Free State Wyoming Forum

Discussions Not Related To Free State Wyoming (FSW) => Everything Else => Topic started by: Paul Bonneau on August 13, 2014, 08:06:33 AM

Title: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on August 13, 2014, 08:06:33 AM
Good article on resistance - what characteristics are needed to resist?

http://www.rit.org/authority/resistance.php (http://www.rit.org/authority/resistance.php)
http://www.rit.org/authority/resistance.php
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 13, 2014, 12:15:59 PM
"Those who have a strong belief that authorities can sometimes be wrong are more willing to be defiant. "

Can "sometimes be wrong?" Oh yeah...  No person or group has any legitimate authority over any individual unless specifically granted to them by that individual. Nobody can grant authority for someone else.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 14, 2014, 10:36:07 AM

Great article. I have a semantic gripe but certainly see the point.

Authority and Rulership are two altogether different words, roles and concepts.

In every instance in which it would be appropriate to resist authority the person
or entity pretending to have it has already given it up. Once they have, though they
may still claim legal authority, they no longer have moral authority which is the only
thing that matters.

A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

Rebelling against authority, due only to its role, is a trap. Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 14, 2014, 10:56:21 AM

 Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.

How do you define "legitimate authority," and who decides that for any given individual? Who defines "abuse?"
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 14, 2014, 11:37:45 AM

 Such rebellion is
best reserved for rulers or tyrants or those who abuse legitimate authority.

How do you define "legitimate authority," and who decides that for any given individual? Who defines "abuse?"

From previous post:
A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

And when he exercises that authority by feeding them, clothing them, putting
a roof over their head, pulling them away from cliffs, keeping them away
from dangerous places, etc. it is the second best example of legitimate
authority in the four dimensions we're all supposed to agree comprise
all of "reality".
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 14, 2014, 12:44:47 PM
A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

I don't think may of us here would question that as legitimate. Same would be for those caring for any other completely dependent person.

In any other instance, however, only the individual has legitimate authority over his own life. He can delegate it to someone else, if he wishes, and that would be legitimate too.  All other exercise of authority, one person over another, is illegitimate.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 14, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
A father has authority over his children and that authority is not granted
to him by those children.

I don't think may of us here would question that as legitimate. Same would be for those caring for any other completely dependent person.

In any other instance, however, only the individual has legitimate authority over his own life. He can delegate it to someone else, if he wishes, and that would be legitimate too.  All other exercise of authority, one person over another, is illegitimate.

Yes, most (not all) of the other legitimate examples are delegated. And, of course, the
delegation is the origin of its legitimacy.

I think the article is useful as it highlights the attributes of people
who might, eventually, resist illegitimate authority and thereby perform
a service to all others who are blind to such matters.

However, it's a semantic boxed canyon to be lead into resisting all authority
only because it is such. In the few times and roles in which I've been given
authority with respect to others (Not "over" them) it comes with a set
of responsibilities not many would be jealous of. There are such roles for
people to play from time to time and it can be done in service with humility
and grace.

Actually, the article Paul posted is inspiring a set of simple rules that I might
be able to start teaching my kids. It's a tough can of worms to make simple
but let's see if its possible.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 15, 2014, 07:01:07 AM
It is irrelevant to their legitimacy whether or not the person in "authority" exercises it with restraint, or any other good intention. The only thing that matters to me is if the relationship is voluntary or not. If not, then I will resist it with all my might.

Authority in the form of parent/child or dependent/caregiver is a whole other category, far as I'm concerned. The employee/employer "authority" relationship is voluntary, as are a number of other such. These are not what I'm talking about at all, and it is unfortunate to use the same words, probably.  The vast array of involuntary "authority" situations is the problem, especially because most people see all or many of them as somehow "legitimate." I reject that legitimacy out of hand.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 15, 2014, 11:40:54 AM
It is irrelevant to their legitimacy whether or not the person in "authority" exercises it with restraint, or any other good intention. The only thing that matters to me is if the relationship is voluntary or not. If not, then I will resist it with all my might.

Authority in the form of parent/child or dependent/caregiver is a whole other category, far as I'm concerned. The employee/employer "authority" relationship is voluntary, as are a number of other such. These are not what I'm talking about at all, and it is unfortunate to use the same words, probably.  The vast array of involuntary "authority" situations is the problem, especially because most people see all or many of them as somehow "legitimate." I reject that legitimacy out of hand.

There are many pitfalls in these two paragraphs, above. Some of the sentences are fine from a philosophical
standpoint only because you add words like "to me" and "far as I'm concerned".  I'll point out some
of the pitfalls in a follow up post, perhaps.  First, however, your dogma of voluntary delegation being the only
legitimate form of authority was overturned by my example of a father's authority
over his children. Having been proven wrong in your assumption you shirked the example
that did so into a "whole other category". That was a false argumentative dodge. Namely, you decided
to put my example into a "whole other category" because it enabled you to recover the appearance
of never being wrong which you most certainly were.

I usually let these things go but now we're onto a pivotal area of thinking for which I'm about to formulate guidelines to assist my sons.
As they may read this, one day, I must now put on a different Terence hat for a little while.

You will be given no slack, whatsoever, in any and all areas of argumentative device or
area of life.

 Now I have a question for you: Since you've said, "I don't think many of us here would question that as legitimate."
from where does a father's authority over his children come?

If you don't, or won't, answer this question, directly, neither will I answer further questions
or add more to this thread.

Terence
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: rhodges on August 15, 2014, 11:59:38 AM
You will be given no slack, whatsoever, in any and all areas of argumentative device or area of life.
Sigh. I hope this doesn't turn into an emotional drama.

Quote
Now I have a question for you: Since you've said, "I don't think many of us here would question that as legitimate."
from where does a father's authority over his children come?
My answer is simple: When a soul chooses its mother and father, to join that family, that soul accepts the temporary authority as part of childhood care and safety.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 15, 2014, 12:31:29 PM
  Now I have a question for you: Since you've said, "I don't think many of us here would question that as legitimate."
from where does a father's authority over his children come?

The "authority" of parents, both mothers and fathers, comes from the necessity of survival. It IS a whole different category of "authority" than between sentient, self owning individuals, which is the only kind I was talking about. The assumed, imposed, and indoctrinated "authority" of some people over other people is, as far as I'm concerned, one of - if not the greatest -  evils in the world.  It is a very different thing than the relationships within a family or consenting adults.

And, interestingly, that authority is not absolute either... the parents can neglect or abandon the child, and the neighbors can intervene in the case of abuse or abandonment.  Parents have no more authority to commit aggression than anyone else, even if they get away with it a great deal.

And voluntarily accepted authority can be the same. A person who enters a hospital or other treatment (military enlistment, even a college course) voluntarily (usually) accepts a temporary limitation of his movements and choices, deferring to the authority of those in charge.  The key is whether or not he can opt out, revoke that trust, take back authority over his life and body when he wants to, whether anyone else likes it or not. It is exactly this that makes the "draft" or any kind of involuntary servitude a complete evil.

I don't understand why you are arguing this, since in the past we have agreed most completely about individual self ownership and responsibility. Imposed "authority" negates self ownership. They are mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on August 16, 2014, 10:14:55 AM
Quote
First, however, your dogma of voluntary delegation being the only
legitimate form of authority was overturned by my example of a father's authority
over his children. Having been proven wrong in your assumption you shirked the example
that did so into a "whole other category". That was a false argumentative dodge.

Terence, there is a tendency (reasonable enough) for human beings to seek and understand universal rules. In science and mathematics, this makes a lot of sense. In relationships between human beings, well, it's not so clean-cut. There may well be exceptions. You can't just dismiss the exceptions as a dodge.

Different tribes of humans have lots of rules in common, but also some rules that are different. I don't like to say one tribe is right and the others wrong. Instead, one set of rules works to a certain extent and is suboptimal to a certain extent; and likewise for another set of rules. You don't find mathematical purity in human relations.

Quote
where does a father's authority over his children come?

It comes from culture, which in turn is connected to survival. At least that is my view.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Cyclonesteve on August 17, 2014, 09:14:21 AM

And, interestingly, that authority is not absolute either... the parents can neglect or abandon the child, and the neighbors can intervene in the case of abuse or abandonment.  Parents have no more authority to commit aggression than anyone else, even if they get away with it a great deal.

Sorry to get in the middle of this discussion, but I'm wondering. Who get's to decide what is "neglect" or what a "child" is? By what authority do they have this right? If different neighbors have different opinions, which take precedent and why?

The reason I ask is you seem pretty confident in your "individual only has legitimate authority over own life" statement and I'm wondering how you reconcile that with the neighbors deciding when you are an individual that has this authority.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 17, 2014, 11:12:51 AM

Sorry to get in the middle of this discussion, but I'm wondering. Who get's to decide what is "neglect" or what a "child" is? By what authority do they have this right? If different neighbors have different opinions, which take precedent and why?

The reason I ask is you seem pretty confident in your "individual only has legitimate authority over own life" statement and I'm wondering how you reconcile that with the neighbors deciding when you are an individual that has this authority.

There are no guarantees, and each person has to do what they think is right and accept the consequences - hopefully negotiating and cooperating, but otherwise if necessary.  If you think your neighbor's child is being abused, you do whatever it is you think is best to do about it.  If you involve the neighbors, each one has to do what they think is best as well, and all must consider the consequences.

Each person has to act on his/her own "opinion" the best they can. Mostly, we seem to do pretty fair at that, until the coercive, non-voluntary "government" - or whoever decides to take on that role - comes alone and decides for everyone at gunpoint.

I am very confident in my position. I don't have any authority to decide what is right for my neighbors and they can't decide for me. That's the whole point. Self owners, with full authority over their lives as individuals, also have full responsibility for what they do with that authority. Doesn't it seem curious that those who exercise coercive, non voluntary "authority" are almost never held truly responsible for the consequences?

What is the basis for any "right to self defense" or "right to property"  if one does not have sovereign authority over his or her own life? 
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: SunDog on August 17, 2014, 01:43:27 PM
I don't have any authority to decide what is right for my neighbors and they can't decide for me. That's the whole point. Self owners, with full authority over their lives as individuals, also have full responsibility for what they do with that authority.

While I agree, I also see it in the opposite sense. Those who exercise full responsibility for their lives have the full authority to do so. Consequently, those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives lose the authority to do so. Those who depend on the government for everything become wholly owned by the government. Of course they retain the power to take back the authority to rule themselves - by taking back the responsibility to provide for their own lives.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 17, 2014, 02:53:36 PM
While I agree, I also see it in the opposite sense. Those who exercise full responsibility for their lives have the full authority to do so. Consequently, those who refuse to take responsibility for their lives lose the authority to do so. Those who depend on the government for everything become wholly owned by the government. Of course they retain the power to take back the authority to rule themselves - by taking back the responsibility to provide for their own lives.

Of course, but their lack of responsibility is not MY responsibility. I don't have any authority to do it for them, even if I wanted to - which I don't.  Anyone who does wish to help them should certainly do so voluntarily and at their own expense.

There are many who are happy to fill that role, naturally. Does not make it "legitimate" authority, most especially when others are forced to suffer for it, and even pay for it. All of the "gun control" laws are, supposedly, the answer to the irresponsibility of a few. It is highly illustrative to the point how utterly useless all that truly is in changing the behavior or choices of the irresponsible.

There is a big difference between perceived authority, assumed authority, accepted authority and legitimate authority. I've defined legitimate authority for myself, and you must do so for yourself... the bottom line is that I won't accept the idea that anyone can define it for me, and enforce their definition on me - LEGITIMATELY. :)
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Cyclonesteve on August 17, 2014, 09:45:26 PM
Who get's to decide what is "neglect" or what a "child" is? By what authority do they have this right? If different neighbors have different opinions, which take precedent and why?

So, to get into specifics. My neighbor wants my imaginary daughter to join her brothel. Can I stop her if she's 14? How about 17? Is the age 18 or 21 the magic ages when she can do what she wants? In your "Liberty Land" who gets to decide what the magic age is and how do they get that authority? If it's only about what the "community standards" saying is OK (or not) then can my 14 year old daughter run away to the pedophile part of town and she's good?

I'm just wondering how the "rule yourself" theory works in detail.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 18, 2014, 06:19:51 AM

I'm just wondering how the "rule yourself" theory works in detail.

This is what so few people seem willing to face...   There is no master plan, no magic age, no pat answers at all. Each person has to work it out for themselves and negotiate, cooperate with their neighbors each and every moment - always willing to defend themselves when necessary. Freedom is messy, unpredictable, can't be "organized" into neat little blocks. Freedom won't ever be absolute either, or guaranteed, or even obvious... and it will never be the same for everyone because everyone sees it differently.

Those who agree to live and let live, to refrain from aggression, to mind their own business, and to take responsibility for themselves and their dependents... they have the best chance to live in peace. But there is no guarantee of it. You have to suck in your breath each moment, and however many breaths you took in the past can't negate the need to keep doing that as long as you live. The key is that nobody can breathe for you... and if they could, would you really be alive?

And, in the end, if your 14 year old WANTS to join a brothel, she will... eventually. Your neighbor's "want" in the matter is not the problem - unless you have somehow given him the POWER to do as he wishes with your child - say, as with the government schools. You have assumed temporary responsibility for your children, I'm sure. But you don't own them.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on August 18, 2014, 08:39:17 AM
Quote
Can I stop her if she's 14? How about 17?

One might argue, if she is seriously thinking about this, then you haven't been a very good parent.

The hardest part of parenting is letting go. Kids will make mistakes; we just have to hope they survive them. At some point physical restraint (e.g. grabbing a toddler who wants to run across the busy highway) no longer works. You are reduced to advising them what is smart behavior and what isn't. If they don't trust your judgement, it's a result of your earlier parenting mistakes combined with a need for independence that all kids have to varying degrees. Good luck on your negotiations with your imaginary daughter...   :)

I will add one comment about your example. It's common for liberty to be questioned by the crafting of very unlikely hypotheticals. "What if X happened?" But we shouldn't be spending too much time worrying about very unlikely events. We have only to look at what happens every day, around us. Money ("taxes") is stolen from you every day. People in places like Chicago are prevented from defending their lives every day. Thugs in blue uniforms harm innocent people every day.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Cyclonesteve on August 19, 2014, 07:33:27 PM
This is what so few people seem willing to face...   There is no master plan, no magic age, no pat answers at all. Each person has to work it out for themselves and negotiate, cooperate with their neighbors each and every moment - always willing to defend themselves when necessary. Freedom is messy, unpredictable, can't be "organized" into neat little blocks. Freedom won't ever be absolute either, or guaranteed, or even obvious... and it will never be the same for everyone because everyone sees it differently.

So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: rhodges on August 19, 2014, 09:13:37 PM
So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?
Yes, correct.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Vince on August 20, 2014, 08:45:26 AM
Quote
The research on personal factors in resisting unjust authority gives us hope that we are not all sheep. Some people do say no. If we model critical thinking about authority ourselves and encourage others to do the same, we may be able to contribute to a world in which more people say no to unjust authority.

It is a good start.  Personal freedom and responsibility are not going to come naturally to a majority of people whose training, education, and cultural background are weighted against it.

I am proud to see even a few people say, "NO!".  I am more than satisfied to see even a few who say a quiet, "no".  It is enough.

And, when you consider that more than a few are sending a much louder message these days (Colorado, Et Al), fundamental transformation takes on a completely different connotation than the one statists recognize.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 20, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
Quote
First, however, your dogma of voluntary delegation being the only
legitimate form of authority was overturned by my example of a father's authority
over his children. Having been proven wrong in your assumption you shirked the example
that did so into a "whole other category". That was a false argumentative dodge.

Terence, there is a tendency (reasonable enough) for human beings to seek and understand universal rules. In science and mathematics, this makes a lot of sense. In relationships between human beings, well, it's not so clean-cut. There may well be exceptions. You can't just dismiss the exceptions as a dodge.

Quite fair expectations, Paul: To not expect questions of ethics and human relations to flush out like
 physics and chemical equations meant to predict interactions on the periodic chart to four numbers
past the decimal point.

But, that's also a great reminder to take extreme care when spouting dogma in absolute (Universal) terms.
It is dogma, not its refutation, that assumes universality and therefore bears its burden.

Quote
Different tribes of humans have lots of rules in common, but also some rules that are different. I don't like to say one tribe is right and the others wrong. Instead, one set of rules works to a certain extent and is suboptimal to a certain extent; and likewise for another set of rules. You don't find mathematical purity in human relations.

Yes, and even the rules that tribes have in common are often applied with subtle differences.

Ironically, those who are systematically squelching liberty in almost all areas of life
have no qualms in doing so on absolute and universal terms. They don't water down
their opinions on population reduction, for instance, by saying it's just their opinion. Instead,
they claim (Falsely) that the argument has been resolved and all "reasonable" people agree.
Then we get maggots like Gates in his TED talks explaining how wonderful vaccines are
for that purpose.

Among the few methods of offense that have been successful (Spawning legal precedents, getting left alone in
real life, etc.) are those of or like the Amish. For that matter and for the sake of survival, perhaps it's time
 the Amish were properly referred to by their essence: Christians who won't negotiate.

Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 20, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
I don't understand why you are arguing this, since in the past we have agreed most completely about individual self ownership and responsibility. Imposed "authority" negates self ownership. They are mutually exclusive.

Postings on the forum that "stand" without dissent
should not be confused with assent by supposedly "silent" members.

Even in this last, and least controversial, of your recovering comments, your 2nd and 3rd sentences are either completely unvetted, dangerous, or both.

Your sentence two, from above: “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” is Glib, false, vacuous and useless, I say, the sort of words that pass in a vacuum of overly forgiving friends or a world of no real-world test.

Perhaps you have yet to recover from your recently overturned dogma. That refutation was not in some “whole other catergory” of your delusional and convenient making. It was in direct response to your fully constructed dogma launched on the very subject you sought to launch it, as you often do, on this forum. My response was a refutation, clear and simpler. Here it is given back to you with respect to sentences two and three, above:

A father has authority over his children imposed upon him by the necessity of survival (According to you).

So, if  “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” whose self-ownership has the imposition negated? The father’s or the sons?

Terence
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 20, 2014, 04:20:23 PM
Well, Terrence, I've explained how I think about as well as I know how. I'm sorry you see it as bad, foolish. dangerous or whatever. It is what it is.  I don't have to prove anything to anyone about what I think, and neither does anyone else. Take it or leave it. And I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Cyclonesteve on August 20, 2014, 06:27:51 PM
So it's up to me (and every individual) to decide when we're comfortable using force on our children (and neighbors) to "protect them" from bad decisions until we decide it is now time for them to fully accept the full responsibility (both the good and the bad) for their actions?
Yes, correct.

So how is that different than what we have now? I have to decide when I'm comfortable using force, my neighbors have to decide when they are comfortable using force (and they are VERY comfortable) and we all have to accept the full responsibility for our actions.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 21, 2014, 02:05:43 PM
It is irrelevant to their legitimacy whether or not the person in "authority" exercises it with restraint, or any other good intention. The only thing that matters to me is if the relationship is voluntary or not. If not, then I will resist it with all my might.

Authority in the form of parent/child or dependent/caregiver is a whole other category, far as I'm concerned. The employee/employer "authority" relationship is voluntary, as are a number of other such. These are not what I'm talking about at all, and it is unfortunate to use the same words, probably.  The vast array of involuntary "authority" situations is the problem, especially because most people see all or many of them as somehow "legitimate." I reject that legitimacy out of hand.

Delegated (Legitimate) authority is lost precisely due to behaviors judged by the delegator to be no longer consistent with the authoritative role. For example,  teachers, family members with temporary custody and even someone who has borrowed the car can lose legitimate authority the very instant they exercise that authority in a manner inconsistent with its delegation.

Resisting "with all (your) might” is rarely an optimal allocation of resources. Wouldn’t it greatly improve your odds of survival, or just allocation of limited resources, to channel your “might” into any one of dozens of possible reactions to illegitimate authority, assuming you’ve done the work in distinguishing it from legitimate authority?

In response to agitprop shall those of us who can make authoritative distinctions allow our inferiors to turn the mere word “Authority” into a dog-whistle guaranteed to turn “those crazy anarchists” into zombies?

Let’s say your of the opinion that mere survival is of continually decreasing importance with respect to other things you want to accomplish with your life. Even then it seems that refraining from a knee-jerk reaction to whatever illegitimate authority may come along greatly and needlessly reduces ones options for having the greatest impact.



Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 21, 2014, 02:49:01 PM
 Terence- we seem to be talking about two different things here.

Each human being is the sole owner of his/her life and body. Owner, sovereign, authority... whatever word works for you. Sovereign is, of course, one with no higher authority over them. Without this individual sovereign authority, how does one have any right to self defense, for instance? Would not one have to get permission from whoever did have that authority?

Each human being has sovereign authority over their life, from conception. But not every human is able (or willing) to exercise that authority, of course. Infants, the senile, brain damaged, etc... all must be cared for by others if they are to survive. This is, ideally, a voluntary acceptance of responsibility by the caregivers, but does not confer ownership. And if there is nobody willing to care for them, they don't survive. That's just a harsh reality of life, even in the socialist welfare state.

There are a large number of possible voluntary arrangements and relationships, of course. We can delegate tasks, permission to perform certain things regarding our lives and possessions, but we do not thereby necessarily surrender our sovereignty. One must be the owner, the "boss," in order to delegate. 

Many people are happy to have someone else responsible for some things or everything. Many "give" themselves to god, for instance. But how can they GIVE their lives or loyalty or possessions if they do not first OWN them?

You, or anyone else, can certainly disagree with me on any of that. But for me, I own this life and my body. I am responsible for it, my choices and actions. I am not responsible for anyone else, or their choices.  And nobody else has any LEGITIMATE authority to either make my decisions or to force me to assume responsibility for others. Power to do so? All too often, but that is a completely different thing.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 28, 2014, 11:35:18 AM
A father has authority over his children imposed upon him by the necessity of survival (According to you).

So, if  “Imposed ‘authority’ negates self ownership” whose self-ownership has the imposition negated? The father’s or the sons?

Terence

Still unanswered.

  Now I have a question for you: Since you've said, "I don't think many of us here would question that as legitimate."
from where does a father's authority over his children come?

The "authority" of parents, both mothers and fathers, comes from the necessity of survival.

Cite "necessity of survival" as the source of authority and they'll put you
in the same cage as the horses and the ducks. And that's exactly what they're
trying to do.

Each human being is the sole owner of his/her life and body. Owner, sovereign, authority... whatever word works for you.

It’s your statement. Pick a word. Three words, three subjects.

Each human being has sovereign authority over their life, from conception.

That's when sovereignty was given (According to you), not from where.

You say your authority comes from the "necessity of survival". So, from where does your sovereignty come?


Sovereign is, of course, one with no higher authority over them.

Is that what you are? One with no higher authority?

 
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 28, 2014, 11:44:37 AM
Is that what you are? One with no higher authority?

Yes.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 28, 2014, 03:25:21 PM
Is that what you are? One with no higher authority?

Yes.

Well, Good morning, god.

I suppose with yourself as god your no atheist. No sense being against oneself.

In your exalted status why answer only one of the last four questions?
You're the most religious poster, here, by far. Why dodge direct questions, now?
They certainly remain unaddressed in your usual anarcho-atheist diatribes, thus far.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 28, 2014, 03:36:03 PM
Well, Good morning, god.

I suppose with yourself as god your no atheist. No sense being against oneself.

In your exalted status why answer only one of the last four questions?
You're the most religious poster, here, by far. Why dodge direct questions, now?
They certainly remain unaddressed in your usual anarcho-atheist diatribes, thus far.

My sovereignty is over myself alone... as is yours. I neither pretend or want any authority over anyone else. I am happy to cooperate with any number of people, which does not negate my sovereign authority or theirs.

The sovereign authority of each human being springs from the same source as life itself. You have to answer that question for yourself...  You can't answer it for me. And I have zero obligation to defend that or explain anything, especially in a hostile environment.

You believe and do as you wish, of course. I have nothing more to say to you.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Seniortech on August 28, 2014, 04:47:42 PM
May I comment?
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 28, 2014, 05:52:25 PM
May I comment?

Just reading your question, now, John, just before responding to the latest.
Feel free to ignore and looking forward to your commentary.

Terence
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 28, 2014, 05:52:42 PM
My sovereignty is over myself alone... as is yours.

Best refrain from imputing aspects of my assumed sovereignty until semantic mismatch(es) might be resolved. I’m not convinced they are and we’ve established that you may not ever speak for me.

I neither pretend or want any authority over anyone else. I am happy to cooperate with any number of people, which does not negate my sovereign authority or theirs.

One with no higher authority is properly described as a god. Who cares what you, momentarily, say you “Want”, in contrast to what you say you are: a god. Recall your  succinct “yes” to having no higher authority as it may have  ramifications beyond your intent.

Your a self-pronounced god, now, honey. Whether or not you decide to extend your archist rule (How ironic for an anarchist) is just good or bad luck for the rest of us earthlings.

The sovereign authority of each human being springs from the same source as life itself. You have to answer that question for yourself...  You can't answer it for me.

That’s the same question you been asked and won’t answer! So, what is your answer? From where does the source of life spring?  No one on this thread has attempted to answer the question for you. You’ve been asked, and shy away from, the answer by re-asking the question as if it’s some previously un-introduced idea. Not at all, do tell, do answer.

“And I have zero obligation to defend that or explain anything, especially in a hostile environment.”

Rare disagreement amidst the avalanche of your “anarcho-atheist” (Do correct, if inaccurate)  religious beliefs is described by you as a "hostile environment”?

Welcome to the world you’ve created. Strain to recognize what the rare and odd disagreement, without hostility,  looks like.

You believe and do as you wish, of course. I have nothing more to say to you.

I disagree with your religion and you have nothing to say?  Unlikely, but if so, perhaps your previously related posts should be reevaluated as unevaluated.

Even in this one thread you’ve left at least three fundamental questions of your own dogma unanswered.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Old Ironsights on August 28, 2014, 09:40:53 PM
Well, golly Terrence.

One small question...  In a discussion of Secular Authority, is it Rational to assume that a person declaring that there is no legitimate "higher authority" other than Self  is talking about non-secular matters?

Can one's Personal Sovereignty be assumed to be more justifiably derived from God than secular sovereignty (which only has Paul to back it up)?

If one is to accept Paul's position on Secular Sovereignty then aren't we all TheoPolitical SLAVES to whichever "Authority" has declared itself to be the "legitimate authority" that Paul declares MUST exist at the behest of God?

Sorry.  Paul is no more the Arbiter of Theology than Muhammad is.

If Paul is "Right" then the EXISTENCE of the (Original/Founder's) US is a CRIME AGAINST GOD... AS IS ANY RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY THAT IS NOT IN ANTI-PAULINE DOCTRINAL OPPOSITION.

According to Pauline dogma, one can only (nonviolently) oppose anti-Pauline repression... and even then your best hope is for submissive martyrdom.

And you think that what some of us mean by "no higher (secular) authority" is somehow denying the Supreme Authority of Divinity?

Sorry, your theology just doesn't wash.

God #1
Me/Family #2
Philosophy #3
Secular "authority" way at the bottom.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Boston on August 29, 2014, 11:41:05 AM
O.I. --
Pauline:  Are you referring to our Paul Bonneau or the Apostle Paul?   :D

___
Hmmm, interesting thread. 
It does seem to me that Susan's philosophy must indeed resolve to self godhood.
If that is an unwarranted interpretation, I'd like to learn why.  (She can reply to me, if not to Terence.)

___
Seniortech, please do comment.

Regards,

Boston
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 29, 2014, 12:20:57 PM
Well, golly Terrence.

One small question...  In a discussion of Secular Authority, is it Rational to assume that a person declaring that there is no legitimate "higher authority" other than Self  is talking about non-secular matters?

Great question.

Formulate “rules” for dealing with authority without understanding them in the context of Reality, as was being done here in typical anarcho-atheistic fashion, and the four dimensions to which the discussion was limited will be made into a prison.

Is it rational to discuss radio waves and light while limiting  the discussion to four dimensions? How much can a fish learn about the ocean if nobody bothers to tell him that  he’s studying in an aquarium?

Like radio waves and light, discussions about authority,  and now sovereignty, extend beyond the four dimensions.  Even science, always pathetically late to the game, has settled on either 10 or 11 dimensions as comprising what is referred to as Reality. So, what’s all the fuss and “surprise” about if such important matters are discussed in full context, here?

If someone tried to figure out whether sound or light had an effect on the trajectory of a bullet, on this forum, would it be “irrational” to do so?

Those who successfully oppress, TPTB and all who comprise them, have been outplaying the population on such matters for centuries.

How about a little thinking outside their box for change?


Can one's Personal Sovereignty be assumed to be more justifiably derived from God than secular sovereignty (which only has Paul to back it up)?

Yes. I don’t see Personal Sovereignty as derived in any way from secular sources.

If one is to accept Paul's position on Secular Sovereignty then aren't we all TheoPolitical SLAVES to whichever "Authority" has declared itself to be the "legitimate authority" that Paul declares MUST exist at the behest of God?

Interesting term, “TheoPolitical”.

The weak and incompetent reading of Romans 13 that remains tragically uninvestigated by so many Christians has been leveraged by many a tyrant to do just that.

Interpreted thoroughly, however, the same words contain much insight to keep from being sucked into all manner of slavery.

Sorry.  Paul is no more the Arbiter of Theology than Muhammad is.


Arbiter? I haven’t had much occasion to look at Paul’s  writings in that respect. On reflection, arbitration was an occasional task for Paul in sorting out the early churches. Such passages are not many, however, in comparison to the rest of his work.

Since Muhammad was the most successful con-man in history i think there is much to learn about what not to do from him. In comparison, L. Ron Hubbard is a walk in the park.

If Paul is "Right" then the EXISTENCE of the (Original/Founder's) US is a CRIME AGAINST GOD... AS IS ANY RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY THAT IS NOT IN ANTI-PAULINE DOCTRINAL OPPOSITION.

Lot’s of capital letters, here!

There is no command by God to erect a government. The only organizational structure recommended was the advice to Moses to pick men the people trusted to judge matters so he wouldn’t be overwhelmed with such requests.

Even Rothbard refers to this period as one of two long-term successful periods of anarchy (The other being the early Celts, IIRC).

The pleadings of people to appoint an earthly king over them was a sinful rebellion against God. If one reads through the Bible, line by line, asking the question, “Is this where God says to form a government?” the reader will get to the end of the book and find nothing.

I agree with Rothbard that the counter-revolutionary war was a just war, as was the civil war between the states. What was done, afterwards, is a different can of worms.

Then again, I wouldn’t have begged for a king, as the people did in the time of Samuel.


According to Pauline dogma, one can only (nonviolently) oppose anti-Pauline repression... and even then your best hope is for submissive martyrdom.

Much of what Paul wrote was written from jail. If one is looking for passivity amidst oppression or “law abiding” (man’s law) behavior then he’s not much of a role model. If one is looking to be free and maximize their liberty on earth, however, he’s hard to beat.

I thought there were lots of Romans 13 threads, here, so will keep it brief: Read through it in greek as if it’s advice for dealing with all sorts of “powers” and with government being only one of those powers. Start seeing it as some kind of endorsement or advice to create such powers and it all goes terribly wrong (As well as being inaccurate).

And you think that what some of us mean by "no higher (secular) authority" is somehow denying the Supreme Authority of Divinity?

Not at all IF I had seen anyone on this forum, besides you just now, referring to anything
outside of the four-dimensions in front of their face. Taking it further, as you've done, and referring to
the mere possibility of a "Supreme Authority of Divinity" is quite a leap for this forum.

I think doing so will provide useful liberty yielding results and hopefully in the next
few posts or so.

Sorry, your theology just doesn't wash.

What theology is that?  It’s quite rare for me to discuss these matters on this forum or anywhere else, up until now.  This thread didn’t take much of a theological turn until this exchange, here, with the response to your questions.

Sorry, your theology just doesn't wash.
God #1
Me/Family #2
Philosophy #3
Secular "authority" way at the bottom.

Is this yours or part of what you’re saying that doesn’t wash? I can’t tell which from the context.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on August 29, 2014, 12:28:34 PM
I suspect the Paul being discussed is Saint Paul, not me.  :)

Quote
It does seem to me that Susan's philosophy must indeed resolve to self godhood.

If one thinks in terms of gods, I suppose.  :)

I must confess this thread leaves me scratching my head. I don't see why anyone should get hot over the nature of authority - unless one's intention is to impose that view at a later date. If there is no such intention, then the question becomes more an academic one, and there should be no heat.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on August 29, 2014, 12:37:16 PM
I must confess this thread leaves me scratching my head. I don't see why anyone should get hot over the nature of authority - unless one's intention is to impose that view at a later date. If there is no such intention, then the question becomes more an academic one, and there should be no heat.

I'm hoping this all leads to some useful payoffs, soon.

Regarding "imposing that view at a later date" I think of it more like
a physics equation: It's useful to know that F=MA and to recognize
the repetition of universal constants that keep coming up over and over again
like 'e' or the speed of light.  It's discovery and recognition, not imposition.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on August 29, 2014, 12:54:49 PM
Actually I can think of another reason to get hot: one's own beliefs are shaky, and seeing other's expressed looks like a challenge or attack on them.

Just to move this along some more...
Quote
Cite "necessity of survival" as the source of authority and they'll put you in the same cage as the horses and the ducks.

One does not have to think we are the same as ducks and horses, to believe that at least some of their motivations still also drive us. Or are you suggesting a will to live no longer drives us?

Quote
That's when sovereignty was given (According to you), not from where.
It seems strange to me to talk as if it was "given". Why couldn't it just result from conception? Did the sperm give it to the egg, or vice-versa?

If God is in the picture, that is all right, but it won't work very well as an explanation for people who don't believe he exists, and perhaps also not for those who think it an open question. I suppose you were questioning Susan because she is not in those groups.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 29, 2014, 01:04:05 PM
If God is in the picture, that is all right, but it won't work very well as an explanation for people who don't believe he exists, and perhaps also not for those who think it an open question. I suppose you were questioning Susan because she is not in those groups.

Maybe this is the root of the problem - and I was not seeing it. I am NOT a "christian" or religious in any way. I used to go to church, studied the bible and all the rest for most of my life. The more I studied, the less I believed - and the more I realized that I never believed any of it.

I accept a "Creator," and that the creator is the source of my life and my soverignty, but I can't explain it any more than I can fly unaided to the sun and back.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Seniortech on August 29, 2014, 03:37:17 PM
Hearing no objection I will continue. 

None of us, in the strictest sense, are “sovereign individuals.”

There is an Order in the Universe and in the world we inhabit.  This Order is instituted by the Creator God referred to in the Declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  This is not the complete list of unalienable rights with which we are endowed but these are certainly on the list. 

Man is also endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable obligations.  There is a Natural Law which we are required to obey.  This is the Malum in se, to which we cannot plead ignorance.  The same Creator who has set order in the Universe and has endowed us with certain unalienable rights  has also instituted the Natural Law.  For example, the authority of a father over his son is part of Natural Law. What could be more natural?   If we neglect to properly exercise that authority the price we will pay is a ding-a-ling rebel kid, and that is just the start of it. 

Another item on the unalienable rights list is the freedom to choose.  We are free to choose to not obey the Natural Law but there is a price to be paid if we so choose, and we will pay that price.  But we should not confuse freedom of choice with sovereignty.  Freedom of choice does not make us sovereign individuals?  If we were sovereign then wouldn’t that mean that we could make any choice without any adverse consequences?  I mean, after all, who can question or punish a Sovereign?   But, as in the case of a wayward son resulting from our negligence we suffer some kind of punishment. 

The chaos that plagues us as a civilization is the result of our ignoring God’s immutable law and the evidence of this is a nation of ding-a-lings.  Witness the ding-a-ling in chief!  The idea that we can fix ourselves by our presumed individual sovereignty is doubtful at best and foolish at worst.  Whether we like it or not, admit it or not, we are all subject to the one Sovereign God.  If we are sovereign we are sovereign under God.

The question is not: Am I a sovereign individual?
The real question is: What does God require of me as a sentient being?
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Boston on August 29, 2014, 11:33:04 PM
Well, I applaud everyone's patience and decorum here.
I think it an important thread, even if only "academic".  Perhaps especially if only academic.

I was once PMed the below:
Quote
I was created the owner of my life. That is, with sovereign authority over that life.

To my reckoning, therein lies the insoluable paradox.
Creatures cannot be sovereign in the fullest sense over their own lives.
This, I think, is Terence's main point.

I see the child:parent relationship as a metaphor for the creature:Creator relationship.
While we outgrew our parents' authority, we do not outgrow God's authority.
Seniortech (good to see you post!) touches on this to a degree.

I'll take it further, i.e., Z/NAP is not enough. 
It will not foment some kind of paradise, sorry.

Humans are sufficiently sovereign to reject the Lord, but not so sovereign as to negate the
consequences of that rejection.  We do have much authority over ourselves, and over our
Earth, but neither is unlimited.  I share Terence's frustration with the anarcho-atheist crowd
on this matter.  Had human beings been the answer, we'd have risen above our own muck
looooong ago.  We've not been waiting for Locke, or Paine, or Bastiat, or Rand to finally place
the last puzzle piece. 

No, rather, Jesus has been waiting for each of us to surrender to His loving, eternal sacrifice.
To finally admit that we are not Sovereign over our lives, which began without our will, knowledge, or effort. 
We must all get at least this right:  that we are spiritual beings having
temporarily a human/physical experience.  Miss that, and you'll miss the key to it all.

C.S. Lewis paraphrased it best with the admonition that we must all decide if Jesus was
liar, lunatic, or Lord.  In my own past spiritual laziness and secular arrogance, I tried to avoid
the matter.  Well, as I discovered, it cannot be avoided.   Those of us who do know this, are
frustrated with endless talk of human sovereignty -- nothing personal, Susan. 

In love, Agape,

Boston
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Old Ironsights on August 30, 2014, 03:51:19 PM
To talk about Human Sovereignty in the Theological Sense is folly.

But it is NT folly to discuss it in the Political Sense.

No Human has ANY "authority" over my (non aggressive) actions/person without my explicit consent.

THAT is "personal sovereignty". 

Secular "authority" is a (largely) shared Stockholm Syndrome delusion... in the same way as our Constitutional Liberty is but a Hologram.

It is only the generalized insistence/acceptance/indoctrination created by Religious Hierarchy that concatenates subjugation to Deistic Sovereignty with subjugation to Secular "Sovereignty" (usually defined as some sort of extension of Deistic Sovereignty - i.e "God Ordained that I "Rule"...).

At any rate, the two issues, Personal Sovereignty in relation to Theology, and Personal Sovereignty in relation to Secular "Authority" should NEVER be conflated...
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: MamaLiberty on August 31, 2014, 05:42:32 AM
I think you are confusing the REASON you make decisions, choose things, with the authority to do so.

Every word, thought, deed is preceded by a decision, a choice. Only the individual can make that choice. He can consider what others think or demand, but the final choice is his alone - even if he believes he is doing what god wants, etc. In order to make a decision or choice, he must first have the authority to do so. And, having that authority does not make him perfect, of course, or immune to any consequences of that choice.

We are not puppets on a string. We must make decisions and choices constantly in order to survive. Even if one refuses to choose or to allow others to make the decisions, they have chosen that. Others have the power to influence those choices, of course. There are only two possibilities... negotiation or initiation of force. But those are pressures and reasons to make choices... only the individual actually has the authority to make the choice.  The authority to choose, and the responsibility for those choices comes with life.

It is interesting that people seem so terribly threatened by the very idea of actual individual liberty, with full responsibility for those choices and actions. I wonder why the idea irritates and frightens so many...
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Old Ironsights on August 31, 2014, 06:27:48 AM
Point.  In the Biblical sense, the Genesis Eloheim gave Adam/Eve the personal Sovereignty/Authority to act contrary to Divine Will/Authority, and, as the text holds, they did so.

I.e., they had, and we have, the absolute, Divinely Granted, Right to Choose.

That Right was never Biblically rescinded.

The problem comes not in the choosing, but in the aggregation of "authority"/official violence by those who profess to have been granted a level of authority greater than that of Divinity, i.e. one where they insist that individuals do NOT have the Right to Choose.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on September 01, 2014, 12:21:14 PM
Actually I can think of another reason to get hot: one's own beliefs are shaky, and seeing other's expressed looks like a challenge or attack on them.

Just to move this along some more...
Quote
Cite "necessity of survival" as the source of authority and they'll put you in the same cage as the horses and the ducks.

One does not have to think we are the same as ducks and horses, to believe that at least some of their motivations still also drive us. Or are you suggesting a will to live no longer drives us?

I'm referring to what categories, legally and morally, liberty minded folks will be shunted into
by our so-called rulers depending on what that person expresses about their beliefs (And what
they're prepared to do to defend those beliefs). Actually, that's most of the reason I think this
topic is important: Such beliefs are the highest pivot point from which all manner of
tyranny has been derived.

Getting the hierarchy right and understanding it better than "they" do, including how they've
 embedded it all in legal precedent, is crucial.

Quote
That's when sovereignty was given (According to you), not from where.
It seems strange to me to talk as if it was "given". Why couldn't it just result from conception? Did the sperm give it to the egg, or vice-versa?

If God is in the picture, that is all right, but it won't work very well as an explanation for people who don't believe he exists, and perhaps also not for those who think it an open question. I suppose you were questioning Susan because she is not in those groups.

Perhaps the word "origin" would be more authentic for you and also for others who have an
issue with "given". If something results from conception, is that also its origin or is it
just when it originated?

I think atheists and agnostics could benefit even if they just think of it as
a fairytale that's being used to enslave them. We learn from Heinlein novels
about conflicts on theoretical planets so why would this be any different? Now,
I certainly believe in God and in the few actual beliefs I've expressed, thus far, but one
would not have to hold my beliefs to see what aspects of their beliefs are being
used to against them.

By contrast, I get annoyed with all this crap about worshipping owls by bonfires in northern california. However, it would be a mistake on my part to not take seriously the behavior of the psychopaths that pretend to have
authority over me.

Susan was speaking in 4 dimensions and I was disagreeing in the 11 that comprise
 Reality. Unless discussions on authority and sovereignty are expanded into Reality it will be
impossible to wrestle away or maintain liberties from those who do.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on September 02, 2014, 11:41:57 AM
To my reckoning, therein lies the insoluable paradox.
Creatures cannot be sovereign in the fullest sense over their own lives.
This, I think, is Terence's main point.

I see the child:parent relationship as a metaphor for the creature:Creator relationship.
While we outgrew our parents' authority, we do not outgrow God's authority.
Seniortech (good to see you post!) touches on this to a degree.

I'll take it further, i.e., Z/NAP is not enough. 
It will not foment some kind of paradise, sorry.

Yes, and here's how I would unpack "the fullest sense": Man has been
given a kind of sovereignty in the four dimensions referred to as "earth".
He does not have sovereignty in the eleven dimensions of full Reality. Unlike the
simplistic hierarchical diagrams (Org charts) describing chains of authority in man-made institutions
all eleven dimensions are inextricably embedded.

As is usually the case with such things, Reality strains the ability
of words to fully describe it.

This is how I can agree with the anarcho-capitalst view that most so-called "rulers" on
earth have no more authority than any name you could pick out of a phone book. But
there are many deceptive legal constructs whereby authority has been unwittingly granted
to such legal constructs and earthly "rulers". With knowledge one can begin withdrawing
or withholding consent and avoid conflict, altogether.

Agreed, the Z/NAP is not enough. It's just a great start and a terse way to
describe moral behavior across different world views.


The question is not: Am I a sovereign individual?
The real question is: What does God require of me as a sentient being?

Great questions, John.

Here's one answer to your 2nd question: He requires the withholding of consent
to immoral laws and immoral people. Upstream of that is the requirement to understand
where, when and how such things are presented for consent.


Terence
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Seniortech on September 03, 2014, 01:47:20 PM


 Lest we confuse the reason we make decisions (choices) with the authority to do so: the right to decide (choice) is inherent, an inalienable right, not to be disputed.  The reason we make decisions is because we think they are right, but this cannot be so if it violates the Natural (God’s) Law, and we will enjoy or suffer the consequences.

In the Genesis account Adam/Eve had the right to choose, and that right has never been rescinded. What they did not have was the authority to define the choices or change their consequences.  God, in His sovereignty, laid out the choices and their consequences:  eat of this one tree – you live; eat of this other tree – you die.    But they were assured by their advisor, “You will not surely die!  If you eat of this forbidden tree you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 In making their choice they were saying that:   They had the authority/sovereignty (or individual liberty if you prefer) to decide that God lied about the choices and their consequences.  They would not die!  They would be like God!  They would decide what was the right thing to do, and God could piss up a rope!  For someone to even point out their violation of God’s law is seen as a violation of their liberty as sovereign individuals!  They may not believe in God anyway, or at least His existence is an open question!  Maybe there is a Creator, I’ll give you that, but he went away after the Garden incident and He is not standing in judgment anymore!  We don’t need God or some religious blather to tell us what to do!  We are sovereign, DON’T YOU GET THAT! ! ! ! ! ! ! 

 But rather, O man, who are you to answer back to God?  Shall the thing molded say to him who molded it, Why did you make me thus?   Why did you lay these laws on me?  Why can’t I do like I want to?  Don't you know that life is difficult and I have to make choices every day to survive?

 Now, some say that the Garden Incident didn’t really happen; it is just an allegory at best, and a fairy tale at worst.  Even if that were true, isn’t it a very fine illustration of disobedience to just authority?  (“I don’t have to do what the old man says anymore.  Hell, I’m 16 (or 17, or 18) years old and I can decide for myself now.  I have a job, I’m a responsible individual.  I make my own money.  Never mind that I still live in the old man’s house.  I’m old enough to have my own individual liberty.  I’M A SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL!”)

 I wonder if there is a secular authority as opposed to divine/spiritual authority, the two of which should never be conflated.  They seem to be very much related and isn’t one the pattern for the other?   Of course it is not right for some to assume unjust secular authority over others, authority which is usually enforced by violence or the threat of it.  When people reject natural law and their creator (Anarchy?) the stronger assumes authority over the weaker and enforces it as he sees fit, causing us to exercise our right to self defense.  Are they, perhaps, following the subtle advice of the counselor who advised Adam/Eve to defy just and righteous authority?   

 And so, here we are, each going his own way, deciding for himself, following in the steps of our ancient parents, Adam & Eve.  Oftentimes not giving a thought to what is proper in God’s order, or what He would have us do.  Do you suppose that those two individuals later on would have gladly gone back and eaten of the other tree, the Tree of Life, if given the chance?  Well, as Boston mentioned a couple of posts ago, Jesus Christ is the answer to our dilemma.  He is the perfected Adam and fulfillment of that Tree of Life in the garden, and our opportunity to eat of that tree.  By obeying natural law (God’s law) on earth while yielding our sovereignty to Him we can have Life and have it more abundantly.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Boston on September 04, 2014, 09:43:05 PM
Quote
Susan was speaking in 4 dimensions and I was disagreeing in the 11 that comprise
 Reality. Unless discussions on authority and sovereignty are expanded into Reality it will be
impossible to wrestle away or maintain liberties from those who do.
Spot on, Terence, and I think you've illuminated the gap between your posts and hers.

___
Seniortech, what a magnificent post, thank you.  It is a joy to see you back here,
and in such profound form.

___
This is not to "preach" and certainly not to turn the FSW Forum into some kind of
personal ministry, however, I've made it my mission long ago to speak the truth as
I discover it.  Let us not be deceived on the extent of our sovereignty.  I've collected many
relevant C.S. Lewis quotes for Vol. 3 of Modules for Manhood, and here are some of them. 

Quote
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly,
with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with
what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside
each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life
as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet
ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to
play.
   You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always
thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When
people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian
moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for
kindness, and the fair play between nations, and classes, and
individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing.
When a [libertarian] says about something he wants to do, "It
can't be wrong because it doesn't do anyone else any harm," he
is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not
matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not
run into the next ship. . . . Unless we go on to the second thing
— the tidying up inside each human being — we are only
deceiving ourselves.
   . . . What I do mean is that all that thinking [about the first
thing] will be mere moonshine unless we realise that nothing but
the courage and unselfishness of individuals is every going to make
any system work properly. . . . You cannot make men good by
law: and without good men you cannot have a good society. That
is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality
inside the individual.
   . . . It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we
must think of all three departments: relations between man and
man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the
power that made him. We can all co-operate in the first one.
Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the
third. It is in dealing with the third that the main differences
between Christian and non-Christian morality come out.
   — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, bk. 3, ch.1


What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the
idea they could "be like gods" — could set up on their own as if
they created themselves — be their own masters — invent some
sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God.
And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call
human history — money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution,
classes, empires, slavery — the long terrible story of man trying to
find something other than God which will make him happy.
The reason why it can never succeed is this. God made us:
invented us as a man invented an engine. . . . Now God designed
the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our
spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were
designed to feed on. There is no other. . . .

   That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended —
civilisations are built up — excellent institutions devised; but each
time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the
selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into
misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up
all right and runs a few yards, and then in breaks down. They are
trying to run it on the wrong juice.
That is what Satan has done
to us humans.
   — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, book 2; ch. 2

For what is required [to understand who Jesus really was] is not
merely knowledge but a certain insight; getting the focus right . .
. . One who contended that a poem was nothing but black marks
on white paper would be unanswerable if he addressed an
audience who couldn't read.
   Taken by a literalist, [Jesus] will always prove the most
elusive of teachers. Systems cannot keep up with that darting
illumination. No net less wide than a man's whole heart, nor less
fine of mesh than love, will hold the sacred Fish.
   — C.S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms, ch. 11

Probably the closest human example of the kind of love God has
for us is the love that a married person would have for a mate who
is in a lifeless coma.
   — quoted in Love: No Strings Attached

Until you have given yourself up to Christ, you will not have a real self.
   — C.S. Lewis

Nothing that you have not given away will ever be really yours.
Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead.
Look for yourself, and you will find that in the long run only
hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay will be yours.
But look for Christ, and you will find Him, and with Him
everything else is thrown in.
   — C.S. Lewis

I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have
been, all along, only a region in Hell: and earth, if put second to
Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.
If you aim for Heaven you get Earth thrown in.
If you aim for Earth you get neither.
   — C.S. Lewis, preface to The Great Divorce; Mere Christianity, bk.3

When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I
shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. In so far as I
learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead
of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not
love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first,
second things are not suppressed but increased.
   — C.S. Lewis, Letters (8 November 1952)

. . . I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and
prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant
convert in all England. I did not see then what is now the most
shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a
convert even on such terms . . . . The hardness of God is kinder
than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.
   — C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, ch. 14

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only
because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
   — C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper, ch. 9

The settled happiness and security which we all desire, God
withholds from by the very nature of the world: but joy,
pleasure, and merriment, He has scattered broadcast. We are
never safe, but we have plenty of fun, and some ecstasy. It is not
hard to see why. The security we crave would teach us to rest our
hearts in this world and oppose an obstacle to our return to God:
a few moments of happy love, a landscape, a symphony, a merry
meeting with our friends, a bath or a football match, have no such
tendency. Our Father refreshes us on the journey with some
pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for
home.
   — C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, ch. 7

I was not born to be free — I was born to adore and obey.
   — C.S. Lewis

If, according to libertarian thought, no man is fit to be another's god,
then how is he still fit to really be his own? He's not, at least not
beyond the barest sense of physical autonomy — which he misuses
daily. Our dilemma, however, is that we are not mere physical beings,
but metaphysical creatures temporarily having a physical experience
within the framework of certain rules.

We have no such seemingly alluring libertarian paradise on earth, and never will. We
are not fit to live there. Does this mean that I am somehow now
against the struggle for Liberty? Not at all, because I'd rather be more
free than not but we are not perfect enough to create a libertarian
paradise. We are not even perfectible enough to later do it.

I continue to fight for liberty as generally a matter of national hygiene
(but not expecting too much), just as I sweep and clean my home — not
to sterilize it — but merely to keep it livable. While the struggle for
Liberty is a worthy medium-term goal, it can never suffice as a long term
mission. Whatever might be built will be lost. History teaches us
that quite conclusively. We are not the right material to construct
such things, much less keep them. We have a very shallow "angle of
repose" and our height:base ratio is unsuitable for the work. The
sooner you accept that, the more years of frustration you can avoid.
(Believe me, I ought to know!)

If we look only to our human selves for the blueprint of life, we
are doomed. Any of us. All of us. The "more" can neither be found on
earth nor within ourselves. The "more" exists only within the All, the
Source, the great I Am.

This is the true Struggle: getting my carnal self out of
the way. All others — even the struggle for "freedom" — are
puny and false. True freedom is not freedom from government, but
freedom from yourself. The defiant atheist (however moral) lives
under a personal tyranny of alienation from God more horrible than
any Christian during the worst totalitarian regime.

Quote
Obedience is the road to freedom, humility the road to pleasure,
unity the road to personality.
   — C.S. Lewis, Transposition and Other Addresses

My carnal "self" loathes this, predictably. It doesn't want to be
obedient, humble, or socially agreeable. Its natural alignment is to
proudly do its own thing — and that internal rebellion is waged by the
day, by the minute. But, thanks to God, I am more than "myself" — I
am a part of the Body of Christ. Conjoined through grace with the
Creator, I am a walking fractal of Jesus on earth, as vivid and as often
as I allow it.

THAT is true and full sovereignty.

Submitted in love, with no condemnation of any of you,
Boston
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Paul Bonneau on September 05, 2014, 01:08:02 PM
Quote
We have no such seemingly alluring libertarian paradise on earth, and never will. We
are not fit to live there. Does this mean that I am somehow now
against the struggle for Liberty? Not at all, because I'd rather be more
free than not but we are not perfect enough to create a libertarian
paradise. We are not even perfectible enough to later do it.

I continue to fight for liberty as generally a matter of national hygiene
(but not expecting too much), just as I sweep and clean my home — not
to sterilize it — but merely to keep it livable.

I agree completely. In fact I have written that to act as if libertarian paradise were a goal, is to make it that much harder to go in that direction. That's why I have been pushing Panarchy for so long.

Quote
If, according to libertarian thought, no man is fit to be another's god,
then how is he still fit to really be his own?

Again, the question only makes sense if one normally thinks in terms of gods. I can assure you, I don't look at me as the god of myself. I can see how a person might try to stretch "I own myself" to being the same as "I'm the god of me", but I don't stretch it that way. For one thing, the whole question of ownership is pretty flexible, not anything like an absolute which is the way one talks of gods.

However, just to lay something out here, there is a species of libertarians that tends to go into excruciating detail lengthily finding justifications for liberty, the kinds of people you may be arguing more about. I'm not in that crowd; certain things simply are, and require no justifications. It is very easy to over-talk the thing, and over-talking I think actually hinders its adoption generally. More to the point, I think many diverse worldviews can find use for liberty.
http://strike-the-root.com/freedom-is-not-intellectual-pursuit (http://strike-the-root.com/freedom-is-not-intellectual-pursuit)

Quote
This is the true Struggle: getting my carnal self out of
the way. All others — even the struggle for "freedom" — are
puny and false.
Boston, I hadn't realized you had taken up Buddhism.   ;)
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: NiteRider on September 05, 2014, 05:33:12 PM
Tell it like it is, Brother Boston!  ;D

In a nutshell, it's not about self-OWNERship, but self-STEWARDship.
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Boston on September 06, 2014, 02:41:51 PM
Quote
Boston, I hadn't realized you had taken up Buddhism.
Paul, there's a bland similarity regarding getting out of one's way, I agree.

________
Quote
In a nutshell, it's not about self-OWNERship, but self-STEWARDship.
That's a superb way of putting it, thanks!

Boston
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Terence on September 08, 2014, 11:22:57 AM

. . . I've made it my mission long ago to speak the truth as
I discover it. Let us not be deceived on the extent of our sovereignty.  I've collected many
relevant C.S. Lewis quotes for Vol. 3 of Modules for Manhood, and here are some of them. 

I think you're on as solid ground as possible on this subject. TPTB provide
 indirect proof that such is the most effective means of overturning their
nonsense, as well:

 1 - They are quite pleased when all discourse is kept at Lewis' first level
       of morality.

 2 - All other world views are encouraged as useful in exploring "diversity"
      except one.


It is very easy to over-talk the thing, and over-talking I think actually hinders its adoption generally. More to the point, I think many diverse worldviews can find use for liberty.
http://strike-the-root.com/freedom-is-not-intellectual-pursuit (http://strike-the-root.com/freedom-is-not-intellectual-pursuit)

 I like your two rules of thumb of doing what you want and not being pushed around. That people can't
find it within themselves to amicably do only those two things makes it all the more tragic.

Now we get this sort of thing from the green think-tanks.  Combine this misguided (At best) view
of sovereignty with the International Standard building codes being adopted in America and it's
a pretty good picture of what they've been doing. It's also a motivator to have one's own counter view
of Reality in this area firmly rooted and understood.



(http://mcgillespie.com/_docs/bgg_chart.jpg)
Title: Re: Resistance to unjust authority
Post by: Old Ironsights on September 08, 2014, 11:51:27 AM
What the image you posted demonstrates is what most of us have understood for a long time...

That the Political/Authoritarian spectrum is not Linear, but circular.  Go far enough "away" from either Right or Left Statisim and you end up back at square One.

That some "international "authority" has any sort of "legal" sway over what I want to do with my own home is an insane travesty...  to the extent that those selfsame morons have made it almost impossible to purchase an effective/efficient carpet vacuum in Europe.  ::)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11047127/EU-rules-against-powerful-vacuum-cleaners-ban-best-models-Which-warns.html

Of course, since lesser efficient/less powerful (like using ethanol/mbte in cars) cause greater use times lowered efficiency INCREASES the amount of power throughput (chargable use) it's no surprise that the oligarchical supporters of such crap get even more "power"/wealth...

Fie on them all.