal laws must be suspended to protect the group.
3. Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism
Schmitt used this concept to attack mid-20th-century liberal democracies. He argued that liberalism tries to pretend politics can be neutralized through endless discussion, economics, and legal rules.
He believed liberalism fails because:
- It tries to hide the reality of the "enemy."
- It weakens the state's ability to protect its people by tying the sovereign's hands with bureaucracy.
- When a real crisis hits, a weak, talking-shop government will collapse because it cannot decisively enforce obedience to maintain order.
4. Comparison to Thomas Hobbes
Schmitt drew heavily from the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes (author of Leviathan).
Hobbes argued that without a powerful government, humans live in a "state of nature" where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
Both thinkers agree that people trade freedom for security.
However, while Hobbes viewed this as a rational contract to escape chaos, Schmitt viewed it as an ongoing, intense struggle for collective survival against external and internal enemies.
Technofeudalism - The High Cost of "Free"
When applied to the modern digital landscape, Carl Schmitt’s protego ergo obligo (protection implies obedience) perfectly describes the unwritten contract between internet users and tech giants or states.
In exchange for digital safety, convenience, and stability, users surrender data, autonomy, and the right to self-govern.
1. The Digital Sovereigns: Big Tech and "Walled Gardens"
In the physical world, the state protects you from violence. In the digital world, platform monopolies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta) protect you from digital chaos.
- The Protection: These companies provide security protocols, spam filters, malware protection, and curated ecosystems ("walled gardens"). They keep out the digital "enemy" (hackers, fraudsters, toxic bots).
- The Obedience: In return, you must obey their Terms of Service (ToS). If you do not comply, you face digital banishment (deplatforming), which in the modern economy is akin to social or financial exile.
2. The Currency of the Contract: Data for Security
In the digital realm, "obedience" is rarely about physical compliance. Instead, it is expressed through data submission and surveillance acceptance.
- Algorithmic Governance: Users hand over their location, biometric data, search histories, and private communications.
- The Justification: Tech companies and states argue this massive surveillance is required to optimize security, flag cyber threats, and maintain a stable digital infrastructure. You allow yourself to be watched so that you can remain protected.
3. The Digital "State of Exception"
Schmitt’s idea that the sovereign is "he who decides on the exception" plays out constantly online during crises.
- Emergency Powers: During moments of political unrest, elections, or major cyberattacks, tech platforms routinely suspend their normal rules.
- The Execution: They arbitrarily censor content, freeze accounts, or change algorithms overnight without democratic oversight. They justify this raw exercise of sovereign power by claiming it is the only way to protect the integrity of the digital space.
4. Feudalism 2.0: The Illusion of Choice
Schmitt noted that if a ruler cannot protect you, you will find a new one. In the modern digital economy, however, escaping a digital sovereign is nearly impossible.
- Systemic Lock-in: Moving away from a dominant operating system or cloud provider leaves an individual or business exposed to massive security vulnerabilities and economic isolation.
- The Result: Users remain obedient to a specific digital sovereign because the alternative—entering the unprotected, chaotic wilderness of the unmonitored web—is too risky.
Would you like to examine how national governments use this digital exchange to justify mass surveillance programs, or shall we explore how this relationship impacts the concept of free speech online?
Protego ergo Obligo -
The Conservative "Remembers" what the Enlightened Liberal "Forgets" (or Represses)
11 comments:
Hoh.
He even understand it when I asked to make it more elaborate.
Enjoy.
The saying "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not" means that while an idea or a plan looks flawless and straightforward on paper,
applying it in the real world always reveals hidden problems and unexpected obstacles.
What is "Theory"?The blueprint: Theory is a mental model or a set of rules.The perfect world: It assumes ideal conditions. It describes how things should work if everything goes according to plan.
Clean and simple: It ignores small, messy details to focus on the big picture.
What is "Practice"?The execution: Practice is what actually happens when you do the task in the real world.The messy world: It deals with actual people, broken tools, bad weather, and human mistakes.
Unpredictable: It is full of surprises that a theory could not foresee.
Why They Seem the Same "In Theory"When you design a plan in your head or on a whiteboard, you assume cooperation from the universe.
You assume the car never runs out of gas, people never get tired, and materials never fail. In this imaginary, perfect space, your logic works 100% of the time.
Why They Diverge "In Practice"Unforeseen variables: Reality introduces factors you forgot to count.
Human friction: People forget steps, feel emotions, or miscommunicate.
Complex limits: Physical constraints—like time, money, and space—push back against your clean ideas.
Would you like an example of how this applies to a specific field, like business, software coding, or daily life?
Why "logical positivism" is, IMO, forever "incomplete". Need to run out those nasty "Wolfram" Elementary Cellular Automata (ECA)
256 rules... Elementary Cellular Automata (ECA): The simplest 1D grid models where each cell changes its state (black or white) based on its own current state and its immediate left/right neighbors. There are exactly 256 of these rules, famously including Rule 30 (which generates chaotic, random patterns) and Rule 110 (which is Turing-complete).
//Why "logical positivism" is, IMO, forever "incomplete".
Like something bad.
Yawn
Heh.
And now you trying to sell to me MY stuff.
%^P
Every philosophy requires an anti-philosophy... ;)
As it regards Schmitt... there's a reason it's called political theory. I get what he's saying, but would any present day MAGA person in the US accept this position???
No Free Protection: You cannot enjoy the safety provided by a state, army, or ruler while claiming total individual freedom. If you accept the umbrella of security, you are legally and morally bound to obey the rules of the provider.
The US as some would say, not necessarily me, was founded on the idea of individual freedoms. How does that square with the ideas and current practices that say criticism of POTUS Trump is out of bounds as we try to protect our "individual freedoms"?
The DSA crowd arguing for a more "collective" society, essentially a position in direct opposition to the individual, are in the process of being belittled by the very people Schmitt would say have surrended their individual rights to the sovereign.
At least he would have before he became a card carrying member of the Jew hating, Volk loving, Nazi Party.
If Schmitt says when we demand absolute protection from our enemies, like Iran, then we must eventually bow to whoever promises to protect us. Today that means Trump.
If this is true, what are we to do? Do we really have a choice? And, when another is in charge of the military, will those who bowed to a previous leader they liked, do the same for another, whom they might hate?
All good points, Dave.
I think that the moment you can defend yourself, you free yourself from the obligation to your previous defender (per Schmitt's theory).
In other words, we must follow Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus".or "Coriolanus" and assume responsibility for our own protection. The solution lies in a "Will to Power".
Why does Europe allow us to interfere in their democracies under the "National Endowment for Democracy" (NED) and rig their elections? Why has the CIA gotten away with overthrowing over a hundred governments?
We've already suffered through one Civil War. There's nothing that would prevent another. Absent a functioning governmental system, only "force" can decide the outcome
The failure today lay in the arrogance of deep state bureaucrats, academics, and media in thinking that they don't have any obligo to their legally selected Protego. The "University Discourse" has failed to interpret "Master Discourse" from Trump.
They falsely believe themselves to be the originators of the Master Discourse. Of being "sovereign" and formally designated the creators of "the exceptions to the rules" (ie- ala Presidential pardoning ability or discretion in prosecution).
Never decline power lest this become your fate.
Post a Comment