"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
There’s the Law, and Then There’s The Law
Column by tzo.
Exclusive to STR
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
~ Frédéric Bastiat
These are the words with which Bastiat began his famous treatise "The Law" in 1850, and it remains imperative today to focus attention on the serious fact that the law has been perverted and inverted and achieves the opposite of what it professes to accomplish.
But if this has truly been an ongoing and serious problem for such a long time, why is it not generally recognized? Wouldn’t most people today judge that Bastiat was overstating his case? The law may not be perfect, but to call it evil is surely a gross exaggeration, isn’t it?
Well, we have to begin by looking at that little three-letter word, "law," and consider just what it means to the average person who hears it. Most people think of themselves as good, law-abiding people, and it is no small factor that "good" and "law-abiding" go together like chocolate and peanut butter here. This can be a very useful pairing for those who create the law, and a very difficult pairing to separate in the minds of those who have been taught about the law by those who create the law.
To make discussion of these matters even more difficult, many will deny the assertion that it is the same organization that both creates and teaches about the law—an obvious conflict of interest—but of course that invisibility is the beauty of the system, and the key to why it is so successful.
The government creates the law, and the government teaches the people—beginning at a very tender age—all about the law. They also manage to convince their charges that these are two distinct and separate organizations—or at least two very distant and unrelated branches of the same organization—that really have nothing to do with each other. Legislators legislate, teachers teach, and ne’er the twain shall meet. Genius!
Well as you might guess, I subscribe to the view that the government is the government wherever it is in charge, and it's main job is to look out for itself and to keep itself going and growing.
Government has discovered that by molding (double meaning intended) the minds of its citizenry, it can fabricate an invisible holding cell wherein the unaware citizen believes all sorts of contradictions that effectively keeps him trapped within a prison he cannot see and cannot believe exists because he knows perfectly well that he is free. But it was noted long ago by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that:
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
Government education is not incidental or unrelated to other government endeavors—Indeed, it is essential!
One of the main indoctrination points drilled into the students of government schools is that the government creates the law of the land, and that law is to be obeyed because it is moral and ethical to do so. Good people obey the law, and bad people break it: Keep it simple for the kiddies.
Oh, it will be grudgingly admitted that some legislation gets passed here and there that really isn't quite right, but then the course of action is to petition the government for change. There are proper channels. This citizen feedback-mechanism helps keep law and order on the straight and narrow moral and ethical path. Everyone pitches in! Participatory warm and fuzzy goodness flows uphill to the halls of legislative power, whose occupant-servants bow down and correct their imperfect offerings before the real power, The People.
So sayeth the sacred Political Science texts, and as it was written, so shall it be done. Amen.
If this is to be the platform upon which an objective analysis of the law is to be launched, then Bastiat must necessarily be found to have been a raving lunatic. Of course any objective analysis that is based upon such an irrational platform as “the government law is good because the government schools say so” is merely an exercise in providing detailed answers to the wrong questions.
Bastiat’s observations and conclusions were reached through analysis based upon the infinitely firmer foundation of first principles: What is law, exactly? Where did it come from and what is its function? No jumping in midstream with assumptions of intrinsic goodness just because that’s what everybody says.
The law to which Bastiat referred is the Natural Law, which is the logical discovery of an objective set of rules that define ethical—and thus lawful—human behavior.
The law to which most people refer today is Positive Law, which is a subjective set of manufactured arbitrary rules that supposedly define moral—and thus lawful—human behavior.
When the Positive Law overwhelms the Natural Law, this turns what was meant to be a system of determining just solutions to human conflicts into an arbitrary set of rules imposed by legislators to further their own ends at the expense of justice. This was the point Bastiat was making, and I don’t see but that the problem has worsened considerably over the last century-and-a-half.
The current system of US government is a perpetual motion machine that emits legislation faster than 535 monkeys could crank out random pages on 535 typewriters. There are several thousands of pages of legislation in the ever-growing US Code.
And so today we have reached the point where most people automatically associate the word “law” with mandates sent down from the on-high government offices. The Natural Law is buried under a mountain of arbitrary legislation and is no longer even acknowledged to exist.
People used to be fairly justified in conflating law and ethics when the law had a much stronger Natural Law component. Being a good, law-abiding person coincided fairly well with being an ethical person, which was not considered to be some mysterious attribute that no one could define.
As the “law” has become detached from Natural Law, being a good, law-abiding person necessitates that one assign “good” to Positive Law and “arbitrary” to ethics, since the two do not overlap.
So what was once good is now arbitrary, while the arbitrary has become the good. With such a nebulous foundation, anything can happen, and it certainly has. This explains how the “good” citizens, who follow the law of the land that they themselves helped shape and create, can have it all backwards and not see the problem.
And the only way this inverted philosophy can be sustained is to make it common curriculum for all government schools starting with kindergarten and then having true-believer-government-school-educated teachers continuously drilling it into students for the following twelve years: The government is good. The laws are just. Obey authority.
Break. Your. Training.
(6 votes)
PrintUser Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
"Regarding Mao and Stalin etc as being exempt from natural laws."
No, no, no, that's not my claim. What I've disputed is your assertion of inescapable consequences for the individual.
Casino's reap their profits based on the Law of Large Numbers which says that the average of the results obtained from a large number of bets should be close to the expected value. Of course the bets are designed so that the expected value favors the house. You can bank on this law, and Casino's do, but it does not not impose inescapable consequences on the individual. Some individuals come out ahead after betting against the house. Some come out ahead after placing many bets.
Likewise some moral criminals escape consequences of their crimes in a way they could not escape the consequences for eating poison (your simile).
"Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature."
This becomes an exercise in confusing different meanings of nature and natural law. If man's nature is defined as what he can do then obviously nothing he does is contrary to his nature. Physics is natural law and I doubt that anything we observe contradicts physics, so physics is inescapable. But this is not what is meant by Natural Law when speaking of morality.
"Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature [well being]."
Animals commit actions that may lead to their death but are not known to deliberately commit suicide. Man is capable of doing just that. His volition that is part of his nature makes it possible for him to commit suicide. (Man is distinguished from animals by his faculty of reason and volition).
"Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature"
How can part of nature be contrary to nature?
Hi john:
I do not agree with you that some criminals escape the consequences of their crimes.
For me it is clear that we are in this life by the way, but that does not end here, and therefore we are to ascend and to descend, which is what we do when we cause harm to our fellow men.
That is the inescapable consequence for every human being hurtful, knowing that he is doing.
So you are asserting judgement in an after-life? I understand why people find that comforting. We are so offended by crimes that it seems intolerable that the scales of justice should not always be balanced in the end. I think this yearning for justice explains why people assert any number of inescapable mechanisms for justice: judgement and an after-life, karma, or more secular versions such as the one debated in this thread. But our yearning doesn't make it so.
"This becomes an exercise in confusing different meanings of nature and natural law. If man's nature is defined as what he can do then obviously nothing he does is contrary to his nature. Physics is natural law and I doubt that anything we observe contradicts physics, so physics is inescapable. But this is not what is meant by Natural Law when speaking of morality." ~ John T. Kennedy
What he said, what I've been saying; people confuse the law of nature, i.e. the "natural law of the human world" with the laws of nature, i.e. physics, quite commonly, and, I suppose, quite understandably.
"There is nothing mysterious about the natural law of the human world. To repeat, it is the order of natural persons -- human beings that are capable of rational, purposive action, speech and thought." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
“a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.”
While this may be true of natural law, I reject the utilitarian formulation. Fidelity with natural law may be good for society on the whole, but society is not the standard.
"Notice that he makes no mention of a god. And, you who are proselytizing for your atheistic belief-system by using such words as "sky-wizard", you won't win many converts over by being childishly insulting."
I don't think making converts is a bid deal, but you're right that this has nothing in principle to do with God. I'm an atheist who's perfectly comfortable with natural law. What the founders thought of as Natures God, I think of as simply Nature.
I don't consider myself agnostic about God for the same reason I don't consider myself agnostic about Santa. Neither explains anything I see in the world and I find no useful evidence for either so I conclude they don't exist. I could in principle be wrong, but that is my conclusion.
It would seem to me that by the standard you're trying to apply it would be irrational for me to disbelieve in Odin, Brhama, or Zeus. Are you agnostic about Thor, the Norse god of thunder, or do you conclude Thor is not real?
The issue here is understanding the difference between natural laws and statute laws. The difference between metaphysical objectivity and epistemological objectivity. And the nature of man, society and govt. Again the two chapters I refer get to this pretty clearly. You can browse the pdf....
Regards
Atlas
G'day John T. Kennedy,
If you would be so kind to give us your definition of "society", please. Also, you said "society is not the standard". Not sure I understand what you mean by that. If you care to explain, please keep it simple, for I am a simple man. Stuff like "intertemporally stable Nash equilibrium", "non-trivial time-dimension", as examples, lose me to the point that I won't even know if I have "truncated horizons", or not. Sheeeeesh! Albert Einstein, who was a reasonably intelligent man, once said “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”
"I'm with you, Al."
You wrote: "I'm an atheist who's perfectly comfortable with natural law. What the founders thought of as Natures God, I think of as simply Nature."
Perfect! Wish everyone was as willing, and/or able, to "simply" do that.
And, you are certainly free to conclude (believe) that there was, or is, no "first cause", no Santa, no Odin, no Brhama, and/or no Zeus, if you like, but I think you will agree, it serves no useful purpose to make a mockery of those who come to the opposite conclusions (beliefs) on any, or all, of these things. Thomas Paine, is a prime example of one of those who came to the opposite conclusion (belief), he wrote, "incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it".
"Fine with me, Tom, just don't try to force your 'belief' on anyone else and we can get along just fine."
"If you would be so kind to give us your definition of "society", please."
Men interacting.
"Also, you said "society is not the standard". Not sure I understand what you mean by that."
I'm saying that right and wrong is not properly defined by what is best for the group.
"And, you are certainly free to conclude (believe) that there was, or is, no "first cause", no Santa, no Odin, no Brhama, and/or no Zeus, if you like, but I think you will agree, it serves no useful purpose to make a mockery of those who come to the opposite conclusions (beliefs) on any, or all, of these things. "
I don't think it serves a libertarian purpose, but I think religion is irrational and thus a legitimate target of criticism and even satire. It's not something I spend much time doing.
"Thomas Paine, is a prime example of one of those who came to the opposite conclusion (belief), he wrote, "incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it". "
I think there is difficulty in wrapping one's head around the idea of a first cause and also the idea of an infinite regress of causes so I don't have a settled opinion on which condition exists. But I see no reason why a first cause would be God. I think the Big Bang is a plausible first cause, and there is evidence for the Big Bang. Yes, the idea that the Big Bang was uncaused is counterintuitive, but that is not a conceptual difficulty that God escapes.
G'day John T. Kennedy,
Thank you, "men interacting" is fine with me. And thank you; for what it's worth, I agree "right and wrong is not properly defined by what is best for the group". Right and wrong are discovered, by each of us, by what we would not like done to us, or have forced upon us, by other men, without our consent, which, coincidentally, is what is best for the group.
"The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it." ~ Thomas Paine
I am not agnostic about Thor, I have concluded, for myself, that he does not exist. And, neither am I agnostic about the Big Bang Theory.
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure."
"...sprang into existence..."??? Now, there's a scientific explanation, if I've ever seen one.
"Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe."
As Ricky would say, "You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy."
But, we stray ever farther from the topic, "There's the law, then there's The Law", and for that I apologize.
"As Ricky would say, "You've got some 'splainin to do, Lucy."
Agreed, but the concept of God does nothing to advance the explanation. Either the Universe sprang into being uncaused or it exists as an infinite regression of causes. Both alternatives confound intuition, but one must be right because the universe indisputably exists.
For God there are three possibilities: Either he sprang into existence uncaused or he exists as an infinite regression of causes or else he simply does not exist. While the universe indisputably exists that's certainly not true of God.
"I am not agnostic about Thor, I have concluded, for myself, that he does not exist."
Okay, but earlier you wrote:
"I call atheism a "belief-system", since it is far more rational to be agnostic, since there is not a preponderance of proof "for" or "against" there being a "first cause", as Thomas Paine so thoughtfully put it in his treatise, Age of Reason."
So what do you consider the preponderance of evidence against the existence of Thor?
"...we stray ever farther from the topic, [which is] "There's the law, then there's The Law"...
This is, arguably, the most important topic there is for free men and women, or men and women who are truly desiring to be free. We can understand this just by the highlighted portions of these two lead-ins.
"The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law]
In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: ...by slavish conformity to custom [common law], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". ~ Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/two.asp
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/three.asp
___________________________________________________________________________________________
"...we need to promote the idea of natural law, that an act is lawful or criminal on its own merits, and not because of the decree of some group of rulers. The idea of natural law is more important than the specifics of its content, because once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant when discussing the lawfulness of an act." ~ Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn
Let us take those two, most important points, out of context, so that we may see them more clearly.
"...the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo..."
"...once this idea is accepted, the state and its statutes are no longer relevant..."
Is it any fricken wonder, then, that Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law, writes in his treatise, NATURAL LAW,
"Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics.
The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned, if not ridiculed.
The reasons for this desultory attitude towards natural law are many. One reason is ideological. Many people subscribe to an ideology that is virulently anti-human. They do not think that there is anything respectable about human beings as they are. Usually, they combine this belief with the idea that 'human nature can and should be changed' so as to make it conform to their own ideal of Man. Thus, they claim that men and women should be taught or forced not to respect the order of [the] human world but to respect instead the imaginary 'normative order' that the ideologues prefer. They should be forced or taught not to respect one another for the human beings they are but only the ideal 'new man' that they should become.
...they generally have tended to redefine the word 'law' so that it now is virtually synonymous with politically imposed or sanctioned social regulation."
We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.
I'm very comfortable with natural law, as were the American Founders but how do you propose to bring it back in fashion?
John seems to have MISSED the CONTEXT of “There is NO ‘we’" to fashion. when he continues to imply and insist that “we” is too important to discard and proposes you or I bring it back in fashion. Perhaps the CONTEXT should be made EXPLICIT.
To make the context EXPLICIT: When it comes to FREEDOM, there is no “WE” "to bring back in fashion".
There really is only ONE person that you are capable of freeing and that is yourself. A person with the attitude of a slave cannot be free anywhere.
THE CONTEXT of the statement is that when it comes to solving problems without using the Collective, the Government, the State (the WE), a person must adopt the ATTITUDE of an individual instead of a collective, one must think for himself/herself. For an example of switching from “WE” to “I”, Ayn Rand’s book “Anthem” comes to mind. Another example that springs to my mind is when the Lone Ranger says to Tonto “We are surrounded by hostile Indians. We are in real trouble.” and Tonto replies “What you mean ‘WE’, white man?”
To elaborate on that example: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?”
Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.
“The men who came west were individualists, accustomed to handling their own affairs and settling their own disputes, and they did not invite interference from the law.” [i.e. government...]
–Louis L’Amour – First historical note in “Bowdrie”
G'day John T. Kennedy,
I think what AtlasAikido was saying is, fashion be damned, be true to yourself, "be the change you wish to see in the world". Those with ears to hear, and eyes to see, will hearken and understand.
I am true my myself. I've discovered that it doesn't change the world. I do not aggress against other individuals yet I observe that aggression remains almost universally popular, even among people who know me well. So?
I wasn't accusing you of not being true to yourself, John T. Kennedy, merely trying to condense what AtlasAikido had just posted. Sorry for the confusion.
I try to speak only for myself, because I can't change the world, I can only change my world.
And, I truly believe, after much study, that, as self-owners, we have the natural right to choose our jurisdiction, when we are willing to assume responsibility for our own survival, (though we may not be consciously aware that we are choosing). Albeit ignorantly, virtually all of us choose to be members of one man-made jurisdiction, or another. I say "choose", because experience has shown that even when it is made known to men that they (individually) have a choice, that each of us has the innate authority to withdraw from membership in a corporate body, instead of choosing to do so, we make excuses why we can't.
This not to say that it will be easy explaining that we have chosen to be under the natural law (of man), instead of the arbitrary and capricious laws of man-made religions and governments.
Meaning no disrespect, John T. Kennedy; being "comfortable with natural law", and actively choosing it as our own, as I am sure you are aware, are two entirely different animals.
Well put and agreed Suverans2,
In addition: In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered.
Put the ball back in their court. *Ask them what they would do*.
Human interaction is purely voluntary. *It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions*.
I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now.
"In addition: In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. "
I hear you.
"Put the ball back in their court. *Ask them what they would do*. "
Odd, that sounds like a prescription for what *we* should do.
"Human interaction is purely voluntary."
It ought to be. If you're really saying it already is then I guess you think we already have a voluntary society.
"I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now."
Yet sadly 99%+ have chosen otherwise. So now what?
"Put the ball back in his court. *Ask him--as an individual--what he would do*. " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave.
John asked the question of Suverans2. "I'm very comfortable with natural law, as were the American Founders but how do you propose to bring it back in fashion?"
Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems.
"Put the ball back in his court. *Ask him--as an individual--what he would do*. " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave."
99% will respond that they are perfectly comfortable doing what you characterize as roping you into their solution as an involuntary slave. They'll say they're not making you an involuntary slave because you're free to leave.
"Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems."
Yes, but unfortunately those who do *not* ignore it *also* continue to experience the very same consequences. Recognizing Natural Law and acting in accordance with it does not profit the individual in this respect. Since it does not profit the individual in this respect the consequences you cite offer negligible incentive for those who are biased against Natural Law to overcome their bias.
If an evil person starts a forest fire, the sensible thing for a man of reason is to recognize the law of nature and protect himself from the consequences of that action (i.e. protect himself from the fire). The world is on fire.
"If an evil person starts a forest fire, the sensible thing for a man of reason is to recognize the law of nature and protect himself from the consequences of that action (i.e. protect himself from the fire). "
Evil people who start forest fires tend to do that too.
"The world is on fire."
Well that doesn't sound good for anybody, including the man of reason.
"Natural law never went away those who ignore it will (are) continuing to experience the consequence as witnessed the slow motion collapse of all the western financial systems." ~ AtlasAikido
Absolutely, positively, correct!!
Excellent answer, by far the best ando most concise, accordin to my understanding!!! Thanks Suverans2
@Suverans2
I'm still curious, are you agnostic about Thor the Norse god of thunder or are you persuaded he does not exist?
John you seem more curious about red herrings than the subject of this thread. I think Suverans2 makes a good point when he points out that you have strayed and I will add further. John you appear to have SWITCHED subjects and inveigled your own religion / aetheist /agnostic issues where it does not belong or *appear* to fit.
G'day AtlasAikido,
Actually, what I said as, "we stray", meaning I too was guilty of straying.
And strayed right back on topic I see with a piece on custom/common law, statute law etc
I didn't switch any discussion here to religion, I responded to comments about religion. You can look it up.
However, response to an article about Natural Law I see nothing wrong with exploring the supposed foundations of such law. Surely you can't think that when Natural Law is asserted we are bound to simply accept it without argument? One supposed source of Natural Law is God, and in exploring that possibility I see nothing wrong with disputing the existence of God.
But I'm glad to see that thread police are keeping an eye on things.
Private messages don't seem to be working.
Yes, you are right Suverans2 private messages is not working.
John T. Kennedy said:
Scare quotes often confuse me. Is there a difference between 1) knowing right from wrong, and 2) knowing "right" from "wrong"?
Sam:
You asked this several days ago, but I've been gone. I'll use (overuse?) scare quotes to (in this case) distance myself from coming across as determining what might be right or wrong for you or others in the group. If you are rude or unkind I might avoid interacting with you, but I don't presume to tell you what's "right" or "wrong". I think it fits with the topic as it has strayed from Natural Law and into religiosity vs atheism because it is in line with assessing "just what is 'natural law'" (There are those scare quotes again!)
I know that I must have a supply of oxygen to survive even the next minute or two. I have faith that sufficient oxygen will be present. I do have CO and smoke detectors installed just in case. I want to be prepared in case G-d wants to get me. Just kidding.
Faith and religion are two entirely separate matters. I do not know Who or What the Designer (or the Sustainer) of photosynthesis is. Or why S/He consistently and loyally assures me and those I love an adequate supply (of oxygen). All I know is it's seen me through over 75 years since I parted the womb. I often wonder how the hell oxygen finds its way up to this frozen wasteland (Ioway) from now to March or April, when all you can see around here is ice and snow, but it does. And that's all I need to know. I have faith it will see me through the night.
Delmar England has this to say about his early religious learning (about 10 or so paragraphs down from the opening statement of his essay):
The most disturbing of all these religious teachings is the “explanation” as to how all this comes about. It was believed and taught there is an omni god who created all and can change reality at will. This directly contradicts the idea of immutable natural law of insentient nature. The religious scene set acquiring “truth” on a different plane by a different method: “Revealed truth” known only by “communication with God.”
What is described above is mind divided against itself. At such an early age, I understood little, but still could not reconcile the opposites. I could not “respect” these beliefs and not question. By much mental effort over a very long period of time, I came to know much of what was and is going on.
To put in capsule form what underlies all the effects, this is the situation: With the insertion of the omni god idea, reality is mentally reversed. At the same time immutable natural laws which do exist are dismissed as absolutes by the omni will concept, by the same omni will idea, there is inserted the idea of philosophical absolutes which do not exist.
Of all the realizations, the most critical was and is understanding a mind divided against itself and how it adversely affects all areas of an individual’s life from global warfare through the most personal matters.
Sam
I'd like to add a thought from Tzo's essay, in light of Delmar England's quoted observations:
Government has discovered that by molding (double meaning intended) the minds of its citizenry, it can fabricate an invisible holding cell wherein the unaware citizen believes all sorts of contradictions that effectively keeps him trapped within a prison he cannot see and cannot believe exists because he knows perfectly well that he is free.
Among conservative groups we often hear the "separation of church and state" chant.
Never happen. Agents of state from the beginning of time have depended upon leaders of "the church" (from the gigantic "mother" in the Vatican to the tiny protestant groups up and down the street -- and that takes in just the professing Chr-stian entities) to promulgate -- enforce -- their dictates. And vice versa.
Church and State are inextricably yoked. You'll see state agents scurrying to and fro threatening and creating illusions of enforcing laws and edicts prohibiting religious icons in "public" places in these upcoming political holidays (and they ARE political, mind you).
But separation of church and state is a contradiction in terms when you think about it. Oxymoronic.
Sam
G'day Sam,
To take what you 'said' one step further, Statism IS a religion!
"…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god." ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-08-10-ticket_for_swearing.png
To add and clarify: Even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to!
--The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules (laws) written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html
It is true that the advocacy of changing the world is governed by statism. Yet there is a more fundamental consideration, namely whether existence is unfair or benign. Generally, statists claim that the world is unfair, because of a disparity of incomes. We rarely hear of the increased quality and equality of life that occurs under a free market.
Even more fundamental is the concept of "spontaneous order" where allowing liberty provides more benefits that could ever occur by planned governance. This has been advocated by religionists who claim "As ye sow, so shall ye reap"; AND by Ayn Rand who claims that rationality provides survival; AND by Intelligent Designers who refer to teleological explanations; and by others such as poets.
I suggest the following way to start, with the defense of capitalism:
What is fairer than a mutually accepted trade between two people (whether of produce, land or labor)? Could it be fairer if a third party coerced one of them to accept less than he wants? Similarly, given many traders, what could be fairer than the overall process that results from supply & demand? Here too, each person retains the choice of what he will trade for what. Capitalism thus provides rewards based on contribution to production, as determined by the consumer.
It is true that liberty guarantees inequality. Consequently it is not wrong that with the division of labor, there is ever greater inequality of monetary outcomes, since some parties can now contribute to the gain of an ever increasing number of consumers. What is more important is that quality-of-life is not measured monetarily. When there is less death at childbirth, reduction of pain from disease, the elimination of starvation, and more entertainment, travel, availability of information, communication, etc., then the quality-of-life differentiation between rich & poor becomes smaller.
Some regret that rich people often have rich children, while overlooking that often a family goes from rags to riches, or riches to rags. Yet would we want it otherwise, when conscientious parents bequeath more to their children than do the indolent? Why would we discourage those who work to make a better life for their children?
Some people say they would prefer a lower standard of living, for the sake of greater equality. Yet I deny that in reality they would prefer the life of the colonists, where the wealthy had no running water, used outhouses, and took a month to cross the ocean. In those days the rich had perhaps 100 times the wealth of the poor, as contrasted with say 100,000 times the rich have today. Yet a starving man then had more to envy when he saw a wealthy man having a full meal, that anyone today can get at McDonalds.
Would you prefer greater monetary equality by leaving everyone with half of what he receives, or greater equality of life by leaving everyone with twice of what he receives?
A comment at http://mises.org/daily/5787/How-I-Learned-to-Love-the-State
Allen Weingarten · 1 day ago
Regarding 'This has been advocated by religionists who claim "As ye sow, so shall ye reap"; by Ayn Rand who claims that rationality provides survival; by Intelligent Designers who refer to teleological explanations; and by others such as poets'.
I am not focused on "what a so called stellar list of authorities" Allen refers to. It does not matter. If an atheist. agnostic, religionist poet said it. But I will answer in this way:
For years men with plans to improve society--atheist. agnostic, deist, religionist, poets--have debated the merits and demerits of various kinds and amounts of govt, and they have argued long and and heatedly over how much freedom was desirable or necessary to provide the needs of man's life. *But very few of them tried to clearly identify the Nature of government, the Nature of freedom, and even the Nature of man*. Consequently their social schemes have not been in accordance with reality and their "solutions" to human ills have been little more than erudite fantasies.
Neither the futile and shop worn panaceas of The Establishment nor the "God and country" fervor of the Right, nor the angry peace marches of the Left can build a better society *if men do not have a clear, reality based, non-contradictory idea of what a better society is. If we don't know where we are going we won't get there*. It is the aim of the following book to show where we are (or should be) going.
Here is a book review
Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011
by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/ Freedom-Naturally
The following gets one out of the "We" and into the "I" (See a prior post). And it gets one out of caring if someone is Buddist or Catholic or atheist. agnostic, deist, religionist etc etc....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent....A Proposal...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of *interpersonal relationships* based on those moral principles.
The Covenant satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories.
(Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize).
Excerpts: How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent
fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html
While I do agree with Nathanial Branden's First Causes--that he wrote and which Rand edited on infinite regress and reversing existence with causality regarding the question of the existence of a big ghost in heaven--It is a non-issue if one shows them self to be a signatory of the Covenant.
I care not what a person's religion is or faith. Only the interpersonal relationship I and that person have as it relates to the four precepts and specifically the fifth as it relates to religion in the Covenant Of Unanimous Consent .
Equality of Liberty
FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;
There are Atheists who still believe in govt and religionists who do not. It makes more sense to use the statement Govt Superstition than Govt Religion.
G'Day AtlasAikido,
Not sure I understand the difference between Superstition and Religion, especially after reading this, "Quick definition" from WordNet (superstition) ▸ noun: an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear". Sounds like a good definition of Religion, as well.
And, I'm sure everyone here will understand why I particularly like this definition of Superstition from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; "A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance."
@Suverans2
"Not sure I understand the difference between Superstition and Religion..."
The difference is the degree of success in marketing.
Thank you, John T. Kennedy, that makes perfect sense.
Thank you, John T. Kennedy, that makes perfect sense.
I should also clarify: Religion is a subset of superstition. Religion is superstition but I wouldn't say all superstition qualifies as religion.
Hi suverans2,
This whole religion thing reminds me of those who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.
I live with individuals in an UNfree world. Most of them like me were born into slavery and most will die slaves and we have many who still think as slaves here on this thread. There are some who I can have relationships with and do, in a division of labor society now remnant.
Can I have a relationship with someone whilst they sort there mind out? Yes I can. This Objectivist thing that one cannot have an inter-relationship with those--religious etc--until they have their mind so-called straightened out from first causes and principles is false.
I care about how I act and how you act. That's it. I know how I am going to act and announce that via the Covenant and so forth. I do not know how you are going to act.The Covenant solves this issue and others (within human reason). But it brings things into first contact, direct alternatives etc...
I have found those who embrace religion--or no religion--who will sign it. And those who have embraced Govt religion (your words perhaps) or Govt superstition (my words), and those who will not embrace it. One person's love of the "We" or Govt did not manifest until much later. But it is the reason he would not sign it. He was in this case a racist but did not want to show it. Covenant is a great way to work things out...see things...identify consequences.
Superstition encompasses religion. And it is practiced by many atheists and Objectivists!
The Most Dangerous Superstition [is Govt] Larken Rose makes this connection. You could think of it as a religion and speak write of it that way but I have met religious people and I am sure you have too who are much like tanhadron.
I think *tanhadron, exhibits/evidenced tolerance of others, composure, benevolence and lots of practical sense that too many so called non-religious folk do not manifest. I think it is because he has NOT bought into the Government Superstition although he may believe in a religion/higher power and call it something other than nature. But the Covenant would be a good place to start to make it explicit with him and me.
Best regards my Dear Friend and good day to you!
Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!!