This is perfect, I apologize for my writing skills, you are helping me hone them and I deeply appreciate you for that gift. Agree on all points. Thank you. The last paragraph explains premeditation (coercive) murder, killing, etc. Again, I go back to Cain and Abel, even the slightest bit of premeditated evil, can lead to destruction on a worldwide scale. It’s the repercussions that kill us. All we need is unconditional love and understanding. Thank you, Chris, I love peoples minds. You are brilliant!
Thank you, Lee. You have communicated your ideas admirably.
I also write in my book about the ripple effects of the things we do—how everything we do goes out through the web of reality, having any number of close or distant repercussions. Usually good things have good repercussions and bad things have bad. (Though not always.)
Case in point: my son lost a ton of weight over the course of the last 9 months. He completely changed his life. Now, inspired by that example, his friends are losing weight and they're all going to the gym together. Ripple effects!
Upon going over this in my mind, several times, involuntary governance, is the choice of the governing body, which leads to the answer, does man have free will? Or are we a systemic machine? The answer is both. Some people need a leader, some people are leaders. As I read more, I understood the comment. Free will is a gift by God for the people who do understand His natural law, which in turn, is our natural law. We were made in His likeness/ image to the core.
For example, you are a philosophical writer, and you gravel with free will or the bad/evil factor. Influenced by people who are adherently bad/good; natural law is part part of both. God gave us the “inherited right”, predestined us all with one stipulation; free will.
Why would He do such a thing? He loves us so much, He gives us the choice of what to believe and who to love. Now the question becomes deeper for us, do we use free will to be good or bad? The answer is your choice. People in general are not bad or evil. People are genuinely good.(Thank you to my rose colored glasses) It’s the influence of others whom turn a person around. So the question will always remain, why the choice? My answer, my opinion. God gave us free will to love Him wholeheartedly. I give my free will to Him as he loves me, I love Him. There cannot be a cold answer to this question. There is black and white for Him, but it is always a grey area for us. As we have the choice of religion, enslavement, being evil or being good, He has given us guidelines, rules and law. The 10 commandments, which we have adopted into our lives, “thou shall not murder”, for example, which seems like a natural law, but when you are hungry, what will you do to live? Kill or die? Again, your choice. Let’s talk about premeditated murder, ie; Cain and Abel. The first horrific murder committed by a man, over what? Jealousy. Which is another emotion we should not entertain, as it leads us down the path to an evil result. Always. You can’t talk your way out of jealousy, nor the 10 commandments or the seven things in which the Lord hates, and the Beatitudes. Some may view this as poetry, some of us view this as “our” laws, to live by. It seems like I twist and turn, as free will is so deep to grasp. I would love to hear/see your comment. I would also love to have a podcast with you about this. It’s an amazing topic, and we should dive down the rabbit hole of free will.
Existentialism is one of the philosophers greatest tools, yet it deals with the dualities of man and the mind.
Yes, there's a lot here, and it is indeed a fascinating topic.
On what free will is…
I think you are correct. In my book, I use this metaphor: You have a biological substrate, the "programming" of your upbringing, and the facts of nature. Those are the ground beneath your feet. You have context, circumstances, luck, the actions of others, etc. Those are wind and weather. But you still decide where you go, what you do, how you move upon that ground and how you contend with the weather. THAT is your free will.
On why God gave us free will…
Not much to say there. I think you, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc. are all correct. God gave us free will even knowing the price, because it is the only way that we can exist as REAL creatures. It' the only way that love, etc. can be real.
On whether people are good or evil…
Certainly not inherently evil. God would not make us that way, and we are made in His image. But we're definitely flawed. Definitely capable of evil because of our free will. God made us radically free, so we have the capacity to go radically wrong.
As far as killing, etc., I would refer us back to my chart above. I think it suggests that there is (at least) one morally provable rule: that (coercive) force initiated against another is always wrong. This doesn't answer all questions—for example, there are the difficult questions about what constitutes force on marginal issues (using someone's likeness in an advertisement, smoking in a crowded room, etc.). And there are questions about what constitutes appropriate protective force, etc. But even with those challenges, it's a pretty good core rule!
I'll need to study your graphic! Nice work. Luckily, we Christians are commanded to be obedient unto kings and men in authority, and it pleases God when we suffer an immoral government for His sake, or total war would be the very air we breathe.
If I understand the end of your comment aright, I believe it makes the error that we have all been making for the last ten millennia; that is, assuming that our only options are oppressive government or chaotic anarchy (as if there is no third choice). I simply no longer believe that to be true.
Setting aside the example of Ireland from the Bronze Age all the way into the 17th century, which did have that third way (Brehon Law), we simply have not really tried. We just keep assuming that no third way is possible and submitting to oppression. But numerous thinkers, from Spooner all the way on up to Hoppe, have laid out a very clear and very plausible pathway to that third option.
I'm sorry for any lack of clarity on my part. I applaud your third option and would like to see it manifest, and perhaps total war could be circumvented. My appeal to heaven is both right and safe as a Christian, for it covers me whether I am in a slave collar, a voting booth or under Brehon Law. How do we transition from where we are to where we could be?
"My appeal to heaven is both right and safe as a Christian, for it covers me whether I am in a slave collar, a voting booth or under Brehon Law."
The way you say it there makes a lot more sense to me than the notion that we are commanded by God to obedience, even to unjust authorities. I refuse to bend the knee to tyranny. If that is the wrong choice, then God can yell at me when I meet Him. I will try to have compassion, and not to hate my oppressors, but I do not see that God would want a world of oppression, or that He would want me to submit to or suffer it. A world where the innocent are subjected to force. A world in which children are targeted by sickos. I cannot imagine that He would not want me to defend the little children! So I will fight, and He will surely tell me where I went wrong.
Hopping in to expand on the Biblical mandate of submission to authorities (Human Government is in view).
We have to begin with the de facto purpose for Human Governance from a Biblical perspective:
”For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.“ —Romans 13:3-4
Distilled: God’s stated purpose for Human Governance is to Promote “good-doers” and Punish “evil-doers” (with God’s Laws and Precepts the “Moral Baseline”).
However, where Governmental mandates are cross threaded with God’s Law, the Believer obeys God. Examples:
-The Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s Directive to kill all male Hebrew babies at birth. The obeyed God and He blessed them.
-The Hebrew teenagers cast into Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace for failing to bow down and worship his golden statue. The pre incarnate Christ met them in the flames and delivered them (an impressive sign to the rest of the citizens regarding their boasts about the God who Delivers).
“Render unto Caesar” requires that we be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.
Shifting gears a bit. There are copious examples of Utopian societies that rocketed off the rails in their quest to be free of “social/civic constraint. Jonestown comes to mind—as does the theoretical and anthropological test tube case, “Lord of the Flies.”
There is an element of the Human heart that will derail every attempt to form a society free of (Necessary) constraint. The Believer recognizes this as the Sin Nature (which Naturalists reject).
But, the Sin Nature goes a long way toward explaining the non-stop depravity that has plagued humanity since the Garden. Can abject “evil” be accounted for in any other way as compelling as this?
All of us need a Savior (not just a government or utopia). Even when we are unable to discern this truth, it remains True.
"How do we transition from where we are to where we could be?"
That is unclear. If there is a complete collapse, then we do so all at once: we rebuild as voluntary private-law societies. If not, then it will have to happen gradually, through decentralization, devolution, separation, and secession. But the first step, as always, is to understand. I have so far read Hoppe, Rothbard, and D. Friedman. on the subject. (I am in the middle of "The Machinery of Freedom.") These are good practical descriptions of how it can be. (Next, I am going to read Spooner's
"No Treason" and see what treasures it holds.)
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I think an important part of that understanding is contained in my article above. We have to understand the philosophical justification. I am open to anyone poking holes in any premises or conclusions therein, but so far, I cannot find any. The implications may seem wild, but if they are true, then they are true. And if they are true, then we must not continue as we have done, for it is immoral.
Suppose I buy a large plot of land and invite people to move into it, subject to my rules, which I spell out. Is that "government"? I'm having a hard time figuring out where the exact line is between private arrangements and government.
'Tis an excellent question. You are indeed free to create any sort of polity on your own property. Even an entirely illiberal one. This would fall under the "enarchic" category described here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want)
The difference between what we have now and a freer world would be that people would be free to join, not join, and exit from your polity.
Establish, join, exit, secede, and remain. These would all be required in a free world.
Now, some thought does lead to potential problem: What if an illiberal polity eventually stops allowing people to exit? That IS a problem, without a doubt, and we can discuss possible solutions, etc. But in the meantime, those are the basics.
"[P]eople would be free to join, not join, and exit from your polity."
I'm not seeing a sharp line between this example and a city with a government. In either case, you can accept the rules/laws or leave. If there were no state or federal governments, would independent cities, each with its own set of laws, be permissible in the world you envision?
" In either case, you can accept the rules/laws or leave."
—that would be fine if there were wide swaths of unexplored planet out there. But there aren't. If a government allows you to leave, the best that you can hope for is to go to another variant of the same involuntary "social contract." That is not choice—it is Prison Planet.
"If there were no state or federal governments, would independent cities, each with its own set of laws, be permissible in the world you envision?"
—Yes, absolutely free cities would be permissible.
I like what you have said about the "in between" places. That's what I call them. Everyone always talks about "A" or "B" but no one ever talks about the infinite amount of choices in between. So, I agree that it isn't "government" or "anarchy". That's utterly ridiculous. Of course there is more. And seeing the progression from the absence of ontological authority rings true. Authority imposed on the unwilling is coercive force. I agree. Also, false contracts that were made with "supposed" consent, which are fraudulent, hold no power. If you give someone a piece of paper with a line on it and say sign here, but that line is secretly a sentence stating that they agree to something, that is false. There is no contract. Our government does a lot of crap like that. They assume we have agreed when we don't even know what's really taking place. All those contracts are null and void, well in fact, they were never permissible to begin with. And no one can ever be owned. No matter what trickery you might employ, this is a simple fact of God/nature/humankind. We should begin to claim these things every day. Thank you for your good work.
I am very glad you appreciate it and are thinking along the same lines.
One big leap for me came like this:
I was struggling with the slave contract dilemma. Can someone consent to sell himself into permanent slavery? After all, he's consenting and willingly signing a contract, right? I kept coming back to the thought that he should be able to agree to such a thing, but then if he changed his mind, he had to be let out of it. But I could not justify that—it was just a feeling.
Then Murray Rothbard swooped in to help. He said that a slave contract cannot be enforceable because contracts deal in alienable property, but self-ownership (which is what is at stake in a slave contract) is not alienable. Even the possessor of his own self-ownership cannot alienate it. It is naturally inalienable.
So that solved the dilemma for me. Rothbard had given me moral justification for the intuition I had about it. But it still was to be another couple of years before I fully got to where I am now. It was that Cassirer quote that did it (the one I put in the footnotes of the Constitution piece from yesterday). This was the core of it:
"If a man could give up his personality [i.e., his right to self-ownership] he would cease being a moral being. He would become a lifeless thing—and how could such a thing obligate itself—how could it make a promise or enter into a social contract?"
I was listening to an audiobook version of Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" and he quoted that quote. I turned it off and just sat in my car in a parking lot with that quote beating in my brain, over and over. I scrawled some notes. I thought about it some more. The words "lifeless thing" echoed. And suddenly, finally, the last tumbler in the lock turned and the door opened, and by the time I got back to my house I was permanently changed. And here I am. Here we are.
So, it's another false contract. It holds no water. If you cannot give away your self-hood because it's inalienable, but you seem to, you still have not. You are just confused in your role. You might feel like you are dead, but you are not. Poor creature. When you remember yourself, stand up! Every single person is the beneficiary of this earth. If we forget that, we can still make a comeback. We each have more power than we realize.
It's not a contract at all. It's just violence by a criminal gang to whom we have accorded the presumption of legitimacy.
Not all people in government are criminals, of course—some believe in the idea, and most are just working jobs. But as an aggregate phenomenon, it is no different than the mafia.
That's nice to hear. No one in my bubble is waking up to it, but that's okay. I will continue to work amongst them and say things like "We have to be careful who we give our power to". I don't think subtlety is really working for me though. I am a pianist for a 501C3. It's not really my role to share my opinion every time the microphone comes around. If I did that I would probably have to quit. So, I have been dealing with people one on one. I think it's time to step up my game a little. I have been careful for three years and I don't feel like I have made much progress. Although, on certain subjects, I have felt a small change. I see people looking at me to see how I am reacting on certain subjects. So at least, they know subconsciously that I do not approve. It's probably time, 2024 might be my last year there. Every time I imagine speaking , I go on too long. I am ready to make them a PowerPoint presentation on any subject! No one will ask. To me, that would be the magic. A mind curious on my position is more open to what I have to say. I was hoping someone would become curious and ask me for more information. That's not going to happen. I need to think some more about my strategy. I just want to capture the most minds. I don't even care if I have to leave after that. I truly love some of these people. :) Also, some of them are not mentally capable of dealing with all of this. One of them is somewhat mentally disabled. I want to be careful what ideas I put into her mind because she would have no way of dealing with that information, if that makes any sense. I feel like I need "consent to present" because of that. Or at least, I should choose a day when she is not present. I have stored info in a folder just for them, should they ask. If they all start clamoring for masks again, that will be my cue. I am not wearing a mask. I already proactively let them know that I will not don a mask again should that come up and that I am prepared to do a presentation explaining why. No one has asked. That's okay, I may present anyway with no powerpoint, should that day come.
This is a dilemma we all face. For what it's worth, here is my take…
You want to have an impact, right? To wake people up. But you keep finding that the gap between most people and the truth (and their willingness to see it) is too great. So you spend tons of energy on a tiny number of people only to get nowhere. Been there, done that!
It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. YES, it's good to try to make an impact on those around us, because it's those relationships that matter most. BUT…we also spend a ton of time trying to convince one un-convincible person. We end up frustrated, and the time we spent didn't even help.
But writing an article reaches hundreds or thousands. Writing a book maybe reaches many more. Those produce a much bigger bang for your time invested.
If you do not do those things, or want to do those things, then my suggestion is this: stop trying to convince the un-convincibles. Especially one on one. Connect with people who are similar. They do not have to be exactly the same, but they should be people who are at least in the same ideological region. You will learn more, be able to teach a little, and you'll be way happier. And in the long run, as groups of like-minded people start gathering and working together (rather than beating our heads against a way trying to convince someone who is way gone), they set an example and then that attracts others. We win not by winning specific people over to our side, but by lighting a signal fire that is seen by many, and building a shining city that they want to be in.
Thank you, that's a really good point. I have said to myself many times that I need to find "my team". I have actually found a few people like that (in real life, not just online). As a matter of fact, I just had a shirt made that I plan on wearing around in the world. On the front it says "You are a Valuable Human Being with Human Rights" and on the back it says "You are the beneficiary of this earth". I was planning on making a couple more in an effort to start conversations with people. So, I am with you there. But thanks for saying it. I think my struggle with my workplace is probably fruitless. I will follow the intuition that brought me here. I didn't want to start writing on Substack yet because I have a few jobs, not just the one I mentioned. I was afraid to commit the time and I also don't consider myself an expert on any one subject. But you are right. I have things to say. I will think on that. I really appreciate you! Take care.
Ah, that was you. I don't do as much on Instagram because there is the omnipresent risk of censorship. I would hate to have a lot of hard work there dashed in an instant, so I don't do much there and I usually only check in at the end of the day, when my wife and I are winding down from work. So I only saw your DM last night.
Interesting thoughts. For the time being, I am focused on writing rather than podcasting. In general, I like to communicate with people, answer comments, etc. in written prose more than by voice. It helps me compose my thoughts (and also, my voice gets tired quickly). However, if you start a podcast, I will happily be a guest!
Yes, on and off for 8 years, now. It stinks, as your body processes the anti fungals through the liver. But...still have to bind out toxins with food. I use Richie Shoemocher(sp) method. Milk, cheese, etc. It works!
Amen, I was a personal trainer for 15 years. My main focus was disabilities. Now I am disabled, from a car accident and I lived in a “sick house”, I acquired black mold and fungus. It’s a constant battle everyday. With God’s grace and my beliefs, I have a strong constitution...the docs don’t like that🤣. Fight the good fight! Congrats to your son, I love hearing stories like this! Hope, faith and love; but the greatest of these is love!
I needed a day, to read it, let it ruminate in my brain chamber, this is very good, indeed. I will say the truth, knowing it’s my critical opinion. At first, “Republic” by Plato, comes to mind. Also the Roman Empire. The rise and fall. As in society today, we have only two ways to choose, just/unjust. The free will, which I love on your chart, seems like the “saving grace” for us all. A choice, a gift being granted...as you will. I studied philosophy of religion in college, and I am a Christian. The dichotomy l have between the governing bodies, which in a sense, we have allowed enslavement since the beginning of time, but we also have free will. I am leaning towards both topics, on that excellent chart, studying most religions there has always been a hierarchy. Whether it be morality is the true question, or is it something darker?
I personally loved this article, and the chart. What caught me was the last paragraph that states: “but if these conclusions are correct, then the implications are truly profound.” “If the math is right, then the entire way in which human societies are arranged has to change.” I agree wholeheartedly.
But the implications, then, include the notion that any violation of that free will—any initiation of coercive force against a nonaggressive person—is impermissible. That means we have to get rid of all involuntary governance.
I have some thoughts as to what that could/ought to look like, but I would also like to hear yours…
What's that quote from C.S. Lewis about how God gave us free will, even knowing the risks…? Here it is:
“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.”
The story of the Irish kings with little power reminds me of a scene in a movie (I've forgotten which one!) in which a soldier in the US army is puzzled with a Native American chief who can't simply tell his people what they must do. The chief replies -- "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be a chief any more."
I chuckled when I heard it, but that says something about "government" by a loose federation of leaders or elders with perhaps one or more of those who are followed out of respect for their wisdom. So a "chief" is not a dictator who must be obeyed - he is simply one among many leaders whose views are most respected -- and he *may* be followed for that reason and no other.
"If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be a chief any more."
Boom. That is profound.
In the 1st century, Tacitus talks about the difference between auctoritas (the kind of authoirty you just described—rooted in consent, merit, and respect) and potestas, which is based on forced compliance.
Forced compliance is never acceptable.
I used to think the concept of a "libertarian monarchist" was a contradiction. I was ignorant. Reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe cured me of that.
Forty years ago I heard of the example of Ireland at a meeting of the Loop Libertarian League in Chicago (the loop is what we call the elevated train track that forms a square around the downtown business district).
Nice! To my knowledge, it is the longest and most successful example.
Ironically, it was Oliver Cromwell who drove the final nail—and he was empowered by an English war that was supposed to be a seminal moment in the development of English liberty. History is weird!
This is perfect, I apologize for my writing skills, you are helping me hone them and I deeply appreciate you for that gift. Agree on all points. Thank you. The last paragraph explains premeditation (coercive) murder, killing, etc. Again, I go back to Cain and Abel, even the slightest bit of premeditated evil, can lead to destruction on a worldwide scale. It’s the repercussions that kill us. All we need is unconditional love and understanding. Thank you, Chris, I love peoples minds. You are brilliant!
Thank you, Lee. You have communicated your ideas admirably.
I also write in my book about the ripple effects of the things we do—how everything we do goes out through the web of reality, having any number of close or distant repercussions. Usually good things have good repercussions and bad things have bad. (Though not always.)
Case in point: my son lost a ton of weight over the course of the last 9 months. He completely changed his life. Now, inspired by that example, his friends are losing weight and they're all going to the gym together. Ripple effects!
Upon going over this in my mind, several times, involuntary governance, is the choice of the governing body, which leads to the answer, does man have free will? Or are we a systemic machine? The answer is both. Some people need a leader, some people are leaders. As I read more, I understood the comment. Free will is a gift by God for the people who do understand His natural law, which in turn, is our natural law. We were made in His likeness/ image to the core.
For example, you are a philosophical writer, and you gravel with free will or the bad/evil factor. Influenced by people who are adherently bad/good; natural law is part part of both. God gave us the “inherited right”, predestined us all with one stipulation; free will.
Why would He do such a thing? He loves us so much, He gives us the choice of what to believe and who to love. Now the question becomes deeper for us, do we use free will to be good or bad? The answer is your choice. People in general are not bad or evil. People are genuinely good.(Thank you to my rose colored glasses) It’s the influence of others whom turn a person around. So the question will always remain, why the choice? My answer, my opinion. God gave us free will to love Him wholeheartedly. I give my free will to Him as he loves me, I love Him. There cannot be a cold answer to this question. There is black and white for Him, but it is always a grey area for us. As we have the choice of religion, enslavement, being evil or being good, He has given us guidelines, rules and law. The 10 commandments, which we have adopted into our lives, “thou shall not murder”, for example, which seems like a natural law, but when you are hungry, what will you do to live? Kill or die? Again, your choice. Let’s talk about premeditated murder, ie; Cain and Abel. The first horrific murder committed by a man, over what? Jealousy. Which is another emotion we should not entertain, as it leads us down the path to an evil result. Always. You can’t talk your way out of jealousy, nor the 10 commandments or the seven things in which the Lord hates, and the Beatitudes. Some may view this as poetry, some of us view this as “our” laws, to live by. It seems like I twist and turn, as free will is so deep to grasp. I would love to hear/see your comment. I would also love to have a podcast with you about this. It’s an amazing topic, and we should dive down the rabbit hole of free will.
Existentialism is one of the philosophers greatest tools, yet it deals with the dualities of man and the mind.
Yes, there's a lot here, and it is indeed a fascinating topic.
On what free will is…
I think you are correct. In my book, I use this metaphor: You have a biological substrate, the "programming" of your upbringing, and the facts of nature. Those are the ground beneath your feet. You have context, circumstances, luck, the actions of others, etc. Those are wind and weather. But you still decide where you go, what you do, how you move upon that ground and how you contend with the weather. THAT is your free will.
On why God gave us free will…
Not much to say there. I think you, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc. are all correct. God gave us free will even knowing the price, because it is the only way that we can exist as REAL creatures. It' the only way that love, etc. can be real.
On whether people are good or evil…
Certainly not inherently evil. God would not make us that way, and we are made in His image. But we're definitely flawed. Definitely capable of evil because of our free will. God made us radically free, so we have the capacity to go radically wrong.
As far as killing, etc., I would refer us back to my chart above. I think it suggests that there is (at least) one morally provable rule: that (coercive) force initiated against another is always wrong. This doesn't answer all questions—for example, there are the difficult questions about what constitutes force on marginal issues (using someone's likeness in an advertisement, smoking in a crowded room, etc.). And there are questions about what constitutes appropriate protective force, etc. But even with those challenges, it's a pretty good core rule!
I'll need to study your graphic! Nice work. Luckily, we Christians are commanded to be obedient unto kings and men in authority, and it pleases God when we suffer an immoral government for His sake, or total war would be the very air we breathe.
Thank you for your kind words on the graphic and arguments. I have worked very hard behind the scenes to lay the groundwork for all of this.
If I understand the end of your comment aright, I believe it makes the error that we have all been making for the last ten millennia; that is, assuming that our only options are oppressive government or chaotic anarchy (as if there is no third choice). I simply no longer believe that to be true.
Setting aside the example of Ireland from the Bronze Age all the way into the 17th century, which did have that third way (Brehon Law), we simply have not really tried. We just keep assuming that no third way is possible and submitting to oppression. But numerous thinkers, from Spooner all the way on up to Hoppe, have laid out a very clear and very plausible pathway to that third option.
I'm sorry for any lack of clarity on my part. I applaud your third option and would like to see it manifest, and perhaps total war could be circumvented. My appeal to heaven is both right and safe as a Christian, for it covers me whether I am in a slave collar, a voting booth or under Brehon Law. How do we transition from where we are to where we could be?
"My appeal to heaven is both right and safe as a Christian, for it covers me whether I am in a slave collar, a voting booth or under Brehon Law."
The way you say it there makes a lot more sense to me than the notion that we are commanded by God to obedience, even to unjust authorities. I refuse to bend the knee to tyranny. If that is the wrong choice, then God can yell at me when I meet Him. I will try to have compassion, and not to hate my oppressors, but I do not see that God would want a world of oppression, or that He would want me to submit to or suffer it. A world where the innocent are subjected to force. A world in which children are targeted by sickos. I cannot imagine that He would not want me to defend the little children! So I will fight, and He will surely tell me where I went wrong.
Hopping in to expand on the Biblical mandate of submission to authorities (Human Government is in view).
We have to begin with the de facto purpose for Human Governance from a Biblical perspective:
”For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.“ —Romans 13:3-4
Distilled: God’s stated purpose for Human Governance is to Promote “good-doers” and Punish “evil-doers” (with God’s Laws and Precepts the “Moral Baseline”).
However, where Governmental mandates are cross threaded with God’s Law, the Believer obeys God. Examples:
-The Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh’s Directive to kill all male Hebrew babies at birth. The obeyed God and He blessed them.
-The Hebrew teenagers cast into Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace for failing to bow down and worship his golden statue. The pre incarnate Christ met them in the flames and delivered them (an impressive sign to the rest of the citizens regarding their boasts about the God who Delivers).
“Render unto Caesar” requires that we be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.
Shifting gears a bit. There are copious examples of Utopian societies that rocketed off the rails in their quest to be free of “social/civic constraint. Jonestown comes to mind—as does the theoretical and anthropological test tube case, “Lord of the Flies.”
There is an element of the Human heart that will derail every attempt to form a society free of (Necessary) constraint. The Believer recognizes this as the Sin Nature (which Naturalists reject).
But, the Sin Nature goes a long way toward explaining the non-stop depravity that has plagued humanity since the Garden. Can abject “evil” be accounted for in any other way as compelling as this?
All of us need a Savior (not just a government or utopia). Even when we are unable to discern this truth, it remains True.
Some excellent comments from believers in the thread here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/still-follow-romans-13
"How do we transition from where we are to where we could be?"
That is unclear. If there is a complete collapse, then we do so all at once: we rebuild as voluntary private-law societies. If not, then it will have to happen gradually, through decentralization, devolution, separation, and secession. But the first step, as always, is to understand. I have so far read Hoppe, Rothbard, and D. Friedman. on the subject. (I am in the middle of "The Machinery of Freedom.") These are good practical descriptions of how it can be. (Next, I am going to read Spooner's
"No Treason" and see what treasures it holds.)
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I think an important part of that understanding is contained in my article above. We have to understand the philosophical justification. I am open to anyone poking holes in any premises or conclusions therein, but so far, I cannot find any. The implications may seem wild, but if they are true, then they are true. And if they are true, then we must not continue as we have done, for it is immoral.
My post is up. https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/slaves-and-government
Is government slavery? If so, can we do anything about it?
Good stuff—food for thought for sure!
Suppose I buy a large plot of land and invite people to move into it, subject to my rules, which I spell out. Is that "government"? I'm having a hard time figuring out where the exact line is between private arrangements and government.
'Tis an excellent question. You are indeed free to create any sort of polity on your own property. Even an entirely illiberal one. This would fall under the "enarchic" category described here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/what-kind-world-you-want)
The difference between what we have now and a freer world would be that people would be free to join, not join, and exit from your polity.
I refer you to the "framework rights" in Article II, Section 2 of my constitution: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
Establish, join, exit, secede, and remain. These would all be required in a free world.
Now, some thought does lead to potential problem: What if an illiberal polity eventually stops allowing people to exit? That IS a problem, without a doubt, and we can discuss possible solutions, etc. But in the meantime, those are the basics.
Make sense overall?
"[P]eople would be free to join, not join, and exit from your polity."
I'm not seeing a sharp line between this example and a city with a government. In either case, you can accept the rules/laws or leave. If there were no state or federal governments, would independent cities, each with its own set of laws, be permissible in the world you envision?
" In either case, you can accept the rules/laws or leave."
—that would be fine if there were wide swaths of unexplored planet out there. But there aren't. If a government allows you to leave, the best that you can hope for is to go to another variant of the same involuntary "social contract." That is not choice—it is Prison Planet.
"If there were no state or federal governments, would independent cities, each with its own set of laws, be permissible in the world you envision?"
—Yes, absolutely free cities would be permissible.
I like what you have said about the "in between" places. That's what I call them. Everyone always talks about "A" or "B" but no one ever talks about the infinite amount of choices in between. So, I agree that it isn't "government" or "anarchy". That's utterly ridiculous. Of course there is more. And seeing the progression from the absence of ontological authority rings true. Authority imposed on the unwilling is coercive force. I agree. Also, false contracts that were made with "supposed" consent, which are fraudulent, hold no power. If you give someone a piece of paper with a line on it and say sign here, but that line is secretly a sentence stating that they agree to something, that is false. There is no contract. Our government does a lot of crap like that. They assume we have agreed when we don't even know what's really taking place. All those contracts are null and void, well in fact, they were never permissible to begin with. And no one can ever be owned. No matter what trickery you might employ, this is a simple fact of God/nature/humankind. We should begin to claim these things every day. Thank you for your good work.
I am very glad you appreciate it and are thinking along the same lines.
One big leap for me came like this:
I was struggling with the slave contract dilemma. Can someone consent to sell himself into permanent slavery? After all, he's consenting and willingly signing a contract, right? I kept coming back to the thought that he should be able to agree to such a thing, but then if he changed his mind, he had to be let out of it. But I could not justify that—it was just a feeling.
Then Murray Rothbard swooped in to help. He said that a slave contract cannot be enforceable because contracts deal in alienable property, but self-ownership (which is what is at stake in a slave contract) is not alienable. Even the possessor of his own self-ownership cannot alienate it. It is naturally inalienable.
So that solved the dilemma for me. Rothbard had given me moral justification for the intuition I had about it. But it still was to be another couple of years before I fully got to where I am now. It was that Cassirer quote that did it (the one I put in the footnotes of the Constitution piece from yesterday). This was the core of it:
"If a man could give up his personality [i.e., his right to self-ownership] he would cease being a moral being. He would become a lifeless thing—and how could such a thing obligate itself—how could it make a promise or enter into a social contract?"
I was listening to an audiobook version of Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" and he quoted that quote. I turned it off and just sat in my car in a parking lot with that quote beating in my brain, over and over. I scrawled some notes. I thought about it some more. The words "lifeless thing" echoed. And suddenly, finally, the last tumbler in the lock turned and the door opened, and by the time I got back to my house I was permanently changed. And here I am. Here we are.
So, it's another false contract. It holds no water. If you cannot give away your self-hood because it's inalienable, but you seem to, you still have not. You are just confused in your role. You might feel like you are dead, but you are not. Poor creature. When you remember yourself, stand up! Every single person is the beneficiary of this earth. If we forget that, we can still make a comeback. We each have more power than we realize.
Amen.
It's not a contract at all. It's just violence by a criminal gang to whom we have accorded the presumption of legitimacy.
Not all people in government are criminals, of course—some believe in the idea, and most are just working jobs. But as an aggregate phenomenon, it is no different than the mafia.
People are starting to wake up to it now.
That's nice to hear. No one in my bubble is waking up to it, but that's okay. I will continue to work amongst them and say things like "We have to be careful who we give our power to". I don't think subtlety is really working for me though. I am a pianist for a 501C3. It's not really my role to share my opinion every time the microphone comes around. If I did that I would probably have to quit. So, I have been dealing with people one on one. I think it's time to step up my game a little. I have been careful for three years and I don't feel like I have made much progress. Although, on certain subjects, I have felt a small change. I see people looking at me to see how I am reacting on certain subjects. So at least, they know subconsciously that I do not approve. It's probably time, 2024 might be my last year there. Every time I imagine speaking , I go on too long. I am ready to make them a PowerPoint presentation on any subject! No one will ask. To me, that would be the magic. A mind curious on my position is more open to what I have to say. I was hoping someone would become curious and ask me for more information. That's not going to happen. I need to think some more about my strategy. I just want to capture the most minds. I don't even care if I have to leave after that. I truly love some of these people. :) Also, some of them are not mentally capable of dealing with all of this. One of them is somewhat mentally disabled. I want to be careful what ideas I put into her mind because she would have no way of dealing with that information, if that makes any sense. I feel like I need "consent to present" because of that. Or at least, I should choose a day when she is not present. I have stored info in a folder just for them, should they ask. If they all start clamoring for masks again, that will be my cue. I am not wearing a mask. I already proactively let them know that I will not don a mask again should that come up and that I am prepared to do a presentation explaining why. No one has asked. That's okay, I may present anyway with no powerpoint, should that day come.
This is a dilemma we all face. For what it's worth, here is my take…
You want to have an impact, right? To wake people up. But you keep finding that the gap between most people and the truth (and their willingness to see it) is too great. So you spend tons of energy on a tiny number of people only to get nowhere. Been there, done that!
It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. YES, it's good to try to make an impact on those around us, because it's those relationships that matter most. BUT…we also spend a ton of time trying to convince one un-convincible person. We end up frustrated, and the time we spent didn't even help.
But writing an article reaches hundreds or thousands. Writing a book maybe reaches many more. Those produce a much bigger bang for your time invested.
If you do not do those things, or want to do those things, then my suggestion is this: stop trying to convince the un-convincibles. Especially one on one. Connect with people who are similar. They do not have to be exactly the same, but they should be people who are at least in the same ideological region. You will learn more, be able to teach a little, and you'll be way happier. And in the long run, as groups of like-minded people start gathering and working together (rather than beating our heads against a way trying to convince someone who is way gone), they set an example and then that attracts others. We win not by winning specific people over to our side, but by lighting a signal fire that is seen by many, and building a shining city that they want to be in.
Thank you, that's a really good point. I have said to myself many times that I need to find "my team". I have actually found a few people like that (in real life, not just online). As a matter of fact, I just had a shirt made that I plan on wearing around in the world. On the front it says "You are a Valuable Human Being with Human Rights" and on the back it says "You are the beneficiary of this earth". I was planning on making a couple more in an effort to start conversations with people. So, I am with you there. But thanks for saying it. I think my struggle with my workplace is probably fruitless. I will follow the intuition that brought me here. I didn't want to start writing on Substack yet because I have a few jobs, not just the one I mentioned. I was afraid to commit the time and I also don't consider myself an expert on any one subject. But you are right. I have things to say. I will think on that. I really appreciate you! Take care.
Awesome! Thank you! I hope you and your wife have a very blessed day! Thank you for being so kind.🤓
And the very same to you. I am about to start cleaning the house and watching Yankees baseball, so I am feeling pretty blessed!
Thank you! I dm’ed you on ig!
Ah, that was you. I don't do as much on Instagram because there is the omnipresent risk of censorship. I would hate to have a lot of hard work there dashed in an instant, so I don't do much there and I usually only check in at the end of the day, when my wife and I are winding down from work. So I only saw your DM last night.
Interesting thoughts. For the time being, I am focused on writing rather than podcasting. In general, I like to communicate with people, answer comments, etc. in written prose more than by voice. It helps me compose my thoughts (and also, my voice gets tired quickly). However, if you start a podcast, I will happily be a guest!
Yes, on and off for 8 years, now. It stinks, as your body processes the anti fungals through the liver. But...still have to bind out toxins with food. I use Richie Shoemocher(sp) method. Milk, cheese, etc. It works!
I am racking my brain trying to remember the natural antifungal I saw touted on Instagram. If I remember it, I will let you know.
Amen, I was a personal trainer for 15 years. My main focus was disabilities. Now I am disabled, from a car accident and I lived in a “sick house”, I acquired black mold and fungus. It’s a constant battle everyday. With God’s grace and my beliefs, I have a strong constitution...the docs don’t like that🤣. Fight the good fight! Congrats to your son, I love hearing stories like this! Hope, faith and love; but the greatest of these is love!
Goodness, I hope you can get out of that environment soon! Mold is nasty stuff. Do you take any antifungal remedies?
I needed a day, to read it, let it ruminate in my brain chamber, this is very good, indeed. I will say the truth, knowing it’s my critical opinion. At first, “Republic” by Plato, comes to mind. Also the Roman Empire. The rise and fall. As in society today, we have only two ways to choose, just/unjust. The free will, which I love on your chart, seems like the “saving grace” for us all. A choice, a gift being granted...as you will. I studied philosophy of religion in college, and I am a Christian. The dichotomy l have between the governing bodies, which in a sense, we have allowed enslavement since the beginning of time, but we also have free will. I am leaning towards both topics, on that excellent chart, studying most religions there has always been a hierarchy. Whether it be morality is the true question, or is it something darker?
I personally loved this article, and the chart. What caught me was the last paragraph that states: “but if these conclusions are correct, then the implications are truly profound.” “If the math is right, then the entire way in which human societies are arranged has to change.” I agree wholeheartedly.
But the implications, then, include the notion that any violation of that free will—any initiation of coercive force against a nonaggressive person—is impermissible. That means we have to get rid of all involuntary governance.
I have some thoughts as to what that could/ought to look like, but I would also like to hear yours…
What's that quote from C.S. Lewis about how God gave us free will, even knowing the risks…? Here it is:
“God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.”
The story of the Irish kings with little power reminds me of a scene in a movie (I've forgotten which one!) in which a soldier in the US army is puzzled with a Native American chief who can't simply tell his people what they must do. The chief replies -- "If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be a chief any more."
I chuckled when I heard it, but that says something about "government" by a loose federation of leaders or elders with perhaps one or more of those who are followed out of respect for their wisdom. So a "chief" is not a dictator who must be obeyed - he is simply one among many leaders whose views are most respected -- and he *may* be followed for that reason and no other.
"If I tell a man to do something he doesn't want to do, I won't be a chief any more."
Boom. That is profound.
In the 1st century, Tacitus talks about the difference between auctoritas (the kind of authoirty you just described—rooted in consent, merit, and respect) and potestas, which is based on forced compliance.
Forced compliance is never acceptable.
I used to think the concept of a "libertarian monarchist" was a contradiction. I was ignorant. Reading Hans-Hermann Hoppe cured me of that.
Forty years ago I heard of the example of Ireland at a meeting of the Loop Libertarian League in Chicago (the loop is what we call the elevated train track that forms a square around the downtown business district).
Nice! To my knowledge, it is the longest and most successful example.
Ironically, it was Oliver Cromwell who drove the final nail—and he was empowered by an English war that was supposed to be a seminal moment in the development of English liberty. History is weird!