Authority

I recently stated to RWNJ that I did not believe in authority. He later explained to me that authority must be exercised in order to be a parent. I agreed because I could see how avoiding authority would end up letting the child die. I had to concede that I over stated my rejection of authority and restated it in the political sense. Political authority is one that demands obedience without explanation, without empathy, and one that is practiced arbitrarily with aggression.

All humans are created equal. Therefore no one human may have anymore or less power over any other man. Every person owns themselves, to declare otherwise is a self detonating statement. Humans then own their actions and what they produce with their actions. Thus no other person may control another or aggress against another person’s property which includes the self. To do so would falsely claim ownership over that person thus making them a slave.

The initiation of aggressive force against a peaceful person is immoral. If one has difficulty understanding this concept go to a crowded area and strike a person, steal their property and see how the other people in general area react. The concept of immorality is what hinders humans from flourishing and survival.

Morality is human action that is good. But what is considered good? What is considered bad? These concepts are intuitive to humans just as the physics of a ball bouncing against a wall is intuitive. What is not apparent is the why. Just as the equation for a projectile and newton’s law of motion are not readily apparent, the why of morality and immorality are not readily apparent. This confusion is where the state slips in and does it’s damage.

If we look at some examples of actions that are obviously immoral: theft, murder, rape these actions require the use of aggressive force. Without the use of aggressive force these actions can not possibly occur. To prove that these are immoral one must think of two people in the same room trying the same act. For an action to be moral it must be consistent. Thus both person’s must be able to steal from one another and remain moral. But this can not possibly happen because one must steal while the other is stolen from. The experiment self detonates. This can also be seen with murder, rape, or any actions that requires the use of aggressive force. This is how we can see the universality of the Non-aggression principle.

Returning to authority we can now see that the authority that uses aggressive force is immoral.

Authority that is valid are examples that are voluntary. Property owners have authority over their property because people voluntarily can enter and leave. A employer has authority over their workers because the employee voluntarily submits to the authority and can leave at any time etc.

A most difficult form of authority is that of the parent. Instances can be seen where it is necessary for the parent to use force against the will of the child to prevent their harm/death. For example a child must be stopped with force from running into traffic. It must be understood that children are not fully rational moral agents and must be taught to do so. They must also survive to attain this level within society. Children are thus in a period in their lives where their parents have partial ownership over them and thus a form of authority. Yet their future beings must be respected because it has been well established that the events experienced by the child has a formative affect on their brain development and future psychological well being. This authority to be legitimate must abide by morality. Therefore an act that uses force to save their lives is a moral one because of the partial ownership of the parent, the lack of reasoning by the child, and the survival of the future moral agent. But to use force against a child for any other reason becomes immoral. Any act that does not potentiate the future rational moral agent is immoral. This includes spanking, hitting, verbal abuse, arbitrary authority, etc. because these actions are not in the best interest of the future being that is being raised by the parent. All the actions formally mentioned do is teach the immorality that is authority backed up by the use of aggressive force. In essence, the parent is teaching the child the state.

[quote=“Bremen, post:1, topic:35381”]

Authority that is valid are examples that are voluntary. Property owners have authority over their property because people voluntarily can enter and leave. A employer has authority over their workers because the employee voluntarily submits to the authority and can leave at any time etc.
[/quote]So it’s not really authority over another person in either case. Rather, it is authority over one’s self and one’s stuff derived from peaceful means. The relationship between the visitor and the property owner or the boss and employee is voluntary and may be ended instantly by either party.

[quote=“Bremen, post:1, topic:35381”]
Therefore an act that uses force to save their lives is a moral one because of the partial ownership of the parent, the lack of reasoning by the child, and the survival of the future moral agent. But to use force against a child for any other reason becomes immoral.
[/quote]Are you sure? Not all force is aggression. Perhaps you should use the term aggression here instead of force. You could certainly use force by restraining a child from breaking his sister’s toy. This is likely necessary in many cases based on the goal you state in the next sentence.

[quote=“Bremen, post:1, topic:35381”]
Any act that does not potentiate the future rational moral agent is immoral. This includes spanking, hitting, verbal abuse, arbitrary authority, etc. because these actions are not in the best interest of the future being that is being raised by the parent.
[/quote]Sentence A does not lead to sentence B – except with some intermediate steps. I would argue that arbitrary authority is not in a child’s best interest nor is any form of “abuse,” which seems to me an extension of arbitrary authority. Hitting can be dangerous and is likely to injure a child and should be avoided. Spanking is none of the above, and without an intermediate argument from you connecting the two sentences, it does not follow from your statement. I’ll give you an intermediate argument: Spanking a child can “potentiate the future rational moral agent.” It is a tool to prevent “irrational” behavior. A child may not understand the underlying principles of the violation, but the child can learn the concept of consequences and rationally avoid negative consequences. Future is "po

[quote=“Bremen, post:1, topic:35381”]
All the actions formally mentioned do is teach the immorality that is authority backed up by the use of aggressive force. In essence, the parent is teaching the child the state.
[/quote]I taught mine the opposite. He’s a minarchist. But I never used aggressive force against him, so you’re correct.

Yes.

I agreed I should have prefaced force with “aggressive force” and this is what I meant. A police officer using force to stop a robber from stealing a person’s property is not aggressive force but defensive.

Let me rephrase the sentence, “Any act of aggressive force that does not potentiate the future rational moral agent is immoral.”

With the spanking issue I think I have already said my 2 cents on the issue. With this post I am trying to cement my thoughts on authority. If it helps take out the spanking from my post. Do you think then it holds up?

You taught him well :slight_smile:

Are you a monotheist? If so, then you not only believe in authority, but the most extreme, tyrannical kind.

If you read the rest of the post you could answer your own question.

I see. If it’s voluntary, it’s OK? Still, I find a curious irony in a libertarian willingly submitting to a celestial dictator under threat of banishment to an eternal gulag. I would think the only consistent theistic position for a libertarian would be non-theism or anti-theism.

CJ, I might answer that question some time. Not tonight.

I like your post on the face of it, yes.

I’d be interested in your perspective. If you do reply, I think it’s probably a topic that justifies its own thread.

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:8, topic:35381”]
I’d be interested in your perspective. If you do reply, I think it’s probably a topic that justifies its own thread.
[/quote]It is. It’s also something I need to be in the mood to handle, and I don’t usually discuss religion in this format. Sit down over coffee and discuss is much more my style on such topics.

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:6, topic:35381”]
I see. If it’s voluntary, it’s OK? Still, I find a curious irony in a libertarian willingly submitting to a celestial dictator under threat of banishment to an eternal gulag. I would think the only consistent theistic position for a libertarian would be non-theism or anti-theism.
[/quote]The closest thing I can say that describes my beliefs in that particular field is Deism. Therefore I do not believe in Heaven and Hell, demons, walking on water, virgins giving birth to supernatural beings, zombies, etc. I do not think my belief in God is a rational one. I think it is what I was raised with and am unable to let it go. It is something I feel. It may be cognitive dissonance that I am feeling but my belief does not interfere with how I think the natural world functions.

Fair enough. Your theistic beliefs are more clear to me now and are not what I first thought. You seem to have a good grasp on why you believe them as well.

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:11, topic:35381”]
Fair enough. Your theistic beliefs are more clear to me now and are not what I first thought. You seem to have a good grasp on why you believe them as well.
[/quote] Replace “theism” with deism. Sorry typo.

Yeah, I figured that’s what you meant. I have a lot of time for deism and I find its proponents to be, by and large, very sensible people.

If it were as you put it here, I would not even consider wanting to be a Christian, either. I believe in the God that created us for Himself, to inherit what He had created for Himself to share with those that choose Him. If someone doesnt, they can go where God isnt.

[quote=“edog40, post:14, topic:35381”]
If it were as you put it here, I would not even consider wanting to be a Christian, either. I believe in the God that created us for Himself, to inherit what He had created for Himself to share with those that choose Him. If someone doesnt, they can go where God isnt.
[/quote]:yeahthat: That’s a good succinct way of putting it. Thanks edog.

Many of us view it from the opposite direction. It is the incentive more than the disincentive that is interesting.

Still, I find a curious irony in a libertarian willingly submitting to a celestial dictator under threat of banishment to an eternal gulag.__ CJ the desert dweller

Exactly!

God is never presented as a dictator, rather presented as a Father figure: wise, kind, and loving to His children. If He had wanted to be thought of as a dictator He would have presented Himself that way. Our Dictator who art in heaven … Our Boss who art in heaven … etc

“Dictator” is CJ’s personally prefered and strongly biased characterization of the New Testament’s term “Father” … hee hee, 'course CJ has an axe to grind, as we all very well know.

Gotta have some rules CJ, no Father worth his salt is a push-over wimp with no rules and having some reasonable rules does NOT a dictator make.

Cheers.

edog, gotta steal your phrase, " If someone doesnt, they can go where God isn’t" for my notebook to use against certain types.

Jack: “Well, you can just kiss my foot, and go straight to where God isn’t.” :howler:

`

PS
Save your breath Cactus, you already know exactly how it will end up if you say a word. :freaked:

`

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:6, topic:35381”]
I see. If it’s voluntary, it’s OK? Still, I find a curious irony in a libertarian willingly submitting to a celestial dictator under threat of banishment to an eternal gulag. I would think the only consistent theistic position for a libertarian would be non-theism or anti-theism.
[/quote]My answers tend edog’s direction, CJ, but I just had a thought:

If a libertarian believes in the existence of a celestial dictator; if there is a threat of banishment to an eternal gulag; if the libertarian is powerless to prevent it and will be banished there if he does not submit; submission seems wise. When the mugger has you dead to rights at the point of his gun, what’s the wise thing if you don’t wish to be shot? When the federal government does it, how do most libertarians respond? They respond vigorously but they generally submit rather than trying to shoot back. Do they really have a good chance of survival if they refuse to submit? Their lives generally suck if they choose not to submit to their governments. It seems wise that if belief is established and consequences of eternal magnitude are on deck, a libertarian ought to make the best choice for your eternal survival. If happiness is a legitimate goal (and that’s a goal of many libertarians and everyone else too), then it stands to reason, anyone would probably make the choice that sucks the least and has the best chance of bringing happiness, even if it is at the hands of a celestial dictator.

If God were in front of you, how would you respond to the threat? What about the promise?

Anyone who would consign others to an eternal gulag for simply not believing in him/her/it - especially when it is completely reasonable not to believe in the face of no evidence - is almost incomprehensibly evil. And before you say, “But wait, there is evidence…”, well I’m talking about evidence that doesn’t require a tremendous (impossible for many) leap of faith. Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler have nothing on this twisted egomaniac. At least you could choose to die in those earthly regimes, you don’t have that chance in the eternal gulag beyond the grave. This isn’t a robber sticking a gun in your face, or a federal government that wants to take your guns away, it is the most despicable kind of blackmail imaginable. It doesn’t matter whether you are a good or bad person, it just matters whether this malevolent creature gets its ego massaged.

Right now, there are hundreds of millions of good, decent people of a variety of religions who will end up in this eternal gulag because they choose to believe in a different god. In many cases, up to 99% of the population of an entire nation will be cast into the pit of fire because they followed the completely reasonable dictates of their culture, just as you have. But… perhaps they are the ones who are right, and it is you who will end up in the eternal gulag? Nobody really knows, do they?

Anyway, I don’t believe because there is no reason to believe. All holy books are just ancient fairy tales to me. Talking snakes, walking on water, it’s all an entertaining story, but to believe it is the truth requires more blind faith than I have been blessed with.

I don’t know for sure, but probably in a similar way you would if you ended up in front of it and it was a different god to the one you chose to worship.

Any knowledgeable Calvinistic theologian would smile at your statement up there.

The great Calvinistic Theological System’s doctrine of Unconditional Election solved that delimma many years ago by establishing reasonable principles that allow the Bible believer to remain a totally orthodox believer in Biblical Christianity while at the same time NOT being compelled to believe what you said in that quote block up there.

Just because you have no knowledge of the Biblical doctrine of Unconditional Election doesn’t mean it has not been throughly developed and presented.

Do you want Christianity and the world to become brighter, more cheerful, and more characterized by such as victory, faith, hope, and love? Would you like to understand why you never again have to type what you just typed up there?

If you do, then blend the Calvinistic Theological System’s great doctrine of Unconditional Election with the following Biblical doctrines:

  • The Power of the Atonement (on the cross)… (He paid the price, He owns it, He can apply that which he owns to anyone He chooses to apply it to)

  • the Whole World Equally Guilty Before God (Original Sin ie the Fall ~ what is truly amazing in that any of we corrupted humans are saved.)

  • the Doctrine of Pure Grace With Zero Human Merit Added in Order To Obtain Salvation …

  • The Sovereignity of God (that planned everything out in detail before He created a single thing) …

  • the Wisdom of God (it would be absurd for God, who is the epitomy of Wisdom, to create a race of men, the vast majority of whom, He ended up losing) …

  • the Mercy of God …

  • the doctrine of Efficacious Grace…

  • and finally and most important, the Love of God.

There are two theological systems that eliminate almost all the intellectual problems men incessantly discuss here in the 21st century. These two sysyems are The Calvinistic Theological System and the Postmillennial Eschatological System and these two fit together perfectly and together present the total picture with regard to God, Man, and the World.

(Btw, the Calvinists/Postmillennialists have made a decent case that Hell (“where God isn’t” :biggrin:) is going to ultimately wind up being a tiny corner of the universe with regard to percentages, and that the vast majority of humanity will end up saved. This percentages thing is based upon a reasonable assumption that there are trillions upon trillions ~God does nothing on a small donky scale~ of God’s elect yet to be born into the stream of human history.)

Here are excerpts from Calvinists and Postmillennialists on Unconditional Election, men who absolutely hold the doctrine of Biblical Infallibility and have published strong defenses of that doctrine:

"…Our position…has been very ably stated by Dr. W.G.T. Shedd in the following words: 'Let it be noticed that the question, how many are elected and how many are reprobated, has nothing to do with the question whether God may either elect or reprobate sinners.

If it is intrinsically right for Him either to elect or not to elect, either to save or not save free moral agents, who by their own fault have plunged themselves into sin and ruin, numbers are of no account in establishing the rightness. And if it is intrinscially wrong, numbers are of no account in establishing wrongness. Neither is there any necessity that the number of the elect should be small, and that of the non-elect great, or the converse.

The election and the non-election, and also the numbers of the elect and the non-elect, are all alike a matter of Sovereignity…

At the same time it relieves the solemnity and awfulness which overhangs the decree of reprobation, to remember that the Scriptures teach that the number of the elect is much greater than that of the non-elect.

The kingdom of the Redeemer in this fallen world is always described (in Scripture) as far greater and grander than that of Satan. The operation of grace on Earth is uniformly represented as mighter than sin. ‘Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.’ And the final number of the redeemed is said to be a ‘number which no man can number’, but that of the lost is not so magnified and emphasized…

The doctrine of Election taken in itself tells us nothing about what the ultimate ratio shall be. The only limit set is that not all shall be saved…

So far as the principles of sovereignity and personal election are concerned there is no reason why a Calvinist might not hold that all men will finally be saved; and some Calvinists have actually held this view, ‘Calvinism’, wrote W.P.Patterson, of the University of Edinburgh, ‘is the only system which contains principles–in its doctrines of election and irresistible grace–that could make credible a theory of universal salvation.’…

and Dr. S. G. Craig, Editor of Christianity Today, and one of the outstanding men in the Presbyterian Church…says, 'No doubt many Calvinists, like many non-Calvinists, have, in obedience to the supposed teaching of Scripture, held that few will be saved, but there is no good reason why Calvinists may not believe that the saved will ultimately embrace the greater portion of the human race.

At any rate, our leading theologians–Charles Hodge, Robert L. Dabney, W.G.T.Shedd, and Benjamin Warfield–have so held…as stated by Patterson, Calvinism, with its emphasis on the intimate personal relationship between God and each individual soul, is the only system which would offer a LOGICAL basis for universalism, if that view were not contradicted by the Scriptures…"
__Dr. L. Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pgs.130-132

:cool:

[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:18, topic:35381”]
Anyone who would consign others to an eternal gulag for simply not believing in him/her/it - especially when it is completely reasonable not to believe in the face of no evidence - is almost incomprehensibly evil. And before you say, “But wait, there is evidence…”, well I’m talking about evidence that doesn’t require a tremendous (impossible for many) leap of faith. Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler have nothing on this twisted egomaniac. At least you could choose to die in those earthly regimes, you don’t have that chance in the eternal gulag beyond the grave. This isn’t a robber sticking a gun in your face, or a federal government that wants to take your guns away, it is the most despicable kind of blackmail imaginable. It doesn’t matter whether you are a good or bad person, it just matters whether this malevolent creature gets its ego massaged.

Right now, there are hundreds of millions of good, decent people of a variety of religions who will end up in this eternal gulag because they choose to believe in a different god. In many cases, up to 99% of the population of an entire nation will be cast into the pit of fire because they followed the completely reasonable dictates of their culture, just as you have. But… perhaps they are the ones who are right, and it is you who will end up in the eternal gulag? Nobody really knows, do they?

Anyway, I don’t believe because there is no reason to believe. All holy books are just ancient fairy tales to me. Talking snakes, walking on water, it’s all an entertaining story, but to believe it is the truth requires more blind faith than I have been blessed with.

I don’t know for sure, but probably in a similar way you would if you ended up in front of it and it was a different god to the one you chose to worship.
[/quote]Yes, the magnitude of it is much larger than the federal government, no way out and all.

The conversation’s getting mixed up now, which is one of those things that irritates me when discussing religion (it’ll get bogged down in the redundant territory of repetition). We’re not discussing whether God exists or evidence for it. In order to answer your original question, it’s a given that the person answering the question believes God exists. You were asking why a libertarian would submit to God not why he would believe in God. I know how you view religion already.

You have two answers.

And me, I’d probably submit also based on the self-preservation. Facing a real Allah and given the option of signing on, well, it’s a no-brainer, ain’t it.

The discussion about who “knows” and has it right is a distraction, just like the discussion about whether God exists. None of my comments were aimed at convincing you on either topic. They were not arguments for a position on either subject. My comment was merely thoughts I had about the how reasonable folks could or would respond to the thread f they believed.