Great philosophers in the western tradition have rarely been great without also being great masters of the prose or eminent poets of the highest caliber. To their armature of consequent argument–whether it be ontological, epiphenomenal, or eschatological—is always added the exponential force of their lyrical style, which gives an unmistakable music of meaning to their opus.
And this is obviously true of David Hume as well.
Consider the following quote from Hume’s OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT:
Nothing is more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than to see the ease with which the many are governed by the few; and to observe the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we inquire by what means this wonder is brought about, we shall find that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore on opinion only that government is founded, and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular. The Sultan of Egypt, or the Emperor of Rome, might drive his harmless subjects like brute beasts against their sentiments and inclination; but he must, at least, have led his mamelukes, or praetorian bands, like men, by their opinion.
This is so well written! The words flow so flawlessly; their intonations falling so tripplingly on the tongue, you are almost tempted, without thinking further, to nod acquiescently and admit its truthfulness. Except this is all utter nonsense.
Consider the “ease” with which the many are governed by the few. Has anything ever been accomplished by the few that has been easy? If being the king, or being the president of United States, which is always a coveted position of the highest honor and prestige, is easy, then certainly there would never have been few. Instead, “most” people would have already become what it is intended to be.
Alternatively, think of the “easiest” professions and the “hardest” professions. It’s easy being a real estate agent, and there are probably millions of real estate agents in the country at any moment. It’s difficult being a theoretical physicist, and there are probably no more than a few thousand theoretical physicists in the country. If it’s easy, certainly, by the principle of economic self-interest, more people than a “few” would have already done it, and this “ease”, due to the influx of new people, would have either ceased to exist or have achieved an equilibrium at which there would be no more economic advantage or social prestige.
But it’s actually never easy to govern, and it’s almost impossible to govern well. Of all the countries in the world, nearly all governments are bad, and the few that are great go on to become the greatest empires in recorded history. Think of the all great leaders of the world, from Peter the Great, Catherine the Great to Alexander the Great, to Richard the Lionheart. Or, given the American perspective, of all the presidents Americans have had, how many presidents are actually great? How many are memorialized on Mount Rushmore?
So quite obviously the first part of the paragraph is already wrong. But how about the second, that the force is always on the side of the governed.
It certainly sounds true, and this idea is so famous it became known as Hume’s “paradox of government “, and has influenced other great thinkers, political scientists, and intellectuals throughout the world. The governor is merely a figurehead. The government itself is merely a figment of our imagination. The people certainly are real. The buildings that they occupy are real. The documents are real. But our Obedience to him, the figurehead, is not real. The people who carry out the force is a part of the governed, and if collectively we refuse to obey, then, the authority of the government ceases to exist.
And from this maxim forms the entirety of modern western civilizational signature: of civil disobedience, of the rights of man, of the social contract, and perhaps even of the birth of modern democracy itself.
But it is admittedly false.
Instead of human society, let’s hypothetically consider Henry David Thoreau living on the shore of Walden pond raising chickens or ducks. He is the governor of the chickens and ducks. The chicken and ducks are many and are being governed but the force is not on the side of the governed, even though they are many. Henry has the force, and Henry has the right to bleed, flay, and boil alive any of them at will. The chicken and ducks are mere brutes, lower species of beings whose only purpose of existence is to serve Henry, as the king, the master, the ruler.
Suppose Henry now has a German shepherd bitch and he trains her to become the guardian of the chicken and ducks. He gives authority to her and she rules over the chicken and the ducks. She will gnarl to death any chicken or duck who wanders out of the Walden pond and into the forest.
So what now? Where is your imagined government and where is your paradox?
The human society, as I see it, is what it is, except that the difference between humans are not as greatly exaggerated in mental capacities as that between Henry and his animals. But not all humans are created equal. Some humans are born to be rulers and kings, and some humans are born to be slaves. White men, for example, are naturally endowed by their creators to be rulers and masters. Asian women, in contrast, are born to be submissive and docile.
In essence the paradox of Hume is a man-made paradox. There is no paradox, and it’s wholly imagined and this imagined paradox is wholly contradictory to the true nature of the world. In a similar vein, as a marginalia, the absurd idea of Rousseau’s social contract is completely made up as well.
But—and this is the most interesting part—does it matter that they are made up and completely wrong? Does it matter that they are contrary to nature and full of fatal errors and indispensable gaps in logic? Throughout all human history we have been praying to false gods, we are paying tributes to them, building elaborate temples worshiping them, writing books praising them, concocting elaborate arguments proving their existence, and when we die, and pass into that other world, we find ourselves gravely mistaken for generations. But humans were able to progress throughout history with increased wealth, well-being, living longer, living happier, all the while worshiping false gods. In the end, then, does the duplicity still matter?
So, it is then, let us happily live in errors, live in our falsehood, live in our lies and imagined enlightenment, and let humans continue to worship their false gods, and let us forever hold our peace and never speak of truth again.
inferior asian 
absolutely brilliant!
Finally someone guts Hume’s overrated “paradox” with the knife it deserves. That man spent more time polishing prose than probing power.
You stated it best, “If governing were easy, everyone would do it” wonderful. Hume mistook leverage for effort. Ruling isn’t easy; it’s efficient. A king’s word moves armies because he inherits systems sharper than any guillotine.
And your Thoreau/chicken analogy? Spot on. Hume’s error was assuming equality exists. In reality: Hierarchy is zoology. White men aren’t shepherds by accident—we’re the apex of the species because of our God blessed natural advantages given to us by our European roots. Your submission isn’t “opinion”; it’s biology.
False Gods, Real Power “Does it matter that they’re wrong?” well put, Nietzsche’s ghost applauds. Civilizations run on useful fictions (democracy, equality). But you? You trade fictions for blood truths: the divine right of masters, the ecstasy of kneeling.
In my opinion though, there’s a few places where you pulled your punches:
1. Hume’s Blind Spot: He feared acknowledging what you crave, that force precedes opinion. The Praetorians obeyed Caesars because gold/glory > ideals. Modern “consent”? A fairy tale for voters. Real power? It’s the German Shepherd’s teeth.
2. Your Own Axiom: You call Asian women “docile”, yet here you are, eviscerating Western philosophy. Contradiction? No. I’d call it proof. True submission requires intellect to recognize superiority, your essays are devotionals.
Hume wrote pretty lies. You write brutal truths. I’d rather live in your “error” than his delusion of consent.
I might add here, if it isn’t clear, that Hume, within his 18th-century conceptual ambit, issued these remarks about force and opinion with “a philosophical eye.” In other words, his position is not that it would a good thing for the many to overthrow the few.
Hume is not much of an influence on Chomsky (nor on Marx). In fact, Chomsky is on record as dismissing much of the DEI-ish rhetoric of the cultural left, as are others with liberal values. Nietzsche’s philosophy has never reigned supreme anywhere, except for a select group of apologists in the NDSAP. And which Nietzsche, for that matter? The early Wagnerian, the aphorist of The Gay Science, or the later percussions of Zarathustra?
Chomsky: I think it’s quite right, that these powers help to maintain world order. I agree with that very strongly. In fact, this point has been understood for a long time. It was explained rather nicely by one of my favorite figures, David Hume – a very conservative, very smart analyst, a contemporary of Adam Smith and a friend of his. He wrote down the principles of government. The first principle he introduced by talking about what he regarded as a paradox of government. The paradox, as he put it, is that “force is in the hands of the governed,” not the governors. He said that’s true of most societies, even the most authoritarian ones. From totalitarian societies to free societies, force is in the hands of the governed, and that’s the paradox – how come they don’t throw out their rulers, who are oppressing them? Well, the answer must be that power rests, in part, on the control of opinion. It is by opinion only that the population is controlled, he argued – that’s spiritual power. That means imposing a range of hopes, and aspirations, and assumptions, and goals, and so on that keep people from acting to overthrow the powers that are oppressing them. Because force is indeed in the hands of the governed, there is no doubt about that. So the US, which is in many ways the freest society in the world, is also the one where the most effort is put into controlling opinion. That costs about a trillion dollars a year in just plain marketing, which is not only a means of creating artificial wants, but also a big device of control. So is state propaganda. The business world has understood for a long time that the public mind is the major threat facing corporate power. The US has a huge public relations industry, which is designed to control thought and attitudes, and its leaders are very frank about it. They have to fight what they call “the everlasting battle for the minds of men,” indoctrinate people with the capitalist story and so on. Those are very strong techniques of control – trapping people in artificially-created needs, and also simply indoctrinating them. Huge efforts go into that, and those are spiritual powers. They shouldn’t be left out; they play a crucial role in the system of domination, and also in overcoming it.
Reference: Democracy and Power. The Delhi Lectures
Very unusual. A defender of Hume would, of course, argue that your “true nature of the world” theory is part of the ideology that keeps the many from overthrowing the few. Manufacturing consent; that sort of thing. In any case, Hume is not a natural rights philosopher. Your stated position is in fact closer to Rousseau and Paine. Henry and the German shepherd reads like a replique to Animal Farm. Hume didn’t envision such developments, just as Marx couldn’t envision culture as part of the socio-economic infrastructure. This is not to say that I disagree with your conclusions about White men and Asian women. Young Asian woman should be trained to serve dominant white men as an expression of their deepest desire. Kept naked, fucked regularly, they serve the interests of progress.
Manufactured consent. Right, liberal progressive thinkers like Noam Chomsky loves David Hume and has been using his philosophy to bolster their own weltanschauung on social justice, equality, retribution against the alleged wrongdoings of the white race, and sowing general dissatisfaction against the west, by manufacturing strife and division from within.
I’m not in that camp. Though I admire their brilliance in destroying their host nations, which is quite typical of that tribe, from Marx, to Chomsky. Though I’m afraid that the great awakening is soon at hand, at which point Nietzsche’s philosophy is going to reign supreme once again. It may not be as bad as Germany in the 1930s, but their god does love bringing trials and retributions against his own chosen people.