XVII – The Lady of the Lake Throws an Anchor at the King

Update: A new article has ideas which substantially modify the ideas presented herein.

---

It occurs to me that there are some consequences to this new conception of legitimacy. Traditionally, Legitimacy has been considered a thing leaders have. However, much like responsibility, or fortitude, or other virtues, instead it’s a trait leaders must maintain. The old idea is the Lady of the Lake giving a sword to King Arthur, and now that he has the sword of legitimacy, he can assert his right as King of England. Now the Lady of the Lake gives him an anchor, and the chain spools all the way back to God, and he’s got to carry it around with him.

Chain Chain Chaaaaiiinnnnn^[1]

This idea helps me to grok a concept Zippy wrote about that I struggled with for a while. Lets start at the beginning: Legitimacy is a chain of Authority that starts at God and goes all the way down to you and me, the humble citizens of a given nation. As described: If that chain of authority is broken, it is the responsibility of the surrounding links to join themselves either to each other, or to look to God for guidance. But it stands to reason that we are all in the line of authority. We might be 200-millionth in line for the Throne, but if everything broke down, we would indeed be obliged to step up to the responsibility of governance. You see this in post-apocalyptic scenarios on TV, movies, etc. In the absence or breakdown of civil society, leaders rise and take responsibility for small communities until the link can be reformed with legitimate authority. In the meantime they are acting under the direct authority of God.

Zippy described this in the context of subsidiarity^[2], the principle that problems ought to be solved at the smallest or most local level possible.

Thus, we come to Zippy’s thesis regarding the 2nd Amendment:

An armed populace may thus be a good and natural thing when viewed from the standpoint of subsidiarity. Nobody is in a better position to defend a family or classroom, in the immediacy of an armed attack by a criminal, than the particular authorities literally closest in space and time to those defended: fathers and teachers, respectively.

But this depends upon viewing the authority of fathers and teachers in a context of subsidiarity: specifically not as rivals to or as the source of higher authority. The police may be slower and more distant than teachers; the courts may be slower and more distant than the police. But they are all integral parts of the same organic hierarchy of authority resting on a custodial relationship with the common good.

A ‘consent of the governed’ view pits the people against government. A ‘Chain of Legitimacy’ or ‘Consent to be governed’ view puts people in the chain of command. To wit: In an active shooter situation, a citizen could be deputized^[3] to respond to a grievous violation of the law and act to subdue the offender^[4]. A citizen can step into the chain of command to bring the Law where it’s proper enforcers may not be present.

Chain of Fools

This again requires a population of Edenites to work perfectly. You don’t want someone who places themselves in personal rivalry with government to step into the chain of command and do damage. There is a responsibility to both act in the preservation of legitimate authority and to prevent scandal. We live in a society where there is no guarantee of that. This is where we reach the problem of liberal society, epitomized by the Presidential Campaign Slogan of the tragic socialist Huey Long: Every Man a King. Liberalism could be summarized essentially as the supremacy of the individual over the sovereign, which leads to this fallacious argument that every man is a King or Kingmaker.

Liberal society is designed to break legitimacy, because it views all government as Tyranny. With no legitimacy, and no one to inform them of a true conception of legitimacy, every man begins to view himself, indeed, as a king. Absent a million swords of Damocles hanging over their heads, they abdicate both their responsibility to subordinate persons and their own subordination to greater authority.

The result being a crowd of usurpers, with the affectations of legitimate authority, but none of the heavy burden that comes with it. All of the credit, none of the blame, so to speak.

Which returns us to the grand question: How does one begin to encourage a population to become formed in virtue?

AMDG

---

^{[1] Chain of Fools – Aretha Franklin}

^{[2] Note to self, add to dictionary.}

^{[3]Quote from Zippy: “Setting aside the multivocity of the term “free State” it is possible to propose an (illiberal, explicitly authoritarian, and thus unusual) interpretation of the second amendment as deputization. Armed citizens are viewed as loyal subsidiary agents of the sovereign, a militia very much loyal to and subject to the sovereign, against proximate threats posed: not threats posed by the sovereign, but by criminals and foreign belligerents in that crucial quick minute and last mile.” Emphasis mine.}

^{[4] Every care must be taken not to take a human life. The ‘Right to bear arms’ (or, the Privilege granted by government to own and keep arms) is not a license to kill. Every Human Life has a certain dignity. A life can not and should not be taken lightly.}

XI – The Fallacy of the Abortionist

There are two questions you might ask in response to my ravings about privileges allowed by government. “Who cares? Sounds like you’re calling it six of one and half a dozen of the other.” Another question you might have is, “If it’s that bad, what can I do about it today?”

Why It Matters

The words we use to describe things are extremely important. It helps us frame ideas in a more accurate light. To lean on my recent Dictionary, a nominalist view describes reality in ways that conform to the describers personal biases about a thing. That is to say, if a nominalist is talking about Rights, they are talking about their idea of rights, which may not even be remotely the same as your idea of rights.

A Right to something is, in addition, ontologically different from a privilege. In short, a right is an entitlement: “You have to give me this”; a privilege is a responsibility: “I have this and you can take it away”. What people mean when they describe Rights is privileges, so why not speak about the thing accurately?

American society is built on this very fundamental idea, that has been disguised by mythos and personal bias tied to patriotism and politics. If we can liberate ourselves of that metaphysical baggage that constrains our thought. American society cannot change or improve if we remain tied to that baggage. And that is where we get to the crux of the matter.

American society and American Government are not properly oriented to lead citizens to Virtue. They are presently oriented to maximize choice, under the auspices of freedoms, disguised in the language of entitlement-rights. This is imprisoning.

Let’s look at an example:

Right to Choose vs. Right to Life. The reason abortion is even remotely an issue is because two groups are looking at a thing and calling it different names. One side believes a woman has a right to choose what she does with her body. They view restrictions on that as tyrannical, because they are taking away a woman’s rights. The other side believes a baby is a person, and killing it is an offense against God. They view prohibiting abortion as a virtue, the same way that the Government restricts a persons ‘right’ to murder at will, to drink and drive, or do other things that are harmful to oneself or others.

These two perspectives are not reconcilable by compromise or any other ‘middle way’. And there will always be tension unless Government adopts a view supported by faith; otherwise Faith and Government will be in opposition, because faith supersedes government.

Let’s examine this right to Choose, and a woman’s right to ‘choose what she does with her body’. First, let’s restate this using my earlier methodology: This side of the argument asserts that “The Government allows me to decide what to do with my body”. But lets restate this even more, because Abortion is the only choice they are fighting for. If they get pregnant, it is currently legal in all 50 states to carry it to term and have a live birth. So the only choice that is in question is the ability to get an abortion. So let’s restate it again: “The Government allows me to get an abortion.” And nowadays, that is an accurate statement. But a fertilized egg will become a person 11 times out of 10 (because sometimes they become twins!), and all people at all stages of life are children of God, endowed with a grace and dignity all their own.

So, to be brutally honest, what they really mean is: “The Government allows me to kill a person who is a gift from God.”

But what they are saying is: “I have the right to choose.”

The language we use is extremely important.

So What Can I Do About It?

Well, we really need to know what the problem is? I would argue the problem is that our government is not oriented towards virtue. And the solution to that must come from the ground up. We will not out-vote the masses, if one group promises ‘free choice for everyone’ and the other promises ‘limited choice, but for a good reason’.

So the answer is to live virtuously. Inspire your peers to live virtuously. Raise a virtuous family. The challenge is that this is more than a generational problem. This is a civilizational problem. So my answers to this question sound like platitudes. But all of these are things you can begin to work on today. 

Fraternal correction is an important part of Catholic Faith. If a fellow Christian strays, tell them so, bluntly and firmly. It is not easy. I have not fully grokked what it means to live this way. But that is what is required. It has it’s own set of challenges, but it’s not impossible to practice.

In order to remake the world, one must first see the world as it is. Grokking that is the first step.

AMDG

VII – “At What Point Then is the Approach of Danger to be Expected?”

How does one live in a society wherein the Government grants privileges and God handed down Natural Law. The world I have described is one in which we, as individuals, do not have a lot of control. How does that work?

The Divine Right of Presidents

In order to understand our role within society, we must understand the Governments role within society, and more so, how to see past the facade of what it looks like and see what it is.

The way to begin to approach this is to consider what government really is. We as individuals are caretakers of souls which God made just for us. Within our families, we are collectively called to help preserve our families souls. Within our communities, we are called to shepherd as many souls as possible towards God. So follow that chain all the way up: Government is responsible for the souls of every citizen with allegiance to that government.

Lets restate this following Zippy’s methodology: Power is the capacity to make certain things happen. Authority is the moral capacity (I might paraphrase that to moral power) to oblige a subject to do certain things. So Governments have Power, and the Authority (as a moral responsibility) comes from the fact that they are, by definition, caretakers of souls.

Continuing: Enforcement is power associated with Authority to punish those who disobey authority. Tyranny is the false pretense of Authority. I will also go so far as to say Tyranny is the misuse of authority or an abdication of moral responsibility.

The main innovation here is viewing Government as a moral authority: not to define what is right, but instead to preserve and promote what is right. As a Christian and a Catholic, I believe what is right is an objective standard, I believe in Natural Law. So a government which does not abide or promote Virtue, Natural Law, etc, is, in fact, Tyranny.

The Tyranny of the Mob

Part of the problem is that we contextualize ‘Government’ as a monolithic thing which moves and acts as a singular unit. Government is composed of groups of people. In fact, it nests fractally all the way down so as to make it impossible to hold one person responsible for any act of Government. This is true in American government and in any Liberal Democracy the world over. Liberal democracy exists to eschew individual responsibility and promote monolithic collective responsibility.

As an Individual, our actions have immediate and realizable consequences. If those consequences are hidden from us or disguised, then we lose the Moral Hazard of decision making. When we can hide in a group to promote immorality, this is the classic Tyranny of the Mob. Every individual abdicates their moral responsibility because there are no consequences for moral or immoral behavior.

This works upstream from the masses, too. If the populace in a Democratic society don’t feel responsible for the leaders they elect, they don’t feel consequences when those leaders behave immorally. Democracy similarly functions as a shield.

There Has to be a Better Way!

Again, I’ve spent a lot of time extolling the vices of the improper exercise of Authority. So how do we, as Individuals, fit into this system? We need to understand our individual responsibilities as units within families, and as family units within society. The most succinct way I can think of describing our individual responsibilities is through the Cardinal Virtues:

• Justice
• Temperance
• Fortitude
• Prudence

These are the foundation of society, and defined within Natural Law. All men have a sense of the Cardinal Virtues inherent to us; we must refine and sharpen our virtues in order to form Virtuous societies. Similarly those individuals within Government, hiding from consequences, would behave differently if they cultivated these Cardinal Virtues as well.

The next level of Virtue are the Theological Virtues:

• Faith
• Hope
• Charity

These are virtues that come only from the grace of God. An individual, formed in a Christian way, sharpens their Cardinal virtues and pursues their Theological virtues. Again: If individuals were sufficiently formed in Christian teaching, then their direct relationship with God would supersede whatever their relationship is with Government. There would be no pretending that you can hide from consequences.

We, as individuals, do not get to choose how our Government operates. We do, at some level, get to choose the people that work within Government. Our responsibility is to select people formed in virtue so they can make virtuous decisions when in office, and select virtuous people to surround them, so that our Government can begin to uphold it’s responsibility to preserve and promote virtuous society, for the betterment of the souls of the people in the governments care.

AMDG