{"id":11340,"date":"2010-07-15T17:28:50","date_gmt":"2010-07-15T23:28:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oooorgle.com\/wordpress\/?p=11340"},"modified":"2015-07-19T05:03:02","modified_gmt":"2015-07-19T12:03:02","slug":"stating-the-bleeding-obvious-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/stating-the-bleeding-obvious-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Stating the Bleeding Obvious (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.larkenrose.com\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/images\/LawAndEthics.png\" alt=\"\" hspace=\"5\" align=\"left\" \/>LarkenRose.com<\/a> | Sometimes it can be difficult deciding how to state the bleeding obvious, when your target audience has been carefully trained to MISS the bleeding obvious. To wit, it&#8217;s possible to demolish the fundamental assumptions underlying statism using very simple lines of reasoning. And for the recovering statist, the logic is undeniable, and the rational conclusion self-evident. But for the thoroughly indoctrinated (and that included me not many years ago), sometimes the most simple explanation causes the most drastic cognitive dissonance.<\/p>\n<p>Here is an example:<\/p>\n<p>The concept of &#8220;authority&#8221; is a MORAL concept. &#8220;Government,&#8221; by definition, is the group of people who have the supposed moral RIGHT to enact and enforce &#8220;laws.&#8221; (Whether there are &#8220;limits&#8221; on what those &#8220;laws&#8221; require doesn&#8217;t matter for this particular point.) And a moral RIGHT of the &#8220;law-makers&#8221; to rule (even if only in a &#8220;limited&#8221; way) implies a moral OBLIGATION to obey on the part of their subjects. That is the essence of the concept of &#8220;authority&#8221; and &#8220;government.&#8221; <\/p>\n<p>Now here is one painfully simple proof of why that concept is self-contradictory bunk:<\/p>\n<p>From the perspective of any given subject, each &#8220;law&#8221; either coincides with his own conscience, or conflicts with it. For example, a &#8220;law&#8221; may declare that murder is &#8220;illegal,&#8221; and an individual may think that murder is inherently immoral anyway&#8211;so the two match. On the other hand, a &#8220;law&#8221; may require an individual to fund a war that the subject believes to be immoral, in which case there is a CONFLICT between his own conscience and &#8220;the law.&#8221; <\/p>\n<p>Okay, here comes the question. (Statists, brace yourself, because this might be both painfully obvious and existentially disturbing.) Ready?<\/p>\n<p>Question: Can an individual ever have a moral obligation to disregard his own moral conscience, in favor of obeying an &#8220;authority&#8221; instead?<\/p>\n<p>Here are the two possible answers, along with their logical ramifications: <\/p>\n<p>1) YES, a person CAN have an obligation to go against his own moral conscience. In other words, a person can have a MORAL obligation to do something which he believes to be IMMORAL. I hope I don&#8217;t need to explain in too much detail why that answer is insane. In short, it can&#8217;t be good to be bad; it can&#8217;t be moral to be immoral; committing evil cannot be virtuous. Even if a person&#8217;s own judgment is flawed and twisted, he still cannot rationally imagine himself to have an obligation to do what, from his perspective, is the WRONG THING TO DO.<\/p>\n<p>Okay, so that answer stinks. Here&#8217;s the other possibility:<\/p>\n<p>2) NO, a person CANNOT have an obligation to go against his own moral conscience. Therefore, he has no obligation to comply with any &#8220;law&#8221; that conflicts with his own personal judgment of what is right.<\/p>\n<p>Most people can handle that much (even if they start getting nervous at this point). But here is what directly and logically follows from that:<\/p>\n<p>If a &#8220;law&#8221; CONFLICTS with one&#8217;s conscience, he has no obligation to obey it. Such a &#8220;law&#8221; should have no &#8220;authority&#8221; (creates no obligation to obey) in his eyes. If, on the other hand, the &#8220;law&#8221; COINCIDES with his one&#8217;s conscience, such a &#8220;law&#8221; is at best unnecessary. It is his own conscience, not any &#8220;legislation,&#8221; which obligates him to act properly. Which means that such a &#8220;law&#8221; STILL should have no &#8220;authority&#8221; in his eyes.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, in no situation should any &#8220;law&#8221; have any &#8220;authority&#8221; in anyone&#8217;s eyes, whether it coincides with or conflicts with one&#8217;s own moral conscience. Every &#8220;law&#8221; either MATCHES one&#8217;s own judgment, and is therefore unnecessary and irrelevant, or it CONTRADICTS one&#8217;s own judgment, and should be ignored. Which means that no man-made &#8220;law&#8221; ever has any &#8220;authority&#8221; (i.e., it never carries an inherent obligation to obey). And without any &#8220;authority&#8221; to its &#8220;laws,&#8221; &#8220;government&#8221; loses all legitimacy, ceases to be &#8220;government,&#8221; and becomes nothing but a bunch of bossy control-freaks. <\/p>\n<p>So those are your choices: &#8220;anarchy,&#8221; or being morally obligated to be immoral. I would be happy to see any attempt by a statist to offer some other rational answer to the question, but I won&#8217;t hold my breath.<\/p>\n<p><br clear=\"Left\"><\/p>\n<p>Larken Rose<br \/>\n<a href=\"http:\/\/www.larkenrose.com\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.larkenrose.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>LarkenRose.com | Sometimes it can be difficult deciding how to state the bleeding obvious, when your target audience has been carefully trained to MISS the bleeding obvious. To wit, it&#8217;s possible to demolish the fundamental assumptions underlying statism using very simple lines of reasoning. And for the recovering statist, the logic is undeniable, and the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[294],"tags":[244],"class_list":["post-11340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-statism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oooorgle.com\/BeyondTheCorral\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}