Suppose I were to take the idea of the right of the strongest as the starting point of my thinking. To do this, I would seek both; the explanation and the consequences of applying this lack of the legal order as we know it. What would then be the possible result?
To examine this, the first question to be answered is who is the strongest? Superficially, that would seem to be the one with the most physical strength, or in a plutocracy, the richest. Which explains the frequent visits to the gym by macho’s. Besides the admiration for a deranged personality like Elon Musk. Yet that observation ignores the weaknesses of even the strongest. That not the physically strongest, but the healthiest physically and mentally has the most resistance to all sorts of infectious diseases and mental illnesses that have plagued most peoples since the dawn of humanity. That a healthy population both physically and mentally is the best guarantee of the survival of the species in general.
Another thing. That the physically strongest captains used to be found on the front line, out of the obligation to defend their community. Something that made the strongest in his fight with the opposing champion most likely to be eliminated. One of the evolutionary reasons why government leaders and the super-rich are among the most cowardly people who mainly let others pull the chestnuts out of the fire.
Now, the mostly liberal supporters often refer to Darwin’s theory of evolution as if nature were the most obvious precursor and teacher of the free market. That the strongest party in nature always wins. That sheep are no match for the predators, so the predators, for competitive advantage and profit, have the right to rob the sheep of life as food to satisfy their hunger for all sorts of things. And since it takes more sheep to feed a wolf than vice versa, fewer rulers need to exist in a society than meek followers. Fewer rich than poor, which, when you look at it this way, seems just too. Especially if the sheep, from a fundamental belief in the justice of inequality, come to worship the wolves as their messiah.
There seems to be no pin between this reasoning, especially if you go past the one-dimensionality of most reasoning based on self-interest. Or what humans are capable of, of cooperation, for example. Already on the monkey rock, by the way chimpanzees live in the primeval forest, we see that leadership is either shared or obtained, as several monkeys work together to overthrow the aging Alpha male. That this leader can only maintain his power by providing a select number of followers with a female and enough bananas to satisfy them. Which may basically explain income inequality, but also the constant struggle at the top in both business and politics.
Therefore, the right of the strongest only exists in a constant struggle to become the strongest, albeit for a limited time. Similarly, you could say that the right of the strongest only exists by the grace of being constantly challenged to prove that you are actually the strongest. While I make like a sheep to the conclusion that the only right the strongest needs is to be protected from his own insistence and pathological lust. Also because logically, this constant challenge leads to weakening, regaining strength at the expense of the sheep. So what we must unitedly focus on as electoral cattle is to ensure that the few rich no longer determine the laws, because as long as that holds true, most of the sheep are constantly starving.
Ludo
