CDZ The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

[Anathema]

I felt this was adequately addressed in "The Investigation" section as follows:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

Do you feel this does not suffice?

Moral laws always supersede Civil laws, as the issuing authority (The Divine) is far superseding to any mortal authority. However, when the two laws agree the Civil law is still necessary for the Government to enact Justice and Punishment on the offender.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What if the government tells you not to kill babies, but your moral code tells you that you should, based on a belief that overpopulation will lead to a worse condition? But you would never think of reversing your analogy that way, which proves that you want to dominate the public by using imaginary morality to take its governmental power away.

That's an equally appropriate example, though it doesn't refute the argument. The baby killer does not feel compelled by an obligation to governmental authority; he is guided by his own morality. Therefore, it would be illogical to support government as an authority to others.

The only reason why I don't use this kind of example is that people can't relate to it as easily, since it's unlikely that they want to kill babies.

See, I Told You So


As you refuse to admit, the only reason you wouldn't use that kind of example is that it makes the GUBMINT look good.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

whirled wad of wub

Typical Netwit dishonesty. If I don't give you the answer you want to hear, you pretend that I'm not answering your raw assertions.

And where, exactly, did you prove my premises to be false, or my conclusion logically invalid? I admit the possibility that I may have missed it, so if you would repeat it, I would be happy to acknowledge that you have answered, and that I have falsely accused.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

See, I Told You So


As you refuse to admit, the only reason you wouldn't use that kind of example is that it makes the GUBMINT look good.

I used the example that most people could relate to as moral people. I don't care about "good" or "bad", I care about valid or invalid. The example you offered in no way refutes the argument made, in fact, it supports it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Moral laws always supersede Civil laws, as the issuing authority (The Divine) is far superseding to any mortal authority. However, when the two laws agree the Civil law is still necessary for the Government to enact Justice and Punishment on the offender.

You are saying the civil law is "necessary", which is an assertion without a supporting argument. And "necessary" is not the same as valid.

If you concede that moral law supersedes civil law, then of what authority is civil law to the moral person? Where civil law differs from moral law, moral law is the overriding authority, rendering civil law irrelevant; and where the two converge, the civil law equally exerts no authority, as the superseding moral law already obliged the individual to the particular action or inaction. Civil law is rendered irrelevant again. This means that under no circumstance does civil law oblige the individual. It holds no authority; and since authority is necessary for it be an existent force, it does not exist for the moral individual.

Have we reached an agreement on this point?

 

[Anathema]

You are saying the civil law is "necessary", which is an assertion without a supporting argument. And "necessary" is not the same as valid.

If you concede that moral law supersedes civil law, then of what authority is civil law to the moral person? Where civil law differs from moral law, moral law is the overriding authority, rendering civil law irrelevant; and where the two converge, the civil law equally exerts no authority, as the superseding moral law already obliged the individual to the particular action or inaction. Civil law is rendered irrelevant again. This means that under no circumstance does civil law oblige the individual. It holds no authority; and since authority is necessary for it be an existent force, it does not exist for the moral individual.

Have we reached an agreement on this point?

Civil Law exists as an extension of Civilized Society. Moral Law deals with the thoughts, words, and actions of the Soul. In a vast variety of cases Civil Law exists to limit and control issues and activities for which Moral Law has no opinion or interest (the legal driving age, for example).

I do agree that where Moral Law and Civil Law diverge on a particular topic, that Moral Law is always the deciding authority; and I live my life with that in mind (at least as far I see Morality). However, in those situations where Moral Law has no interest or equivalence to the Civil Law, the Civil Law has the authority to limit and control Society and the Citizenry.

Civil Law has Authority where Moral Law ends. As the Christians would say "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. Render unto God what is God's."

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Civil Law exists as an extension of Civilized Society. Moral Law deals with the thoughts, words, and actions of the Soul. In a vast variety of cases Civil Law exists to limit and control issues and activities for which Moral Law has no opinion or interest (the legal driving age, for example).

I do agree that where Moral Law and Civil Law diverge on a particular topic, that Moral Law is always the deciding authority; and I live my life with that in mind (at least as far I see Morality). However, in those situations where Moral Law has no interest or equivalence to the Civil Law, the Civil Law has the authority to limit and control Society and the Citizenry.

Civil Law has Authority where Moral Law ends. As the Christians would say "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's. Render unto God what is God's."

I would argue that since moral law supersedes civil law where instances of divergence occur, civil law ceases to have authority entirely. The reason being that civil law makes the claim that it is the primary standard for human behavior within its jurisdiction. It does not allow for moral objection to take precedence and excuse one from punishment. It insists on vying for that primary place, and as we have agreed, it fails to win that place. If the specifics of morality are presumed to be undefined (subjectively determined or discerned), then there is no place where we can say, "this situation is not within the scope of morality." That means in all places civil law is subject to the overriding influence of morality, rendering it wholly without authority.

For instance, I believe the law establishing a minimum driving age to be immoral. If a 14 year old is trained and can handle a vehicle responsibly, it is immoral to fine him for driving, particularly since the chain of defiance would result in violence against an innocent person (a person who has not violated another's rights). Should he not pay the fine or acknowledge the revoking of his licence, eventually he will be subject to arrest. This kidnapping is bad enough, but should he resist the immoral arrest, he will be beaten or even killed.

Rules are different than law. On private property, you may establish rules such as, "Please do not wear combat boots in the pool." If a person does not follow the rule, you may ask them to leave, if they don't, they are trespassing and are subject to defensive force. Self-defense holds anywhere, even in the wild, and so this establishes a set of guidelines by which rules may be established. Law, however, claims the authority to cast down dictates outside the scope of defensive force, threatening violent punishment for any infraction, even where there is no victim (such as prostitution).

I don't see anywhere that law has valid authority. Where it reflects defensive rights, it does not introduce any new information, as any individual has the right to defend themselves, so the defense is not validated by law's authority. Where it does anything else, it is invalid because it is subject to the overriding influence of morality. Do you see how this is so?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

whirled wad of wub

Typical Netwit dishonesty. If I don't give you the answer you want to hear, you pretend that I'm not answering your raw assertions.

And where, exactly, did you prove my premises to be false, or my conclusion logically invalid? I admit the possibility that I may have missed it, so if you would repeat it, I would be happy to acknowledge that you have answered, and that I have falsely accused.

Begging the Question

Morality is arbitrary. Often it is as irrationally self-empowering as government often is. So it doesn't take precedence and can't override the imaginary antithesis. If someone rebels because of what he's led to believe are moral considerations, that doesn't earn any automatic respect for his stand. So you give more power to the premise than it deserves, then take advantage of a common dissatisfaction with government to make it less defensible, and cheat to get to your selfishly desired conclusion.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

See, I Told You So


As you refuse to admit, the only reason you wouldn't use that kind of example is that it makes the GUBMINT look good.

I used the example that most people could relate to as moral people. I don't care about "good" or "bad", I care about valid or invalid. The example you offered in no way refutes the argument made, in fact, it supports it.

Bait and Switch

How could most people relate to the government telling us to kill babies? You're being dishonest in how you describe your examples.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

whirled wad of wub

Typical Netwit dishonesty. If I don't give you the answer you want to hear, you pretend that I'm not answering your raw assertions.

And where, exactly, did you prove my premises to be false, or my conclusion logically invalid? I admit the possibility that I may have missed it, so if you would repeat it, I would be happy to acknowledge that you have answered, and that I have falsely accused.

Begging the Question

Morality is arbitrary. Often it is as irrationally self-empowering as government often is. So it doesn't take precedence and can't override the imaginary antithesis. If someone rebels because of what he's led to believe are moral considerations, that doesn't earn any automatic respect for his stand. So you give more power to the premise than it deserves, then take advantage of a common dissatisfaction with government to make it less defensible, and cheat to get to your selfishly desired conclusion.

The nature of the morality is irrelevant to the argument. Whether you agree with morality as a valid concept is also irrelevant to the argument. The point is, to the person who considers themselves moral, or desires to be moral, governmental law holds no authority. If that does not describe you, that's fine, but the argument still holds, and I've heard nothing that demonstrates the premises to be false, or the conclusion to be invalid. Whatever you take my overall position or motives to be, we are talking about this particular argument. I don't know where you see cheating here, or why you call my "desired" conclusion "selfish". The conclusion is what it is, be it desired or not, and I see no logic to refute it. That's precisely why I hold the position I do. Honestly, I was a lot happier before I understood the lunacy of our world.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

See, I Told You So


As you refuse to admit, the only reason you wouldn't use that kind of example is that it makes the GUBMINT look good.

I used the example that most people could relate to as moral people. I don't care about "good" or "bad", I care about valid or invalid. The example you offered in no way refutes the argument made, in fact, it supports it.

Bait and Switch

How could most people relate to the government telling us to kill babies? You're being dishonest in how you describe your examples.

You're spinning it. The example is purposefully extreme in order to demonstrate the insanity of the assertion that governmental law supersedes one's own moral code. If I didn't use something obviously wrong to most people, the point would not be made as clearly. The fact that the reader's moral code is what guides their decision-making process is what they're meant to relate to, not to the outlandish idea of government legislating the killing of babies.

 

[Anathema]

I would argue that since moral law supersedes civil law where instances of divergence occur, civil law ceases to have authority entirely. The reason being that civil law makes the claim that it is the primary standard for human behavior within its jurisdiction. It does not allow for moral objection to take precedence and excuse one from punishment. It insists on vying for that primary place, and as we have agreed, it fails to win that place. If the specifics of morality are presumed to be undefined (subjectively determined or discerned), then there is no place where we can say, "this situation is not within the scope of morality." That means in all places civil law is subject to the overriding influence of morality, rendering it wholly without authority.

For instance, I believe the law establishing a minimum driving age to be immoral. If a 14 year old is trained and can handle a vehicle responsibly, it is immoral to fine him for driving, particularly since the chain of defiance would result in violence against an innocent person (a person who has not violated another's rights). Should he not pay the fine or acknowledge the revoking of his licence, eventually he will be subject to arrest. This kidnapping is bad enough, but should he resist the immoral arrest, he will be beaten or even killed.

Rules are different than law. On private property, you may establish rules such as, "Please do not wear combat boots in the pool." If a person does not follow the rule, you may ask them to leave, if they don't, they are trespassing and are subject to defensive force. Self-defense holds anywhere, even in the wild, and so this establishes a set of guidelines by which rules may be established. Law, however, claims the authority to cast down dictates outside the scope of defensive force, threatening violent punishment for any infraction, even where there is no victim (such as prostitution).

I don't see anywhere that law has valid authority. Where it reflects defensive rights, it does not introduce any new information, as any individual has the right to defend themselves, so the defense is not validated by law's authority. Where it does anything else, it is invalid because it is subject to the overriding influence of morality. Do you see how this is so?

Brian, I think where we tend to diverge on this topic is at the acceptance that Civil Authority does have some say on the daily lives of people on this side of Eternity. Morality is never going to cover everything (see the driving issue) with an explicit ruling. From your commentary on that issue, it seems to me that you're a strong believer in Meritocracy. I, on the other hand am a strong believer in Authoritarianism. So our views of what to do when the specific limits of Moral Authority end is likely going to be very different. You obviously accept the idea of Individual Authority over personal property, so let me put it this way.... Civil Authority exists where Moral Authority's Black/White tenants end and end where Individual Authority begins. This is due to the need for Law and Order in Society, and the lack of clearly defined Moral Definitions for many of the things that fall into this area.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Brian, I think where we tend to diverge on this topic is at the acceptance that Civil Authority does have some say on the daily lives of people on this side of Eternity. Morality is never going to cover everything (see the driving issue) with an explicit ruling. From your commentary on that issue, it seems to me that you're a strong believer in Meritocracy. I, on the other hand am a strong believer in Authoritarianism. So our views of what to do when the specific limits of Moral Authority end is likely going to be very different. You obviously accept the idea of Individual Authority over personal property, so let me put it this way.... Civil Authority exists where Moral Authority's Black/White tenants end and end where Individual Authority begins. This is due to the need for Law and Order in Society, and the lack of clearly defined Moral Definitions for many of the things that fall into this area.

Thank you for the respectful exchange and for laying out your ideas so clearly.

If you fully grasp the implications of authoritarianism and embrace them, so be it; but typically I find that this perspective is held together with euphemisms, indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. You must be on guard against the ravaging influence of these intellectually and morally debilitating enemies of critical thought, to make sure that your heart and your mind are truly sharing the same solid ground.

I believe in freedom. This word has no place in the political rhetoric of our times, and its use in that arena is an affront to truth itself. Even if a man would voluntarily sacrifice his own freedom for the temporary illusion of security, he has no right to thrust his decision upon another. Let your representative represent you alone; let his law be yours to obey, and his open palm be yours to fill. If you presume to use your free will to rob your neighbor of his own, you can be no friend to him in any other way.

I believe in consent, and voluntary interactions between all people; self-defense and defense of the innocent; and one man’s rights ending where they limit the rights of another, and nowhere else. I do not believe in law, but I do believe in order: external anarchy and internal monarchy. Self-responsibility, self-ownership, and acknowledging these - and defending these - for every person, everywhere.

You’ll forgive my inflexibility on this point, but any position which requires the domination of the innocent in order to meet its desired ends is misanthropic, immoral, and a roadblock to the progress of humanity. It cannot abide, and its proponents will find themselves on the wrong side of history, should the species survive its influence long enough to note them at all.

Now, I see that you acknowledge “Individual Authority” and so I know you are not among authoritarianism’s greatest offenders by any stretch, but I do not know where you believe the parameters of Individual Authority’s scope lie, in specific terms. Would you please clarify or provide some examples?

Enjoy your evening.

 

[Anathema]

Thank you for the respectful exchange and for laying out your ideas so clearly.

No problem. I know you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, so there's no point in cursing, swearing, or losing our cool.

I believe in freedom. This word has no place in the political rhetoric of our times, and its use in that arena is an affront to truth itself. Even if a man would voluntarily sacrifice his own freedom for the temporary illusion of security, he has no right to thrust his decision upon another. Let your representative represent you alone; let his law be yours to obey, and his open palm be yours to fill. If you presume to use your free will to rob your neighbor of his own, you can be no friend to him in any other way.

I don't believe in Freedom. I believe that even if mankind once had the capability to maintain both Freedom and Morality, we have lost it in such a massive super-majority of the population that in order to maintain any semblance of Law and Order in Society, Freedom must be severely limited, when it is allowed at all.

I believe in consent, and voluntary interactions between all people; self-defense and defense of the innocent; and one man’s rights ending where they limit the rights of another, and nowhere else. I do not believe in law, but I do believe in order: external anarchy and internal monarchy. Self-responsibility, self-ownership, and acknowledging these - and defending these - for every person, everywhere.

That's a wonderful concept. I am also a strong believe in Self-Reliance and Self-Defense. Unfortunately while my Moral thoughts, words and deeds do no harm to others, their Immoral thoughts, words and deeds often do significant damage to me, even if they've never met me. As I said above, I don't believe the vast majority of humanity even understands the basics, never mind the depths or Morality and fewer care. Therefore we need to impress upon those individuals the limitations and regulations of Morality in order for Society to survive.

You’ll forgive my inflexibility on this point, but any position which requires the domination of the innocent in order to meet its desired ends is misanthropic, immoral, and a roadblock to the progress of humanity. It cannot abide, and its proponents will find themselves on the wrong side of history, should the species survive its influence long enough to note them at all.

There are no innocents over the age of 3 years old anywhere outside the possibility of the most technologically and educationally devoid areas of the world. There haven't been for decades now.

Now, I see that you acknowledge “Individual Authority” and so I know you are not among authoritarianism’s greatest offenders by any stretch, but I do not know where you believe the parameters of Individual Authority’s scope lie, in specific terms. Would you please clarify or provide some examples?

I acknowledge Individual Authority over Individual Property, and only within the limitations of Moral Authority. No Individual can override Moral Authority anywhere. No Individual can override (though one can ignore and choose to accept the consequences thereof) Civil Authority in the Public Spaces of the world. Only on ones Private Property does Individual Authority exist (as you previously pointed out yourself), and only if it agrees with Moral Authority. I hope that clarifies things sufficiently.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I would argue that since moral law supersedes civil law where instances of divergence occur, civil law ceases to have authority entirely. The reason being that civil law makes the claim that it is the primary standard for human behavior within its jurisdiction. It does not allow for moral objection to take precedence and excuse one from punishment. It insists on vying for that primary place, and as we have agreed, it fails to win that place. If the specifics of morality are presumed to be undefined (subjectively determined or discerned), then there is no place where we can say, "this situation is not within the scope of morality." That means in all places civil law is subject to the overriding influence of morality, rendering it wholly without authority.

For instance, I believe the law establishing a minimum driving age to be immoral. If a 14 year old is trained and can handle a vehicle responsibly, it is immoral to fine him for driving, particularly since the chain of defiance would result in violence against an innocent person (a person who has not violated another's rights). Should he not pay the fine or acknowledge the revoking of his licence, eventually he will be subject to arrest. This kidnapping is bad enough, but should he resist the immoral arrest, he will be beaten or even killed.

Rules are different than law. On private property, you may establish rules such as, "Please do not wear combat boots in the pool." If a person does not follow the rule, you may ask them to leave, if they don't, they are trespassing and are subject to defensive force. Self-defense holds anywhere, even in the wild, and so this establishes a set of guidelines by which rules may be established. Law, however, claims the authority to cast down dictates outside the scope of defensive force, threatening violent punishment for any infraction, even where there is no victim (such as prostitution).

I don't see anywhere that law has valid authority. Where it reflects defensive rights, it does not introduce any new information, as any individual has the right to defend themselves, so the defense is not validated by law's authority. Where it does anything else, it is invalid because it is subject to the overriding influence of morality. Do you see how this is so?

Brian, I think where we tend to diverge on this topic is at the acceptance that Civil Authority does have some say on the daily lives of people on this side of Eternity. Morality is never going to cover everything (see the driving issue) with an explicit ruling. From your commentary on that issue, it seems to me that you're a strong believer in Meritocracy. I, on the other hand am a strong believer in Authoritarianism. So our views of what to do when the specific limits of Moral Authority end is likely going to be very different. You obviously accept the idea of Individual Authority over personal property, so let me put it this way.... Civil Authority exists where Moral Authority's Black/White tenants end and end where Individual Authority begins. This is due to the need for Law and Order in Society, and the lack of clearly defined Moral Definitions for many of the things that fall into this area.

Megalomaniac Magicians

Objectivism hides under the cloak of its name; it is pure subjective selfishness. desperate to protect itself from the outside world through self-hypnotizing rationalizations. We should follow John Nash's Nobel Prize winning theory dramatized in A Beautiful Mind, that the best outcome for each individual must be modified by taking the best outcome for the whole group under consideration:

In the movie, it was illustrated by four guys going after a beautiful girl, letting her merely pretty ("8s") companions wait for the rebounds. Mathematically, one guy gets a 10 and the rest get nothing. Total = 10 for the team. If all go for the other girls, the team score will be 32. This indicates that Objectivists are spoiled brats who will throw a tantrum if they don't get it all. Their Daddies had the resources to make them that way.

 

[Anathema]

We should follow John Nash's Nobel Prize winning theory dramatized in A Beautiful Mind, that the best outcome for each individual must be modified by taking the best outcome for the whole group under consideration..

I completel disagree. The main Moral imperatives is to support yourself and not rely on others. To ensure thst you are protected and defended from others both physically and socially. Now, if doing do eting for someone else can somehow improve my lot in life as well, great. If not, I have to protect my own best interests first.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I don't believe in Freedom. I believe that even if mankind once had the capability to maintain both Freedom and Morality, we have lost it in such a massive super-majority of the population that in order to maintain any semblance of Law and Order in Society, Freedom must be severely limited, when it is allowed at all.

This gets me down too. It seems so hopeless, as people don't seem to care at all. But I've been researching the motivations and methodologies of truly corrupt, evil people, and pondering this has led me to change my worldview a bit. I'd like to submit the following idea for your review...

I don't think what we're seeing is human nature, and I don't think it's an accidental degradation of morality. I think it's a result of the cultural influence, and I think it's being done largely on purpose. Even if you don't accept the latter claim, you'll no doubt find the former reasonable enough. Think of who the media raises up as models for success - the rich and famous; movie, music, and business celebrities who tantalize us with their wild escapades and irreverent mutation of freedom, born of material excess. We're left thinking that we're failures if we're 20 pounds overweight, struggling financially, or not having sex with supermodels every night.

I'm a bit of a movie buff (though I care nothing about the people who star in them), and I was thinking last night about the violence and evil depicted in movies. I realized that almost every single movie I watch depicts acts of violence and disregard for human life by the bucket load. A single film can have 50 acts of violence, any one of which if I were personally privy to would no doubt emotionally scar me for life. I must have literally witnessed 10,000 or more brutal murders in my life through film, while never having seen a single one in real life. This must effect our mind; and had I been born into a natural state, instead of this artificial environment, my mind would be clear of such evils.

And the news, each day scouring the globe for the most depraved acts of immorality, while wholly ignoring the millions of acts of kindness and respect that occur. How can this not drastically change one's worldview. We're left thinking the world is far more dangerous that it would appear if we relied solely on our own life experience. I can't remember the last time I personally saw someone violently attacked with my own eyes.

I won't impose upon your patience with further examples, but there is so much to consider here: the effect of advertising, and a monetary system with devaluation of the currency built into it deliberately, such that we're made to want more and more, but are able to purchase less and less unless both parents work all day and hand their children over to child care or state-run education institutions. Family values broken down as children are raised by strangers, families estranged by financial squabbles, and adversarial political issues between the genders. On and on and on...

And the end result is more immorality, which births more restrictions on individual liberties, and thus self-responsibility. You will likely see the truth in this so far, but I would go one step further to suggest that the richest and most powerful people in the world foster this degradation deliberately in order to enslave us with debt and legal restrictions. There is nothing wrong with mankind, other than his programmable nature and his naivety in believing that there are no enemies working toward his personal downfall. Without this bombardment of mass mind control and debilitating cultural circumstances, I believe the overwhelming majority would return to their natural, moral state. Despite this, many are still good people overall, which is an absolute miracle and demonstrates the resilience of the spirit.

What do you think about all this?