Resistance to unjust authority

[MamaLiberty]

I think you are confusing the REASON you make decisions, choose things, with the authority to do so.

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

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

It is interesting that people seem so terribly threatened by the very idea of actual individual liberty, with full responsibility for those choices and actions. I wonder why the idea irritates and frightens so many...

[Old Ironsights]

Point.  In the Biblical sense, the Genesis Eloheim gave Adam/Eve the personal Sovereignty/Authority to act contrary to Divine Will/Authority, and, as the text holds, they did so.

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

That Right was never Biblically rescinded.

The problem comes not in the choosing, but in the aggregation of "authority"/official violence by those who profess to have been granted a level of authority greater than that of Divinity, i.e. one where they insist that individuals do NOT have the Right to Choose.

[Terence]

Actually I can think of another reason to get hot: one's own beliefs are shaky, and seeing other's expressed looks like a challenge or attack on them.

Just to move this along some more...

Cite "necessity of survival" as the source of authority and they'll put you in the same cage as the horses and the ducks.

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

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

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

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

It seems strange to me to talk as if it was "given". Why couldn't it just result from conception? Did the sperm give it to the egg, or vice-versa?

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

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

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

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

Susan was speaking in 4 dimensions and I was disagreeing in the 11 that comprise
 Reality. Unless discussions on authority and sovereignty are expanded into Reality it will be
impossible to wrestle away or maintain liberties from those who do.

[Terence]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great questions, John.

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


Terence

[Seniortech]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 And so, here we are, each going his own way, deciding for himself, following in the steps of our ancient parents, Adam & Eve.  Oftentimes not giving a thought to what is proper in God’s order, or what He would have us do.  Do you suppose that those two individuals later on would have gladly gone back and eaten of the other tree, the Tree of Life, if given the chance?  Well, as Boston mentioned a couple of posts ago, Jesus Christ is the answer to our dilemma.  He is the perfected Adam and fulfillment of that Tree of Life in the garden, and our opportunity to eat of that tree.  By obeying natural law (God’s law) on earth while yielding our sovereignty to Him we can have Life and have it more abundantly.

[Boston]

Susan was speaking in 4 dimensions and I was disagreeing in the 11 that comprise
 Reality. Unless discussions on authority and sovereignty are expanded into Reality it will be
impossible to wrestle away or maintain liberties from those who do.

Spot on, Terence, and I think you've illuminated the gap between your posts and hers.

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

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

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


What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was the
idea they could "be like gods" — could set up on their own as if
they created themselves — be their own masters — invent some
sort of happiness for themselves outside God, apart from God.
And out of that hopeless attempt has come nearly all that we call
human history — money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution,
classes, empires, slavery — the long terrible story of man trying to
find something other than God which will make him happy.
The reason why it can never succeed is this. God made us:
invented us as a man invented an engine. . . . Now God designed
the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our
spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were
designed to feed on. There is no other. . . .
   That is the key to history. Terrific energy is expended —
civilisations are built up — excellent institutions devised; but each
time something goes wrong. Some fatal flaw always brings the
selfish and cruel people to the top and it all slides back into
misery and ruin. In fact, the machine conks. It seems to start up
all right and runs a few yards, and then in breaks down. They are
trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done
to us humans.
   — C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, book 2; ch. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THAT is true and full sovereignty.

Submitted in love, with no condemnation of any of you,
Boston

[Paul Bonneau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the true Struggle: getting my carnal self out of
the way. All others — even the struggle for "freedom" — are
puny and false.

Boston, I hadn't realized you had taken up Buddhism.   

[NiteRider]

Tell it like it is, Brother Boston! 

In a nutshell, it's not about self-OWNERship, but self-STEWARDship.

[Boston]

Boston, I hadn't realized you had taken up Buddhism.

Paul, there's a bland similarity regarding getting out of one's way, I agree.

________

In a nutshell, it's not about self-OWNERship, but self-STEWARDship.

That's a superb way of putting it, thanks!

Boston

[Terence]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Old Ironsights]

What the image you posted demonstrates is what most of us have understood for a long time...

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

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

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

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

Fie on them all.