One Rule to Rule Them All?
'Me and Mine' by the Brothers Bright for #FreedomMusicFriday
Last week, we explored a possibility: can we identify a small number of precept-based rules that would keep the peace in any society? I specified that, for the purposes of that exercise, we were not seeking precepts about how nice one should be, but rather, precepts about what one must not do.
Last May, in an effort to clarify this distinction, I wrote the following:
“Imagine a spectrum of morality along a scale of objectivity. At the least-objective/most-subjective end, we have customs, such as removing one’s shoes when entering a home. This is understood as the moral thing to do in some cultures (Japan, e.g.), but not others.
“Then we move through things that most people agree we should do, but upon which no one can really agree as to specifics or the degree to which we should do them: being nice, giving to charity, etc. (And such things certainly are not ought not be punishable if we do not do them!)
“We then pass through ideas of fairness and justice. Nearly everyone agrees on the importance of justice, but it is more difficult to agree on exactly what punishments should fit what crimes, how serious certain crimes are, etc.
“But then we get to MUST/MUST NOT morality. This is the most objective. Just about everyone believes that you must not murder in cold blood, and that you must fulfill your obligations under a legal contract that you have signed. And (nearly) everyone believes that some sort of force may be used to hold you to account.”
We have to make this next point very clear:
Individuals, religious traditions, etc. should concern themselves with SHOULD morality. We should all be asking ourselves if we are being good. If we are doing good things. If we are being as nice, kind, and helpful as we could be.
But a system for keeping social order must only concern itself with MUST morality. The reason is simple: Keeping order requires force, and we want to limit force as much as possible.
The use of coercive force is morally impermissible in society (and ought to be legally so). Coercive force is force initiated in order to tyrannize, dominate, control, take resources, or in any other way compel someone against their will. Whatever the reason, it is bad. Morally, people must not initiate violence against one another.
When coercive force is initiated by one against another, another kind of force—protective force—may be required in response. Protective force is sometimes a necessary thing, but it is not a happy thing. It is only “good” insofar as it serves the necessary role of reducing a greater evil. We want its use to be strictly limited to those times when it is needed in response to coercive force.
A system for keeping social order must only deploy protective force for that reason. It must not use force to compel people to be nicer, to give more to charity, or for any of reason associated with SHOULD morality.
Indeed, in seeking to control behavior or acquire resources, it becomes coercive force when it does so. This is one of the moral problems with our society, and it is one of the reasons why offering The Golden Rule as “the only rule we need” is inherently flawed.
Whether we are looking for one rule or five rules or 20, if those rules are intended to create a system of order, they must only specify conditions in which protective force is justified. And it is only justified in response to coercive force.
This is why libertarians and anarchists focus on the nonaggression principle. There are plenty of variants and wordings, of which this is reasonable enough:
The initiation of coercive force (or the credible threat thereof) is morally impermissible in all human relations.
If you are casting about for one rule to govern all MUST/NOT morality, that is your best bet. Its obvious and necessary corollary, of course, is that protective force is morally permissible in response if no other options are possible.
Any society that exceeds this basic principle and starts initiating force against individuals for any other reason is an unjust society. That is why the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, or vague formulations about “goodness” are not appropriate rules for establishing a social order. Protective force is only justified in response to, or to defend against coercive force. If it exceeds that purpose, it is no longer protective—it itself has become coercive.
I hope that is sufficiently clear. This point needs to be stressed over and over—for generations if needed—until we stop trying to build societies that exert force for any other reason.
So, it’s #FreedomMusicFriday today…how do we tie all this together?
We have used music to explore a lot of different aspects and meanings of freedom: Conquering your inner demons to set yourself free. Threats to human freedom posed by governments, corporations, bad ideologies, ‘democracy,’ corruption, and human nature itself.
We’ve talked about defiance. About standing and fighting or escaping to new lands. About the need to get pumped up and feel strong in the face of the dystopia around us. And so much more.
Today’s piece of music is all about deploying protective force in response to coercive force. Children understand it (“he hit me first”). Animals understand it (this is my burrow—get your own). Humans understand it, because it is the most fundamental aspect of morality. I was minding my own freaking business, but you had to go and start something.
I am not going to parse all the lyrics of this song. All you need is the refrain:
I will burn your kingdom down
If you try to conquer me and mine
“Evil men” started whatever it is that the singer/hero feels threatened by. He is simply stating the corollary to the nonaggression principle. IF you initiate coercive force (try to conquer me and mine), I will respond with protective force (burn your kingdom down).
FAFO. It is the most basic rule of any social order.
This concept is universal, so here are lyric versions in a couple of different languages:
PS: Hat tip to The Starfire Codes for the title of this post!
Before force of any kind is considered, the first level of defense is economic. IF you do this, we will refuse to trade with you. And violence is committed by individuals, not kingdoms. Who will you burn? And who then is justified in burning your loved ones? Does everyone whose countries have been harmed (a mild term, that) by US politician warmongers have the right to put a target on my back?
In indigenous matrix cultures, a wrong done by an individual would cause the entire tribe to offer reparations, often symbolic, but showing that they would take responsibility for their own. This was self-preservation from the other tribe's retaliation, but also showing that it's a failure of the whole, that needs to be corrected. I'd like to see a return to that responsibility.
If you never want anything from someone else, you never need to manipulate them. Living without the need to be manipulating people or anything else is beyond refreshing. It's living from your true self. People manipulate others because they live in constant fear of losing something or perhaps the fear of never having enough. It is always a false fear.