If you are born onto planet earth, know that it is a giant globe with no predetermined encumbrances. Everything created by mankind is not a part of the planet but an assumed conveyance that some presumed authority demands that you obey. You always exist as a free being and you can always act freely.
Presumed authority hates this and that is why you are subject to their murdering ways. You always have two choices...your individual freedom or their tyranny and slavery which in either case you risk death. I'd rather die free than die as a slave to a bunch of idiots and morons.
It just comes down to cost-benefit analysis, though. At what point do you draw a line and give up your life rather than acquiesce to tyranny? Like, I hate the fact that I have to pay the town five bucks to have a garage sale permit. But is that the hill I want to die on, literally?
This is a very crucial point for me. I abhor violence. I believe I am capable of it when it becomes unavoidable to defend life and certain lines that I cannot be forced to cross. After Sept. 11 2001 I simply refused to any longer support the corrupt murderous regime that was killing so many in our name. I therefore closed my bank account, did not renew my CDL which they informed me was now requiring a SSN and biometric identifier in order to renew. In fact I decided I would no longer ever again pay into that corrupt ponzi scheme or use the number for any purpose. I loaded everything important to me into an economy pickup which I did not register, and with no DL I headed out to Texas which was the only place I could find after an extensive search on the internet where you could buy a cheap piece of land with no property restrictions, building codes and only 20 dollars or so in yearly property tax. That was still a small enough contribution for some services that were beneficial, so even though it was still enforced by coercive threats for non payment, as you say it was not the "hill I wanted to die on." I not only drove to Texas, to a piece of land I bought sight unseen online with out any government issued ID, but drove for around fifteen years building a minimalist little cabin and infrastructure to live off the grid and build a reputation for dependability and honesty in the local community. I had few and minimal skills, but always managed to find work of some kind for cash, even without putting out fliers, taking any jobs that required ID, and have managed to survive comfortably. In 2008 on July 4th I even sent by certified mail a notice of intent followed by a constructive notice informing the county judge, sheriff, state governor and even us president that I had withdrawn my consent to be governed by their corporations and itemized the reasons for my decision. I gave them 21 days to respond. I informed them that a failure to respond I would take as an agreement with my decision and that I would no longer be resonsible for any of their statutes or authority, and offered an extension if they needed it. Of course none ever responded. There is much more to the story, but I have written enough for now. Recently they raised the local property tax, which had been about the same for twenty years by about 500%. So once again I have to wonder whether this is worth fighting for or accepting.
You have tried very hard to live your principles. I admire that.
So many difficult questions here.
All government is the initiation of coercive force, and thus technically actionable as such. But what action?
1. Opt-out where possible
2. Negotiation
3. Violence
What other choices do we have? We ignore, we negotiate, or we fight.
Fighting is futile unless it is widespread. Also, while fighting might not violate the NAP, since it would be fighting in response to initiated force, it is still violence, and that makes it undesirable in general.
Negotiation does not seem like it holds much short-term promise. Long-term, maybe. Gradual. But in the short-term, they are going to say no. Or cite Texas vs. White or whatever.
The kind of one-sided negotiation you did seems tempting, but does it actually work? It seems to me that if they decide to use force against you, they will—your notice to them notwithstanding.
Opting out where possible, ignoring them as much as possible counter economics, parallel institutions, etc. are a way to go. Slow, steady move away. Establish numbers and clout.
Yes, I chose to opt out as long as that seemed possible and practical. I felt that since I sincerely had faith that there is a Higher Power that supports the right, even though in what seems like very subtle ways that do not violate our option to believe whatever we want, although does not block the consequences of bad or faulty thinking, decisions or the subsequent actions, it will provide surprising support for good decisions based on moral principles, which gave me the courage to take this leap of faith that led me to where I am now. Despite the heavy handicaps I decided to take on, many marvelous serendipitous events conspired to make it possible. Although I sacrificed some important rights I also gained many and got the satisfaction of setting an example of what is possible without violence if determined. I have not had to deal with bureaucracies, beg for permission to live as I choose, fill out paperwork, pay many taxes, license fees, inspection fees, certifications, etc. My attempt at "one sided negotiation and notification" was more for my own desire to be able to demonstrate that I did my part, not surreptitiously, but so I could honestly say that I did my part. You know very well that if you do not answer or object to their notices or requirements they will take that as acquiescence or an actual contractual agreement with their demands. Now I can show that they are the ones who do not live according to the rules they make for us and the frauds they expect us to ignore. The main problem I see is that like the fisherman's wife they are never satisfied, and one success at coercion leads to more and more. Sooner or later those last dire lines will be crossed unless at some point there is staunch and unwavering resistance.
It doesn't even take a lot of violence, in fact I think that is what they really want to justify overwhelming force and violence in response. It does take a willingness to sacrifice the comfortable, the convenient, the path of least resistance. If enough people just quit cooperating and funding them it would probably work far more easily than most would believe. They do not have the resources if there is just widespread clever, consistent resistance to paying supporting and complying their whold charade would soon collapse. However this takes a lot of pain or amazing leadership to inspire and wake people enough up to take those actions.
I am just glad to know that there are intelligent people like you giving this problem some diligent rational thought. I think homeschooling support with a curriculum that exposes these frauds is so important. Some kind of freedom of education movement to replace the controllers indoctrination institutions.
How did you come to that decision? I read what you wrote above but for you to so comprehensively abandon this whole way of life the idea must have been there and waiting to come to full flower.
Absolutely. And it is all actionable, morally, by protective force. But does one deploy actual protective physical force against the 25 year old working behind the counter at the village government offices? Does one not pay and then wait for the cops to show up, and then fight the cops? This is the problem: it is insidious and complicated. Morally complicated. Pragmatically complicated. What do we do?
That's a good, good question. I think we should start by stepping outside the framework of that a bit. Who is this 25-year-old, a local or an import, as it were? What's the village like? Where are the focal points for most people?
Yes, the "death of a thousand cuts" begins with just a little one. Like the story of the camel getting its nose in the tent, or Pinocchio's nose, it grows and grows. Someone said once "there is nothing more permanent than a government program." A quick look at the story of the income tax reveals the whole playbook.
I love whenever I stumble upon the expression “a group of individuals calling themselves government“ (or something similar), which I think you stole from Spooner :)
I do not remember seeing it any one specific place. It must’ve just seeped into my consciousness. That is why I mentioned that Latin expression. Once I heard the notion, it instantly became commonplace in my psyche.
Well that is the beauty of that expression. As Watson loosely translates it in “The Red-Headed League,” “everything becomes commonplace through explanation.” If I sound like Spooner, it is only because Spooner was correct, and what he said is so true that it is, or ought to be, common knowledge.
Proofreader here (ha ha). Am I reading this wrong, or is there a typo in this sentence?
"Each individual human thus has license to engage in any thought, choice, experience, or action that does violate the self-ownership of any unwilling another."
Thinking it should be: "...that does NOT violate..."
Happy to help. I know what it's like to be drafting quickly, my fingers trying to keep up with my thoughts. Easy for such things to slip through. :-) (And as a publisher, I'm intimately familiar with how typos can slip past a dozen editorial passes and several proofreaders, so there's that, too.)
Right there with you on all of that. It’s crazy how easy it is. I am still finding typos in my other book, and I have edited that….well, like you say, just about a dozen times!
Thanks for this. I did not require any convincing, but still good to have this innate truth communicated. When enough of us get this, really get this, the world will change.
I like how you fleshed out your understanding of natural rights. I attempted the same, less thoroughly, in my first Substack post:
"""
Because underlying true anarchism is the substance of natural human rights: valid claims that any person can make, pre-politically, simply by virtue of being human.
What valid claims can people make, pre-politically?
A claim to one’s own person (life).
A claim to one’s intentional actions and consent-based, voluntary interactions with others (liberty).
A claim to cultivated and duly obtained material goods not already validly claimed by another person (property).
The authority of personhood, of conscience, and of proprietorship all exist and are just, honorable, and defensible. But any attempt to assert an alleged “authority” to initiate violations of anyone else’s natural human rights, is unjust.
Here is a thought: maybe *rights*, the word itself has become corrupted, a helpful tool for the sleight-of-hand that the government has done on us, or we have allowed to be done. Ironically, "inalienable rights" actually suggests that rights may be alienable and distinct from the person. Whereas *humanity* and *free will* are integral. As you have put it, "They are an outgrowth of natural facts. They are woven into the fabric of everything."
People are not things, and thus we shall resist being treated as things by those who are, after all, people as well, albeit very evil ones.
More than one person has pointed out to me that Fr Nicolai Berdayev makes a great distinction even between “individualism” and “personalism,” with the latter being rooted very much in the infinite mystery and concrete non-thingyness of each person.
Interesting, I was going off Catholic theology (pre-New Order, Chesterton/Belloc/Knox/Newman), this guy is new to me. I may have come across his name before in some translated Gulag survivors’ memoirs though, will take a look.
Christopher... I believe this is the beginning of the book you are writing about returning to a non-governmental society wherein everyone deals with everyone else in agreement and trade for goods and services. I think you have called this anarchocapitalism... yes? I love this post because destroying the idea that a government 'gives' you your rights as opposed to you having them as inherent to your being. It is a great way to get people to understand their personal freedoms and a great counter to the Marxist idea of the people having a 'contract' with their government; that the government 'gives' them things in exchange for power. I am excited to see the rest!
What I missed a little from this is the connection to a larger force; an almighty force. I don't think you need to go down a theological hole or bring an overt level of religiosity to this but the writers of our constitution and Bill of Rights (I know you are wary of government and it's declarations) were among the first to put the freedom you speak of in our founding documents. And they did so because they were men of faith. Is it worth making this connection in your writing if for nothing else but to say - many people of faith should consider the idea that we are inherently free because we are made in the image of a force more powerful than any government?
Unfortunately many people need to feel that their feet are on solid ground before they strike out and do something individual. The power that they get from the belief that they are large and the government is small is hard to put into words. Ninety nine percent of the people on the planet are afraid of their government. And one of the first things an all powerful government will do is remove religion from those they wish to oppress. Because faith gives power.
Just a thought... carry on. You are doing a wonderful thing.
Thanks for the thoughts, ideas, and encouragement.
I generally tend to avoid grounding anything in Divine/supernatural/extraworldly causes. There are a few reasons for this.
1. I believe that God made the laws of nature so that they make sense and are intelligible to us. As such, every principle we come up with can be justified through logic. I don't believe that God would create any sort of arbitrary, "because I said so" morality. It has to make sense. I does make sense.
2. As such, I never want to ground any points as "Because God said so" or "Because God made it that way." If I cannot find the logic that justifies it, then I should not espouse it. God would not do that to me, I do not believe, and I should not do it to others.
3. I want to avoid the squabbles associated with religion. Atheists can follow the logic. Theists can believe that the ultimate source of the logic is God. I avoid getting into it either way.
I also want to avoid the confusion associated with introducing extra-worldly things when it comes to concepts like self-ownership. I once told someone that they owned themselves and someone overheard and yelled, "WRONG God owns you." To which I calmly replied (since we were at a nice dinner) that I am strictly referring to other humans. No other HUMANS own you. I am not making any claims about your, or anyone's, relationship with God.
So these are why I have generally steered clear. Make sense?
Makes tons of sense. I was only thinking of a dispassionate inclusion of the power of faith (for some, certainly not even close to a majority) because often reason is not enough - even for those who are non-believers. So I was suggesting you do both - reason and faith. Faith doesn’t work for those who are not faithful. Reason does not work for those who are unable to reason. They are not opposed to each other. They help one another. A different way to look at including faith might be: underdogs in a fight believe they can win despite all odds (faith); loving one another (love is an act of faith) such that we come together and self-govern is another; Anyway…you get the point. Just an idea. Write on. Can’t wait to see what’s next.
It is a minefield, though. I had this one sub, praising me up and down, telling others about me in glowing terms, etc. Then I wrote a piece that said that I am not an atheist. Not only did he summarily unsub, he made an insulting comment on his way out. That was his one-issue litmus test for intelligence and worthiness.
Not saying that that experience is dispositive of the matter. Just a funny story about what a minefield it is. Naturally, I have run into similar situations from theists. Just another day in the life, I suppose!
I do get it. You know I am only sending thoughts and ideas. NONE have to be taken or even considered. Write away. Will not unsub. Too bad for that guy.
typo in this line: Each individual human thus has license to engage in any thought, choice, experience, or action that does violate the self-ownership of any unwilling another.
fwiw: the word "dispositive" is uncommon enough that either adding a definition or picking a different word might be prudent. Most of your potential readers grew up in the public school system and speak American, so...
I didn’t know that was an option… maybe it is on my phone… I will try it later. (I used google to verify the meaning for myself) ultimately most people are lazy and will assume that they have a good enough understanding based on context. That is adequate in almost all cases.
In your case, “good enough” might not be good enough. You are attempting to move a mountain, and ultimately a significant portion of the population will need to shift. You write with in a clear and easily understood manner, so most people will easily follow your logic and reach the same conclusions you lay out.
My comment was intended to be a cautionary note to remind you that half of the people are less educated than average, and that it doesn’t require much to leave them behind in a quagmire of slightly misunderstood concepts.
Your point is very well-taken, and I appreciate that you are taking the time to make it. I do know that while I keep my syntax simple, I am going to have times when the content (or vocabulary) goes to another level.
One thought occurs to me, though—while half of the general population have IQs below 100, I highly doubt that half the people reading my writing do. Might that not make some difference in this regard?
I agree that the large majority of your readers are highly educated and highly intelligent. That is also the best target market for your book, and writing for that audience and not "dumbing it down" is obviously going to sell more books. I have to assume that getting your ideas widely spread is a priority. I have to assume that receiving some kind of return on the investment you are making in mental sweat equity is a priority. These are reasonable priorities.
The flip side of the coin is the other priority... changing the world. The bitter reality is that tens of millions of poorly educated people will need to buy in, and someone will need to write the pamphlets that present the logic that they will understand and accept. I don't want to do it... so I'm encouraging you to attempt to walk the razors edge between your intelligent audience and the milling masses of mundane humanity.
I don't know that any single document can meaningfully communicate with both groups simultaneously. It's a BIG gap.
Regardless, this is a distracting tangent and you have better places to invest your mental energy. Back to writing!
If you are born onto planet earth, know that it is a giant globe with no predetermined encumbrances. Everything created by mankind is not a part of the planet but an assumed conveyance that some presumed authority demands that you obey. You always exist as a free being and you can always act freely.
Presumed authority hates this and that is why you are subject to their murdering ways. You always have two choices...your individual freedom or their tyranny and slavery which in either case you risk death. I'd rather die free than die as a slave to a bunch of idiots and morons.
It just comes down to cost-benefit analysis, though. At what point do you draw a line and give up your life rather than acquiesce to tyranny? Like, I hate the fact that I have to pay the town five bucks to have a garage sale permit. But is that the hill I want to die on, literally?
This is a very crucial point for me. I abhor violence. I believe I am capable of it when it becomes unavoidable to defend life and certain lines that I cannot be forced to cross. After Sept. 11 2001 I simply refused to any longer support the corrupt murderous regime that was killing so many in our name. I therefore closed my bank account, did not renew my CDL which they informed me was now requiring a SSN and biometric identifier in order to renew. In fact I decided I would no longer ever again pay into that corrupt ponzi scheme or use the number for any purpose. I loaded everything important to me into an economy pickup which I did not register, and with no DL I headed out to Texas which was the only place I could find after an extensive search on the internet where you could buy a cheap piece of land with no property restrictions, building codes and only 20 dollars or so in yearly property tax. That was still a small enough contribution for some services that were beneficial, so even though it was still enforced by coercive threats for non payment, as you say it was not the "hill I wanted to die on." I not only drove to Texas, to a piece of land I bought sight unseen online with out any government issued ID, but drove for around fifteen years building a minimalist little cabin and infrastructure to live off the grid and build a reputation for dependability and honesty in the local community. I had few and minimal skills, but always managed to find work of some kind for cash, even without putting out fliers, taking any jobs that required ID, and have managed to survive comfortably. In 2008 on July 4th I even sent by certified mail a notice of intent followed by a constructive notice informing the county judge, sheriff, state governor and even us president that I had withdrawn my consent to be governed by their corporations and itemized the reasons for my decision. I gave them 21 days to respond. I informed them that a failure to respond I would take as an agreement with my decision and that I would no longer be resonsible for any of their statutes or authority, and offered an extension if they needed it. Of course none ever responded. There is much more to the story, but I have written enough for now. Recently they raised the local property tax, which had been about the same for twenty years by about 500%. So once again I have to wonder whether this is worth fighting for or accepting.
You have tried very hard to live your principles. I admire that.
So many difficult questions here.
All government is the initiation of coercive force, and thus technically actionable as such. But what action?
1. Opt-out where possible
2. Negotiation
3. Violence
What other choices do we have? We ignore, we negotiate, or we fight.
Fighting is futile unless it is widespread. Also, while fighting might not violate the NAP, since it would be fighting in response to initiated force, it is still violence, and that makes it undesirable in general.
Negotiation does not seem like it holds much short-term promise. Long-term, maybe. Gradual. But in the short-term, they are going to say no. Or cite Texas vs. White or whatever.
The kind of one-sided negotiation you did seems tempting, but does it actually work? It seems to me that if they decide to use force against you, they will—your notice to them notwithstanding.
Opting out where possible, ignoring them as much as possible counter economics, parallel institutions, etc. are a way to go. Slow, steady move away. Establish numbers and clout.
What other options do we have?
Yes, I chose to opt out as long as that seemed possible and practical. I felt that since I sincerely had faith that there is a Higher Power that supports the right, even though in what seems like very subtle ways that do not violate our option to believe whatever we want, although does not block the consequences of bad or faulty thinking, decisions or the subsequent actions, it will provide surprising support for good decisions based on moral principles, which gave me the courage to take this leap of faith that led me to where I am now. Despite the heavy handicaps I decided to take on, many marvelous serendipitous events conspired to make it possible. Although I sacrificed some important rights I also gained many and got the satisfaction of setting an example of what is possible without violence if determined. I have not had to deal with bureaucracies, beg for permission to live as I choose, fill out paperwork, pay many taxes, license fees, inspection fees, certifications, etc. My attempt at "one sided negotiation and notification" was more for my own desire to be able to demonstrate that I did my part, not surreptitiously, but so I could honestly say that I did my part. You know very well that if you do not answer or object to their notices or requirements they will take that as acquiescence or an actual contractual agreement with their demands. Now I can show that they are the ones who do not live according to the rules they make for us and the frauds they expect us to ignore. The main problem I see is that like the fisherman's wife they are never satisfied, and one success at coercion leads to more and more. Sooner or later those last dire lines will be crossed unless at some point there is staunch and unwavering resistance.
It doesn't even take a lot of violence, in fact I think that is what they really want to justify overwhelming force and violence in response. It does take a willingness to sacrifice the comfortable, the convenient, the path of least resistance. If enough people just quit cooperating and funding them it would probably work far more easily than most would believe. They do not have the resources if there is just widespread clever, consistent resistance to paying supporting and complying their whold charade would soon collapse. However this takes a lot of pain or amazing leadership to inspire and wake people enough up to take those actions.
Thank you for all of this. It is a lot to think about.
I really do think that they would love the opportunity to justify overwhelming force. We must not give that to them.
I am just glad to know that there are intelligent people like you giving this problem some diligent rational thought. I think homeschooling support with a curriculum that exposes these frauds is so important. Some kind of freedom of education movement to replace the controllers indoctrination institutions.
How did you come to that decision? I read what you wrote above but for you to so comprehensively abandon this whole way of life the idea must have been there and waiting to come to full flower.
Yes Iris, it is a long story, perhaps I will write a book someday.
Wow. Hat off. I sure would like to hear more of your story.
Yeah, but you also know by this point that it starts with the five bucks... and there are many simultaneous starts.
Absolutely. And it is all actionable, morally, by protective force. But does one deploy actual protective physical force against the 25 year old working behind the counter at the village government offices? Does one not pay and then wait for the cops to show up, and then fight the cops? This is the problem: it is insidious and complicated. Morally complicated. Pragmatically complicated. What do we do?
That's a good, good question. I think we should start by stepping outside the framework of that a bit. Who is this 25-year-old, a local or an import, as it were? What's the village like? Where are the focal points for most people?
All good questions. But violence gets blurry and messy quickly. I hope that we can evolve in peace—I really do!
I don’t but I like that dream.
Yes, the "death of a thousand cuts" begins with just a little one. Like the story of the camel getting its nose in the tent, or Pinocchio's nose, it grows and grows. Someone said once "there is nothing more permanent than a government program." A quick look at the story of the income tax reveals the whole playbook.
I love whenever I stumble upon the expression “a group of individuals calling themselves government“ (or something similar), which I think you stole from Spooner :)
Did I? Not consciously, but it’s easy to do with such a perfect expression!
Omne ignotem pro magnifico.
Where do you have it from? The oldest text I read this in was “No Treason“ from Spooner.
I do not remember seeing it any one specific place. It must’ve just seeped into my consciousness. That is why I mentioned that Latin expression. Once I heard the notion, it instantly became commonplace in my psyche.
Ah, I see—here we are, comparing you to Spooner again
Well that is the beauty of that expression. As Watson loosely translates it in “The Red-Headed League,” “everything becomes commonplace through explanation.” If I sound like Spooner, it is only because Spooner was correct, and what he said is so true that it is, or ought to be, common knowledge.
Proofreader here (ha ha). Am I reading this wrong, or is there a typo in this sentence?
"Each individual human thus has license to engage in any thought, choice, experience, or action that does violate the self-ownership of any unwilling another."
Thinking it should be: "...that does NOT violate..."
Oh my goodness—thank you! That’s two I missed in this piece. I really appreciate the fact that you care enough to let me know.
Happy to help. I know what it's like to be drafting quickly, my fingers trying to keep up with my thoughts. Easy for such things to slip through. :-) (And as a publisher, I'm intimately familiar with how typos can slip past a dozen editorial passes and several proofreaders, so there's that, too.)
Right there with you on all of that. It’s crazy how easy it is. I am still finding typos in my other book, and I have edited that….well, like you say, just about a dozen times!
Thanks for this. I did not require any convincing, but still good to have this innate truth communicated. When enough of us get this, really get this, the world will change.
Agreed!
By the way, I like your tree-lady pic.
Hear hear! Can never be said enough!
🔥🧡🔥
I like how you fleshed out your understanding of natural rights. I attempted the same, less thoroughly, in my first Substack post:
"""
Because underlying true anarchism is the substance of natural human rights: valid claims that any person can make, pre-politically, simply by virtue of being human.
What valid claims can people make, pre-politically?
A claim to one’s own person (life).
A claim to one’s intentional actions and consent-based, voluntary interactions with others (liberty).
A claim to cultivated and duly obtained material goods not already validly claimed by another person (property).
The authority of personhood, of conscience, and of proprietorship all exist and are just, honorable, and defensible. But any attempt to assert an alleged “authority” to initiate violations of anyone else’s natural human rights, is unjust.
"""
Solid stuff—I like!
It kind of feels like five rules should be enough, doesn't it? I mean, I am not sure, but I have toyed with the notion:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/five-rules-govern-any-society
Here is a thought: maybe *rights*, the word itself has become corrupted, a helpful tool for the sleight-of-hand that the government has done on us, or we have allowed to be done. Ironically, "inalienable rights" actually suggests that rights may be alienable and distinct from the person. Whereas *humanity* and *free will* are integral. As you have put it, "They are an outgrowth of natural facts. They are woven into the fabric of everything."
People are not things, and thus we shall resist being treated as things by those who are, after all, people as well, albeit very evil ones.
All good points.
“ People are not things”
More than one person has pointed out to me that Fr Nicolai Berdayev makes a great distinction even between “individualism” and “personalism,” with the latter being rooted very much in the infinite mystery and concrete non-thingyness of each person.
Interesting, I was going off Catholic theology (pre-New Order, Chesterton/Belloc/Knox/Newman), this guy is new to me. I may have come across his name before in some translated Gulag survivors’ memoirs though, will take a look.
I really need to read his book. I will one day…
Christopher... I believe this is the beginning of the book you are writing about returning to a non-governmental society wherein everyone deals with everyone else in agreement and trade for goods and services. I think you have called this anarchocapitalism... yes? I love this post because destroying the idea that a government 'gives' you your rights as opposed to you having them as inherent to your being. It is a great way to get people to understand their personal freedoms and a great counter to the Marxist idea of the people having a 'contract' with their government; that the government 'gives' them things in exchange for power. I am excited to see the rest!
What I missed a little from this is the connection to a larger force; an almighty force. I don't think you need to go down a theological hole or bring an overt level of religiosity to this but the writers of our constitution and Bill of Rights (I know you are wary of government and it's declarations) were among the first to put the freedom you speak of in our founding documents. And they did so because they were men of faith. Is it worth making this connection in your writing if for nothing else but to say - many people of faith should consider the idea that we are inherently free because we are made in the image of a force more powerful than any government?
Unfortunately many people need to feel that their feet are on solid ground before they strike out and do something individual. The power that they get from the belief that they are large and the government is small is hard to put into words. Ninety nine percent of the people on the planet are afraid of their government. And one of the first things an all powerful government will do is remove religion from those they wish to oppress. Because faith gives power.
Just a thought... carry on. You are doing a wonderful thing.
Thanks for the thoughts, ideas, and encouragement.
I generally tend to avoid grounding anything in Divine/supernatural/extraworldly causes. There are a few reasons for this.
1. I believe that God made the laws of nature so that they make sense and are intelligible to us. As such, every principle we come up with can be justified through logic. I don't believe that God would create any sort of arbitrary, "because I said so" morality. It has to make sense. I does make sense.
2. As such, I never want to ground any points as "Because God said so" or "Because God made it that way." If I cannot find the logic that justifies it, then I should not espouse it. God would not do that to me, I do not believe, and I should not do it to others.
3. I want to avoid the squabbles associated with religion. Atheists can follow the logic. Theists can believe that the ultimate source of the logic is God. I avoid getting into it either way.
I also want to avoid the confusion associated with introducing extra-worldly things when it comes to concepts like self-ownership. I once told someone that they owned themselves and someone overheard and yelled, "WRONG God owns you." To which I calmly replied (since we were at a nice dinner) that I am strictly referring to other humans. No other HUMANS own you. I am not making any claims about your, or anyone's, relationship with God.
So these are why I have generally steered clear. Make sense?
Makes tons of sense. I was only thinking of a dispassionate inclusion of the power of faith (for some, certainly not even close to a majority) because often reason is not enough - even for those who are non-believers. So I was suggesting you do both - reason and faith. Faith doesn’t work for those who are not faithful. Reason does not work for those who are unable to reason. They are not opposed to each other. They help one another. A different way to look at including faith might be: underdogs in a fight believe they can win despite all odds (faith); loving one another (love is an act of faith) such that we come together and self-govern is another; Anyway…you get the point. Just an idea. Write on. Can’t wait to see what’s next.
I will consider your words!
It is a minefield, though. I had this one sub, praising me up and down, telling others about me in glowing terms, etc. Then I wrote a piece that said that I am not an atheist. Not only did he summarily unsub, he made an insulting comment on his way out. That was his one-issue litmus test for intelligence and worthiness.
Not saying that that experience is dispositive of the matter. Just a funny story about what a minefield it is. Naturally, I have run into similar situations from theists. Just another day in the life, I suppose!
I do get it. You know I am only sending thoughts and ideas. NONE have to be taken or even considered. Write away. Will not unsub. Too bad for that guy.
Thank you for your thoughts and kindness, as always!
typo in this line: Each individual human thus has license to engage in any thought, choice, experience, or action that does violate the self-ownership of any unwilling another.
THANK YOU!
I am writing these so fast, and moving on to the next—I really appreciate the extra eyeballs!
fwiw: the word "dispositive" is uncommon enough that either adding a definition or picking a different word might be prudent. Most of your potential readers grew up in the public school system and speak American, so...
Can’t they just right-click on “Look up” if they don’t know it?
I didn’t know that was an option… maybe it is on my phone… I will try it later. (I used google to verify the meaning for myself) ultimately most people are lazy and will assume that they have a good enough understanding based on context. That is adequate in almost all cases.
In your case, “good enough” might not be good enough. You are attempting to move a mountain, and ultimately a significant portion of the population will need to shift. You write with in a clear and easily understood manner, so most people will easily follow your logic and reach the same conclusions you lay out.
My comment was intended to be a cautionary note to remind you that half of the people are less educated than average, and that it doesn’t require much to leave them behind in a quagmire of slightly misunderstood concepts.
Your point is very well-taken, and I appreciate that you are taking the time to make it. I do know that while I keep my syntax simple, I am going to have times when the content (or vocabulary) goes to another level.
One thought occurs to me, though—while half of the general population have IQs below 100, I highly doubt that half the people reading my writing do. Might that not make some difference in this regard?
I agree that the large majority of your readers are highly educated and highly intelligent. That is also the best target market for your book, and writing for that audience and not "dumbing it down" is obviously going to sell more books. I have to assume that getting your ideas widely spread is a priority. I have to assume that receiving some kind of return on the investment you are making in mental sweat equity is a priority. These are reasonable priorities.
The flip side of the coin is the other priority... changing the world. The bitter reality is that tens of millions of poorly educated people will need to buy in, and someone will need to write the pamphlets that present the logic that they will understand and accept. I don't want to do it... so I'm encouraging you to attempt to walk the razors edge between your intelligent audience and the milling masses of mundane humanity.
I don't know that any single document can meaningfully communicate with both groups simultaneously. It's a BIG gap.
Regardless, this is a distracting tangent and you have better places to invest your mental energy. Back to writing!
I tested this “lookup” option on the word “dispositive” and it gave me a wikipedia entry for a “dispositive motion”. A poor solution in this case.
Yeah, that is poor. 🤕