(w) – The Tree of Liberty

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed because the previous liberators have become tyrants and the new liberators have not yet become tyrants. The cycle is infinitely recursive. The fruit of the tree of liberty is tyranny, and the seeds which make the tree grow is revolution.

By the way, I looked up the source of the quote in context in order to render the quote properly for this post. I was amused to see the sentence immediately following the above quote is this one:

It is it’s natural manure.

This we can agree on, Mr. Jefferson!

AMDG

LXXIV – Resolution to the Legitimacy and Tyranny Problem

I read a great article and I think it has helped me untangle the Legitimacy Problem, which is an extension of the Tyranny problem.

My writings so far:

• Article XVI – Establishes an early definition of Legitimacy
• Article XVII – Explores some consequences of that definition
• Article XVIII – What happens when things go wrong?
• Article XIX – Clarifying the definition of Legitimacy
• Article XXIV – Realizing that defining Legitimacy creates problems for Democracy
• Article XXV – Civil and Spiritual Obligations of a Sovereign

As you can tell it’s been a while since I’ve written about this. Lets see what has changed:

The Legitimacy Problem

Conceptions of sovereignty were easy during the Monarchy period of western civilization. A King ruled over a people, his authority granted by God (by birth or otherwise) to rule in God’s name and keep God’s peace. Easy! The rise of democracy complicated things somewhat. The ruler gains his authority from the people, but also rules over those people, so the reasoning appears somewhat circular. The problem lies when evaluating what exactly Tyranny is. Can a democratically elected ruler still be illegitimate? Can a democratically elected ruler be a tyrant? How do you know when a ruler ought to be forcibly removed by revolution? The Legitimacy problem is an attempt to answer these questions.

Patriotism is a Virtue

I linked to an article in the beginning, make sure you read that first, because the rest of this is predicated on information contained therein.

Obedience to civil authority is good, virtuous even. Acts of creation–even creation of a state–is done with God. Therefore, we owe to our civil authority a similar kind of obedience, but one subordinate to obedience to God. The Constitution establishes the legitimate authority of the United States of America. The Constitution itself was written in a valid and licit way, therefore it is a Legitimate legal document prescribing our particular means of self governance.

A Civil leader, who is raised to their position by the valid and licit means prescribed by the legitimate legal procedures, is the legitimate civil sovereign of a democracy. The Chain of Legitimacy still flows from God, but gets not at the raising of a sovereign but at the foundation of the democracy, in our case being the Constitution.

Back to Tyranny

This conception allows us to revisit the Tyranny problem with some coherent strategy. Tyranny is a quality of governance. A validly, licitly, and thus legitimately elected democratic sovereign is essentially the legitimate authority. Their decisions can be essentially for good or for ill. The means of rule are accidental to a democratic sovereign; that is to say, whether ruling by fiat or by precedent does not define either the legitimacy or tyranny of a sovereign. However, The same way that a person that chooses unvirtuous choices more often than not can be said to be essentially immoral, so too a sovereign that chooses poor choices can be said to be essentially a tyrant. This is again regardless of the accidents of their reign.

So how do we tell whether a choice is poor? I have previously described that a Tyrant might violate civil law but must violate natural law. I argue now that mere indifference to law does not rise to the level of Tyranny. Tyranny is a positive assertion contrary to natural law, followed by an effort to codify or enforce that assertion civilly. This may ring a bell if you remember Zippy Catholic, who said: “Tyranny is a false pretense of Authority, frequently accompanied by enforcement of the false claim.”

To phrase my new conclusion as an axiom: Tyranny is an exercise of authority which is contrary to natural law, and the attempted or actual enforcement of that authority.

Resolution

A Tyrant may be legitimate or illegitimate, but a Tyrant definitively acts contrary to Natural law, and definitively enforces it. Said another way, a Tyrant compels evil, whereas a saintly leader compels good.

It is not enough to ignore the law, civil or natural. A Tyrant must actively subvert and reject the law, claim untruth as truth. A government which ignores truth or is indifferent to it’s character is merely negligent, and is a vice unto itself. A Tyranny subverts Gods law, and attempts to legitimize that subversion in civil law.

XXXIII – Demos Man

A Cult shares it’s root with Culture and Cultivate: to raise up from a certain place. Cultivate in the sense of raising agriculture of a quality suitable to consume; Culture in the sense of raising a people of a like kind as yourself. Cult has the modern connotation of raising people but typically has a more sinister idea of something forbidden. It’s common usage was rather mundane, as it was used to describe devotion to a certain of the ancient pantheon of classical gods. Those with particular reverence to Zeus followed a certain form prescribed by the cult of Zeus; likewise with Apollo, Athena, et al.

Human nature remains unchanged since Adam and Eve shared bites of a certain fruit. The names we give our fixations have changed. Our society has many cults, much veneration for things other than man’s proper focus of God. One such cult is the cult of our government I like to refer to as the Cult of Demos; Demos being the root of Democracy, meaning “of the common people”.

The sacred text of this Cult is the Constitution, their precepts are ‘Rights’. Their fixation utterly distracted from the mortal peril of their souls.

The consequences of this distracted fixation is abject demolition of man. In evidence: The open and unashamed promotion of infanticide. The recent ruling that women should be drafted. The ongoing horrors of abortion. Hoax hate crimes. I can go on. Not even in Edeny and Anakay is such destruction possible. Edeny values the sanctity of life. Anakay, as a perfectly anarchic society, would certainly look out for the individual. It is only when society is collectively looking elsewhere that the evil one can execute the great swindle, the sleight of hand, and steal from us the things that make us human.

The devil arrived at the gate, and found it unguarded. We sip absentmindedly from the well which he poisoned while we weren’t looking.

God help us.

AMDG

XXVIII – Everything I Just Said Was Wrong (No. 2)

I only started reading Zippy after I learned he passed away. So I’ve only been scratching the tip of the iceberg of his full body of work. So my discussion about his views of voting has been hindered somewhat, as T. Morris appropriately intimated in a comment on a previous post. I discovered two articles from Zippy, and an affirming analysis on Orthosphere, that I wanted to explore and condense into Scoots Layman Terms^TM and then attempt to refute using what discussions I’ve already had, if they are still salvageable.

Zippy: Virtue’s Silver Medalist
Zippy: The Bus Stops Here (Originally a comment on the preceding, with some added info)
Ortho: Render Unto Caesar

Before I get too deep, my ‘victory condition’ is this: Either I am satisfied that my refutation of Zippy’s thesis is adequate and I can successfully defend that thesis; OR I grok his ideas enough to follow them and ease my troubled conscience. But my argument must thread the needle of having not been addressed by any of his prior refutations, AND must also adequately address those common disagreements.

So, without further ado: lets Dig in!

The Bus Stops

I’m going to start here because this is a summary and provides a rubric for evaluating. He also helpfully includes refutations to common disagreements, some of which I’m embarrassed to say I have leaned on.

Zippy organizes his arguments about not voting in a sequential order he refers to as ‘Bus Stops’. Each stop has a premise. If you disagree with that premise, you can get off the bus. If you make it to the end, you agree with Zippy about not voting. Lets tackle them in order.

The First Stop: We have an obligation to avoid mortal sin. This one is fairly straight forward, and I need to eat crow a bit. Because Zippy is not saying that voting is mortal sin in and of itself, and that is how I have been characterizing his arguments. I am wrong. He agrees with me that voting is not formal cooperation with sin, and thus whether one should vote is a prudential judgement. That implies intent matters, and I believe Zippy’s thesis is that people’s intent is focusing on the wrong thing. That’s not material to this bus stop. if you agree that whether or not one should vote is a prudential judgement, you can remain on the bus.

The Second Stop: So voting is a prudential judgement. What does that mean, exactly? This stop is all about what it doesn’t mean. Prudential Judgement isn’t a free pass to come to whatever conclusion your heart desires. As Zippy describes it, Prudence is right-liberal code for the left-liberal idea of ‘conscience’, and both treat it like an unquestionable sacrament. Prudential Judgement doesn’t mean “it’s subjective and therefore I am free to decide”. If you agree that prudential judgement is a call to raise the analytical bar for your decision making, you can stay on the bus.

The Third Stop: The Church doesn’t require us to vote. This follows logically from the first and second stops. The Church is simply silent on how you participate in your local government, whatever form that government may be. It is not a moral choice, and it is not a blank check. If you agree that the Church has no guidance on whether or not to vote, you can stay on the bus.

The Fourth Stop: This is a bit more of a logical leap from the Third Stop. Zippy describes elections as game-theoretic contests and civic rituals which have negligible impact on the outcome of the election. The Church makes no statements about exercises of game theory, nor does it comment regarding forms of governance, so it’s up to our prudential judgement. Our prudential judgement MUST take into consideration the outcomes. Zippy says our action (voting) has no material outcome-dependent effects, and thus cannot be a pragmatic act. It must be idealistic because it is the hope for some outcome without any reasonable expectation of achieving it because you took that action. If you agree that your vote has no correlation to whether the desired outcome is achieved, you can stay on the bus.

The Fifth Stop: Because there are no outcome dependent expectations to effect change by voting; and all the outcome-independent effects apply to everyone whether they vote or not, there is no proportionate reason to vote, and at this level, any reason, however trivial, to vote is negated by the presence of Scandal. Zippy even says there are enough people that are formally cooperating by intentionally voting for abortionists that scandal applies at the very first bus stop. If you agree that, since your vote doesn’t matter, there is no reason to vote and that if you vote at all, it causes scandal, then you can stay on the bus.

You Have Arrived: If you made it this far, you agree with Zippy Catholic, and you probably don’t vote.

---

Selected Objections

Objections by Ignorance

The first three objections on Zippy’s list of ten deal with people being fundamentally wrong about the purpose or consequence of voting. No, voting is not a license to complain. People that live in a society can complain about that society. No, the Church doesn’t say you have to vote. No, the government isn’t illegitimate and the non-voter isn’t a traitor. These are simple. I refer you to Zippy’s more detailed discussions of those arguments.

Objections by Misunderstanding

No. 4 on his list is a misunderstanding I myself was laboring under: “Aren’t you saying that everyone who votes will go to hell?” – No, that’s not what he’s saying at all. Those who vote intentionally for abortionists are formally cooperating in evil and as such are committing mortal sin. Those who don’t vote or who vote against evil are sufficiently removed to be considered remote, and thus the act of voting falls under the purview of prudential judgement (See Bus Stop #1).

No. 5 is addressed in Bus stop #2 – it’s not license to do whatever you want. Prudential Judgement calls you to a higher bar.

No. 6 is an objection I labor under and reserve the right to continue to do so. The objection is that “If enough people do as you do, then the bad guys will win!”. Zippy argues (poorly paraphrased through my limited understanding) that right-liberal conservatives do more to preserve the evil institutions than the evil institutions themselves. The issue here is with the idea ‘bad guys’ but I do still think there is a point here. I will elaborate later on.

Objections by Fallacy

No. 7 is objection by the fallacy that morality is supposed to be simple and easy. Appeal to ignorance, in other words: These ideas are worth exploring, and shouldn’t be dismissed because they are difficult. That’s why you come here, and let me do all the footwork to try to translate and help you understand!

No. 8 is a re-casting of Error No. 2, trying to put responsibility on the church for your actions of voting. The church is intentionally silent, prudential judgement requires us to evaluate for ourselves.

No. 9 is a fallacy by false comparison: Legislators have options, but we are voting for presidents and legislators, we can and should be more discerning, or (as zippy argues) just not vote! The exceptions for legislators do not apply to us.

Objections by Ad-Hominem

No. 10 is the accusation that Zippy is a sociopathic nut, which I don’t agree with. Zippy is many things but crazy is not one of them. He has a strong sense of Ethics and we have a lot to learn from him. My whole blog is essentially me trying to study at his feet, posthumously. So this isn’t valid.

---

Scoots Rebuttal

I believe Zippy has created a false premise. Taken as a whole, it is hard–nay, impossible! to see value in voting. If you have 120 million people voting, and one person does or does not, what’s it matter? Zippy’s thoughts on voting I believe can be condensed to three broad points.

1- There is no practical reason to vote.

2- The system itself is a bad system (dare I say, an evil one), and should not be encouraged.

3- Scandal destroys any remaining reasons that may exist to vote.

Finding a Reason

The idea that I will propose to rebut Zippy’s methodology is that he is looking from the top down at voting as a whole. Personally, I believe that is an antiseptic approach and depersonalizes our participation in government. Government is not transactional, per se, all interactions do not have to be weighed by cost/benefit.

The catechism suggests that a persons deeds are weighed according to circumstance, if we assume that the rubric for mortal sin applies to other deeds as well. Is the matter grave? Is the deed made with knowledge of the grave matter? Is the deed made with full consent of the will (culpability)?

God values each person, individually. So I think it is fair that we can evaluate voting on a personal, micro scale.

When I was discussing this with my friend and brain trust, he presented the following scenario:

Let’s say there is a geyser outside a town that is flooding it with water and destroying it. Each of us drops pebbles in the geyser and eventually it fills up and saves the town.

I added the following modification:

A crowd gathers at the geyser and some people throw pebbles in and some fish pebbles out, and there’s no way of knowing the ratio of pebbles in to pebbles out.

Imperfect though the analogy may be, voting is like throwing the pebbles in. There’s no real way to tell if you’re doing any good, your pebbles could be the only ones being fished out. But throwing the pebble is doing an iota of good. Zippy seems to be saying that it is preferable to not participate in something without certainty about positive outcomes, and would rather you do something actually helpful like find a boulder to put in the geyser. In this case, not voting is predicated on the substitution. You’ll note that Zippy is not saying that voting is inherently bad, but rather that there is so little good that its indiscernible from the base noise distribution. But I would argue that God can discern, and if the amount of good is not zero then there is an iota of good. Is there MORE good that can be done through other means? Yes, absolutely. But I would argue that not voting deprives the system of that iota of good unless it is substituted with something which is known to effect more good.

You might argue that this looks like an elaborate version of Objection No. 6, that “if you don’t vote then the bad guys win”. I draw the distinction that i’m not arguing that not voting causes negative outcomes; I’m saying that not voting deprives positive inputs. No good can happen if no one does good. Bad things CAN happen if no one does good, but for good things to happen, people need to do good things. For bad things to happen, people need to do bad things.

Claiming that there is no practical reason to vote, then, is to ignore some fundamental information. It ignores first that voting does offer an iota of good. It ignores that voting is the only mechanism at our disposal to effectuate positive civil outcomes unless we do something else, which Zippy does not prescribe (an omission which neither helps or hurts his case). This is my retort to the idea that there is no practical reason to vote.

A Bad System

“How do you vote against voting” is a quip I saw from a commenter in one of the articles. This is where prudential judgement comes in. Zippy’s judgement is that he should not vote, my judgement might be that I should. Zippy and I already agree that voting is remote, non necessary participation, and either voting or not voting is a negligible difference. If the system itself is EVIL then we are obliged to overthrow it. But the system is not inherently evil. The people who use it might be, in some cases. So to rebut claims that the system is bad or broken or evil, I would simply point to my earlier article or even to Zippys own: We are distant enough from cooperating that it is negligible.

You might argue that this looks like an elaborate version of Objection No. 5, that ‘prudential judgement’ means we can do whatever we want. If we accept the premise that Voting can contribute some good, and not voting doesn’t contribute any good through that mechanism, regardless of outcome, between those two options taken independently, the one that contributes some good is preferable. If there is a mechanism for contributing more civil good into the system of Government, then let us know and we can do that instead of voting!

The Price of Scandal

I already kind of addressed this in my article about the proximity and necessity of cooperation. Scandal only happens when people know what you did, and what you did is or is perceived to be out of line with Catholic values. Anonymously standing in line at a polling place doesn’t inflict scandal. Not talking about your vote, or casting aspersions on other votes doesn’t invite scandal. If you want to talk about politics, it might be best to not vote. If you don’t care about talking or don’t want to, you can. But if you accept my previous premises, both options are equal in terms of prudential judgement.

---

In Conclusion

Sitting atop a democracy, looking down at all the people, it can be hard to perceive the marginal value of a single vote. But God judges us all individually. A single good deed might not do anything to save the world, but at least it is a good deed. I believe a single vote, too, can contribute an iota of good into a system which has many faults. Enough of those votes can perhaps effectuate some kind of positive outcome. But it requires us to first believe that voting contributes good and second that we can convince others of this fact. Zippy, believing that a single vote can’t rise above the signal noise baseline, finds it to be impractical and with deleterious effects in the form of scandal or endorsement/participation in a system which is broken. However, the system itself is not inherently evil, and we can do good to counter the evil through means other than voting. But if Voting is a means of effectuating some good, even if just an iota, then I believe we should utilize it.

I set out my victory condition as either accepting Zippy’s thesis, or crafting a rebuttal which threads the needle in his already thoroughly reasoned argument. Zippy (God rest his soul) probably would disagree with me on the basis that I don’t answer the signal noise problem; but I don’t believe I have to. We will probably remain at odds!

Please let me know what you think of my reasoning and point out where you feel it is lacking. I invite criticism, to either encourage me to strengthen my argument or to force me to abandon it and accept Zippy’s argument.

AMDG

XXV – Give unto Caesar your Rose Colored Glasses

We’re going to approach a complex topic in a roundabout way.

A Reality Filter is a concept coined by Scott Adams, defined as a way of viewing the world that helps you easily contextualize and understand it. Of course, a reality filter is only as good as the eye that beholds it, and a Reality Filter is only good for understanding things a certain way. An Atheist has a different reality filter than a Catholic, a Left Liberal has a different reality filter than a Right Liberal. My reality filter is different from yours.

A reality filter is a means to an end. With this in mind, my recent article on Legitimacy and the core concepts that make legitimacy work serves as an important reality filter for figuring out where authority comes from. We can use this reality filter to break down questions of authority and legitimacy.

Follow the Rubric Road

Lets imagine a venn diagram, with the two overlapping circles. Make one of them smaller, and push it most of the way into the bigger one. This smaller one contains all things pertaining to civil life. The larger one contains all things pertaining to spiritual life. If Church and State were unified, our civil leaders would fall squarely within the area of overlap, because they would accept their responsibility as both spiritual and civil. You don’t just want to lead a positive society, you want to make positive people.

Separation of church and State segregates the leaders. It moves the spiritual leader to the ‘spiritual life’ side of the diagram; and the civil leader is removed to the tiny space outside of the spiritual life.

Considering a nation like the United States of America, current civil leaders are not responsible for their own separation from their spiritual responsibilities. As such, Civil Society can be said to be distinct from spiritual society, but they both have a common cause in what is known as the ‘common good’.

Tyranny is a term that describes the condition of the leader, in whichever sphere. A civil tyrant is one who is cruel or unjust or illegitimate in his exercise of his civil authority. A spiritual tyrant is likewise cruel or unjust or illegitimate in his exercise of spiritual authority. One could argue that unification of Church and State means one person could do twice the damage, but that’s really still the case with a civil leader. While a civil leader lacks the explicit authority to act on spiritual matters, they do have a responsibility as a steward of spiritual affairs of their subjects. Therefore a civil tyrant can do damage in both spheres.

Tyranny then, defined as cruel or unjust or illegitimate exercise of authority, has implicitly a civil and spiritual component. Tyranny is the violation of civil and spiritual law. A true tyranny must violate both.

Consider a ruler who violates civil law but is in unity with spiritual law. In order to be in unity with spiritual law, it necessarily implies that the civil laws were unjust. While they might violate civil law, they could still be said to be acting for the common good.

Consider a ruler who violates spiritual law, but is in unity with the civil law. Their deeds are illicit, but valid. They probably cannot be said to be acting for the common good, but they cannot be said to be behaving illegally.

I’ll amend the definition then. A true Tyranny must be in violation of spiritual law, and can be in violation of civil law.

Consider a ruler who violates spiritual law, and is in violation of civil law but subsequently amends the law. The overriding factor is the moral element, their violation of spiritual law. Tyranny then is defined by violation with some authority other than the civil law.

Potential and Kinetic Virtue

We have an obligation, as spiritual creatures, to grow in holiness and virtue. Our civil obligation is obedience where it is in compliance with spiritual law. Spiritual law supersedes all others. So when we are told to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, that is an admonition to respect the sliver of civil authority which is exclusively exercised by civil leaders. To obey the civil authority, but obey them second. Obeying the letter of the law is not virtuous in and of itself, but if the law is formed by virtue, it drives people to virtue.

Potential energy is when an object is at rest, kinetic energy is when an object is in motion. So too with Virtue: When a person is not motivated to be virtuous, they will remain the way they are, whatever state they happen to be in. The civil law ought to motivate kinetic virtue, to make people be active and change their state of virtue and holiness. The civil authority, however, is that of steward and not that of sovereign over the individual. So their authority over a ‘person’ is partial. Only spiritual leadership has authority over an entire person. Disunity of Church and State also means disunity of authority over persons within a nation. They can, but do not always, take the position of rivals. This is further evidence that a Civil authority has a responsibility to promote virtue: it prevents and even inoculates against being placed in rivalry with a spiritual authority, and creates stability with the authority that they wield.

Where do We Stand?

This reality filter helps us understand that civil authority does not always have to be in union with spiritual authority, though the disunity between the two does create some instability. A nation would be aided if Church and State were united, but a nation can succeed without. It must be acknowledged that the conditions for tyranny are more readily available when Church and State are separate, and is liable to be more dangerous. This helps us focus our definition of tyranny, but does not help us answer the question of redress, or even help us apply this definition to contemporary society and the complex problems therein.

More to come.

AMDG

XXIV – A Prelude to a Bigger Discussion

Kristor Says, in response to a question of mine on a backdated article:

“Can a government that separates church and state be said to have ever had the mandate of heaven?”

Only by accident. By analogy, we can do the will of God, and enact his Providential plan for the created order, even when we sin; for, our deluded clouded desires can happen to congrue with the divine will.

“How do we reconcile a secular society with our spiritual obligations?”

Render unto Caesar.

“Can a government which does not uphold a responsibility to promote virtue be considered a Tyranny?”

I don’t think so. In practice, every government upholds some vision of the good. This is so even of tyrannical governments. It is true also of governments that profess amorality. In practice, there is no such thing as amorality, except among dead bodies. For, some means of parsing moral decisions – which is to say, simply, decisions per se – is needed in order to proceed with the conduct of life, ergo of government.

“What is our obligation to address [an “amoral” government]?”

Render unto Caesar.

T. Morris Says, in response to an article of mine, here:

Now ask yourself this question: “What proportion or percentage of today’s electorate is well versed in classical literature?” and let that be your answer as to how insane the whole concept of “one man, one vote” universal suffrage is.
Meanwhile (and this is getting into some of the finer points), when a man or woman votes in our elections (or even when (s)he registers to vote in our elections), (s)he is lending a sense of legitimacy to an illegitimate process that is rigged to produce a certain kind of result from the gitgo. Meanwhile as well, (s)he is participating in evil, but (s)he usually doesn’t know (s)he is participating in evil, so to that extent the sin is not chargeable to him/her. But to those who are aware that the system is rigged, that it is illegitimate and therefore evil, participation therein – lending such a system credibility – is sin. So just keep that in mind if ever you are told that it is somehow your “Christian duty” to vote in our elections. Nonsense! The truth of the matter is that it is highly highly probable, due to reasons aforesaid and others I can’t get into at this moment, that your Christian duty as far as voting in our elections goes, is to not participate. Hence the post title.
Were the franchise limited in a way or ways that makes sense, I might consider participating in our elections again, if in fact I were deemed qualified. Democracy is clearly an illegitimate form of government, to my mind, because it is nothing short of mob rule, and mob rule can only serve the common good by mere chance or happenstance. Our system *might have been* more legitimate when it actually incorporated the federal principle and subsidiarity, but that all ended with Northern victory in the Civil War, albeit it took some time (decades) to eliminate the federal principle *in actual practice*. Nevertheless, that was always the goal (to eliminate the federal principle altogether); what we modern Americans refer to as the “federal government” is a national government, there is nothing federal about it; and a purely national government is in fact a tyranny in a country like the United States because the various States (and the peoples who inhabit them) can in no way govern themselves unless given permission from on high, which is to say from the national government. Hence, we *must* accept the wholesale murder of the unborn as some sort of fundamentally inviolable human right; we *must* accept homosexuality and other forms of freakish anti-social behavior as yet another inviolable human right. And so on and so forth. No State or local government may declare any of this as the self-destructive insanity that it is and refuse to participate in it, and your participation or my participation (or anyone else’s participation, for that matter) is never going to change that.

He continues:

At VFR the subject of limiting the franchise was discussed on numerous occasions, and the consensus view amongst that learned group, in my recollection, was that the franchise should be limited to net taxpayers. Which is to say persons who pay more in real taxes than they derive in government benefits. This would exclude retired military men since, as with any other government profession, professional soldiers generally receive a great deal more in “compensation” over the course of their lifetimes than they contribute in actual taxes. So there is a very real and ever-present conflict of interests within that community. But I think the consensus view was even more specific, or limiting, than net taxpayers, in that it also stipulated that only married men who are also net taxpayers should be given the ‘sacred franchise.’
The issue of whether or not one is a net taxpayer is sort of complex in a sense, and people have a very hard time understanding it in my experience. But it is fairly obvious, at least to my mind, that he who is employed in public sector work, from whence he derives all of, or at least the great bulk of, his income and related benefits, cannot possibly be a net taxpayer, quite the contrary.
So you see that limiting the franchise to married men who are in fact net taxpayers would, at least in theory and to a great extent, eliminate the conflict of interests problem that is pervasive under the current “one man, one vote” ideology.

Quick Thoughts In Response:

1. One of the fundamental assumptions of the Tyranny Problem is that an immoral government is Tyranny. Kristor questions the assumption in my reasoning.
2. T. Morris suggests one solution is limiting suffrage in some way
3. T. Morris adds additional information to the idea I originally discovered at Zippy Catholic, that voting is a sin.

Questions I mean to answer:

1. What is the root of authority for a Democracy, following the rubrick of the chain of authority described here?
2. What is the responsibility of a citizen in a nation which is, at worst, a tyranny; at best, immoral?
3. Can we envision a perfect solution, using our hypothetical states of Edeny and Anakay?
4. Having answered these, does it fit the Catholic Sociological ideas of Distributism? Where are the discrepancies?

These ideas are nebulous and I need to precipitate them. Big thank you to Kristor and T. Morris for adding kindling to my philosophical fire.

AMDG

XXI – The Worst Participation Trophies

In order to address the Tyranny problem, we need to tackle problems up-stream, namely problems with the Government and the source of it’s authority and legitimacy. We must also tackle problems down-stream, namely a citizens participation in that government.

The specific question at hand is whether participation in Tyranny is sinful. The broader question is what our obligation is to address a tyranny. This article will more closely address the former than the latter, but it is a fitting reminder of where we are in the process.

A Helpful Reminder

In order to avoid sin, we must understand what sin is. Mortal sin has three elements.

1. Grave subject matter
2. Full knowledge and awareness that a given deed is, in fact, a sin and awareness of the gravity of that sin.
3. Deliberate and complete consent to commit that sin.

But let us not be confused: A sin is a sin every time. Not checking one of these three boxes does not make it NOT a sin, it just reduces culpability. For example, a teenager inadequately formed in faith may commit a sin. They cannot be said to have full knowledge and awareness of the sin. They are less culpable. But they still committed a grave offense. When the teenager is made aware of the gravity of the sin, they would then be obliged to stop and amend their life; they would be held responsible for the full weight of the sin if they commit it again. There are many other mitigating factors as well, which we will discuss in part here.

Before we do, there is an additional element: the element of Scandal. One must avoid not just the near occasion of sin, but also the appearance of sin. Chaste cohabitation between male and female roommates may be without fault, but fellow Catholics may believe they are living as an unmarried couple in a state of sin. Non-Catholics may also get a mistaken impression of what it means to be Catholic. These reactions for others are foreseeable and you are responsible for knowingly causing these reactions, causing scandal.

With this helpful reminder, lets dig in.

The Ladder of Cooperation

Authors Note: This  and subsequent sections are almost exclusively informed from this link, with a Q&A answered by a priest. It is a bit of a word salad, so my writing here is intended as a laymans summary of the somewhat heavy jargon of the aforementioned link.

We are principally concerned with the spiritual state of other parties to sin. To help inform understanding, it helps to have a common scenario that we can use to fill and inform the many definitions that we will be adding to our dictionary.

For this scenario, we will use the scenario of a man robbing a bank.

Mortal Sin: Robbing a bank is a mortal sin. The robber has committed the mortal sin of larsony, in violation of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal.’

Formal Cooperation in mortal sin: An associate who stands guard outside the bank. This person has not robbed the bank nor harmed any individual, they simply stood outside the bank while the robbery took place. However, their intention is united to the Robber, and their presence facilitated the robbery. They have Formally Cooperated in the sin, and thus share in the culpability for that sin.

Immediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: This is essentially a distinction without a difference, there are few and rare cases in which this would not be considered Formal Cooperation. I am listing it here because it is on the website, and I lack the expertise to more clearly draw a distinction. For all intents and purposes, we can consider this Formal Cooperation.

Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Neither doing the act nor even especially intending the act, but providing some peripheral assistance or preparation. If a friend of the robbers agreed to give the robbers a lift, without knowing or intending on that day to participate in a robbery, but actually facilitated the getaway, the driver would then be Mediately Materially Cooperating in mortal sin.

Negative Cooperation in mortal sin: If the robbers said to their friend, “I’m taking your car for a robbery,” and the friend did and said nothing, and let them take the car, this is considered negative cooperation. He was in a position to obstruct the conduct of a sinful act, but chose to do nothing. This is like the ‘sin of omission’.

The Ladders of Proximity and Necessity

Subsequent distinctions can be drawn for a Mediate Material Cooperator. They may not intend a certain consequence, but the consequence can be foreseen. So we ask then, how close they were to the act and how necessary their cooperation was to completion of the act?

Proximate, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: The bank robbers ask their friend to borrow his car. The friend, who knows they are bank robbers, allows them to borrow the car, foreseeing that it could be used for robbery but intending that it is not. The friend is in Proximate, mediate, material cooperation with the mortal sin of the robbers.

Remote, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: The winter-sporting goods store where the robbers purchased their ski masks also furnished some means for the robbery but they are sufficiently removed from the robbery itself to be considered remote. A store cannot anticipate how shoppers use their wares, for good or ill. The shopkeep is remotely cooperating. The degree of remoteness affects culpability, and other mitigating factors not included in this scenario. All else being equal, the shopkeep may not be culpable for their mortal sin.

Necessary, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Supposing that the robbers did not have a car and had no other means to acquire a car, the friend giving them use of his car is necessary mediate material cooperation. The sin could not have been committed without the car, so the friend shares the burden for cooperating in that sin.

Non-Necessary, Mediate Material Cooperation in mortal sin: Supposing again that the shopkeep at the winter sports store sold the robbers their ski masks, that is non necessary cooperation, as if the shopkeep refused to sell them the masks they could have gone elsewhere and purchased the same masks, or fashioned some different face covering. The masks were not essential to the completion of the sinful act, and was thus not necessary. By this consideration, the shopkeep’s cooperation was non necessary, and culpability would be commensurately reduced.

Determining Morality of Mediate Cooperation

This was said first and said best in the link:

1. In a serious evil, proximate mediate material cooperation is permitted only if necessary to escape a very serious damage.

2. In a serious evil, necessary mediate material cooperation is permitted only if necessary to escape a very serious damage.

3. In a serious evil, mediate material cooperation that is both proximate and necessary is permitted only if necessary to escape an extremely serious damage. Moreover, where cooperation could bring serious harm to a third party, proximate and necessary cooperation (i.e., harm to the third party would not occur if the cooperator were to refuse) is permitted only if the cooperator would suffer damage commensurate with the injury suffered by the third party. In this case of harm to the third party, the law of charity requires this greater constraint, but not at the cost of greater harm to the cooperator.

4. Mediate material cooperation which is non-necessary and very remote is permitted for a reasonable cause.

5. In other cases the degree of necessity or proximity of cooperation must be judged in proportion to the evil effect and in proportion to the degree of the good effect achieved by the cooperator.

The best way I can think to explain this is to go through the rubric with the example of Abortion.

Lets suppose a husband is driving his wife to an abortionist for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. His cooperation is both proximate and necessary. Because this is a grave matter, it is only permitted to escape serious damage: Say the mother’s life was in imminent danger due to a complication with the pregnancy. This cooperation may then be permitted.

In this case, there is also the prospect of serious harm to a third party, the baby. The above scenario does not automatically give license to abort the baby. It must be sufficiently grave danger, wherein they must choose (for example) between saving the Mothers life, or losing both the mother and the baby. The Husbands cooperation in driving his wife to the abortionist may then be permitted as well.

The manufacturer of the car, for example, is both non-necessary and very remote. Their reasonable cause would be making a living, and so they are not culpable for cooperation in the sin. Please note: non-necessary and remote cooperation does not automatically excuse cooperation! There must be reasonable cause for the cooperation, as well as the other limitations described above.

In all other cases, in point 5 above, necessity and proximity must be judged proportionally to the sin being cooperated in and the good achieved by cooperating. In other words, we cannot presume upon Gods will or mercy, but this leaves open mitigating factors in the case of ambiguity.

The Chain of Sin

Let’s take the abortion example and follow the chain of sin all the way to the voters.

Mortal Sin: A Doctor at an Abortion clinic performs an abortion

Immediate, Material Cooperation in Mortal Sin: The Treasurer of the abortion clinic pays the Doctor

Remote, Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in Mortal Sin: The clerk of a government agency pays the abortion clinic, the payment which is the only thing keeping the abortion clinic open. If the payment has no effect on whether the abortion clinic remains open, the clerk is of reduced culpability as their participation is no longer necessary.

Remote, Non-Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: An elected representative appoints the clerk, with the reasonable cause of performing their duty to appoint clerks to various agencies. This becomes Necessary Cooperation if this elected official is the only person who can make the appointment, and thus would become a mortal sin. The elected representative would be obligated to resign rather than facilitate the procurement of abortions to the public.

Remote, Non-Necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: An elected representative votes to fund the agency, with the reasonable cause of performing their duty to set budgets and apportion funding to various agencies. This becomes Necessary Cooperation if the ONLY PURPOSE of the vote was to fund the abortion clinic, and would thus be mortal sin. If the agency funds other things besides the abortion clinic, participation would return to being non-necessary, and would reduce culpability.

Very Remote, Non-necessary Mediate Material Cooperation in a sin: A citizen who votes for those elected representatives, with the reasonable cause of executing their civic duty. If the elected representative is advertised to be pro-abortion, this becomes Necessary Cooperation because the representative is advertising their intention to increase availability of abortions, and would thus be a mortal sin. If the elected representative was neutral or explicitly anti-abortion, the vote for that representative would have no impact on whether abortion is or isn’t offered in the country, and would thus be morally neutral.

Very Remote, Non-necessary Negative Cooperation in a sin: A citizen who abstains from voting for those elected representatives, with the reasonable cause of not wishing to participate in their civic duty. Their non-vote has no effect on the outcome of the election, and does nothing for or against the cause of abortion. While the evil effect is known, their actions neither help nor hinder, and thus cannot be considered a mortal sin.

Socks and Scandals

While voting is generally neutral in this case, we still have an obligation to avoid voting for candidates who are explicitly pro-abortion. If all candidates in an election are pro-abortion, then voting or not voting has no impact and would still be considered (by some) to be morally neutral, since there is no effect on the profusion of abortion.

However, now we must consider scandal. If one candidate is pro-abortion and one is not, we are obligated to vote for the one who is not. If both candidates are pro-abortion, we may be morally able to vote for one or the other, but if our Catholic or non-Catholic peers became aware they may be given to Scandal, which adds an element of sin to the deed.

While in the United States of America we have the benefit of the Australian / Secret ballot, there may be circumstances where we could discuss politics and risk giving scandal.

Here is where my friend and braintrust offers some sage advice:

“I think the safest choice in any circumstance is to not discuss it unless pressed and then to justify the decision with Catholic teaching”

This is good advice for more than just voting.

Conclusion

Voting (by which I mean, civic participation in a government aparatus that may be tyrannical) is not material participation in sin, by this rubric! We have unwound one pillar of the Tyranny problem. We now must consider the bigger question: What is our obligation if we find ourselves under a Tyranny?

We have added more definitions and have a lot more to think about.

AMDG

XV – Addressing the Tyranny Problem

I don’t know a more academic way of saying it: The Tyranny Problem has really gotten stuck in my craw. This is a serious issue: Either I’m committing mortal sin by voting, or I must abandon what I perceive as my civic duty. I haven’t yet found a middle ground.

A Step Forward, A Step Back

Psalm 42, Verse 1 in the Douay-Rheims Bible has a line which gave me hope of resolving this problem. It reads as follows:

A psalm for David. Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy: deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

The key phrase being ‘Distinguish my cause’. I took this to mean that one could live in an unjust political system, and even participate in it with good intention, and if ones cause is just then God can distinguish (differentiate!) it from the unholy nation in which one is part. However, relying on this one piece of this one verse is insufficient to draw theological conclusions. In fact, this verse isn’t even prone to consistent translation.

On the advice of my friend and brain-trust, I pursued Papal Encyclicals to see if the subject of Democracy is ever addressed. What I stumbled upon was very exciting to me, though it may not be new to learned readers. The document was Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, from 1864. This is a fascinating read, so I encourage everyone to take a look through it before getting too deep in my continued ramblings.

The particular error I found interesting was #55:

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852

This cuts the Tyranny problem at the root: America was founded on the separation of Church and State, and here is a long standing Papal Encyclical noting it as an Error. By extension, American government could be construed^[1] as illegitimate in the eyes of God.

But that poses a new problem: Suppose we accept that idea as true, that American government is illegitimately separated from the Church. How then shall we proceed? What options are available?

After discussion with my friend, here are some imperfect attempts at solving the Tyranny Problem.

Solution by Ignorance

One solution is derived from comparison to Usury. Usury was originally held as a sin (to be clear, usury is still a sin), but after the rise of capitalism it’s been centuries since the Church spoke forcefully on the subject, or provided any clarity. Zippy has written at length on the subject of usury, so I won’t attempt to duplicate his work here. The main thrust is that if the Church could stop enforcing it’s Laws, then the whole Cathedral would start to rot at the foundations.

Similarly with our democratic tyranny. In 1864, the Church clearly was aware of and concerned about modernism and the separation of Church and State as a ‘popular error’ that would inevitably lead people away from Christ. While I have not taken a detailed view of every encyclical, it doesn’t appear the Church has provided any clarity on the subject in a long, long time.

Therefore, because the Church has failed to form it’s body, it’s body has reduced culpability^[2] due to ignorance of proper teaching. We can’t follow a Law we don’t know about.

Solution by Rocks and Hard Places

We have no choice but to live in secular society until such a time as the world sorts itself out. There is no country we can go to, no thing we can do, to flee or undo the entrenched Tyranny in which we find ourselves. Therefore, having no other options, and absent clarity from the Church, we must find a path forward that is in keeping with the teachings of Christ. That path may or may not include participating in civil society with the intent of reforming it.

Further, absent other options, the President of the United States of America is the legitimate sovereign by the laws of the land, and we owe an obligation to the legitimate sovereign. While he himself may be out of union with the Church, that sin rests on him and not his subjects, who for the time being are bound to doff their hat to the King of all Creation and their local governor until the chain of authority is re-established.

Solution by New Options

If America is not a legitimate government, who is the legitimate sovereign of this land? Can we trace it back to the point of error and work forwards? Can we start from scratch and identify a legitimate sovereign? Can we create a political party designed to supplant the current system with one in union with the God? What would that look like?

The Tyranny Problem Remains Problematic

There remains no satisfactory solution to the Tyranny problem. These are all options. I am going to continue my research into Encyclicals and I will see if other Church Fathers have any writings; surely the first encounter with liberalism and modernism wasn’t 1864. St. Joseph, who humbly accepted his station in life and unquestioningly followed the life assigned to him by God, pray for us.

AMDG

---

^{[1] The Syllabus of Errors is not a dogmatic document, and so can and should not be regarded as a final word handed down from God, merely an effort by a Pope to warn against errors seeping into contemporaneous society. Bl. John Henry Newman writes (per wikipedia) that it should be taken in proper context of the source document referenced.}

^{[2] Culpability is reduced if indeed civic duty can be construed as sin but since we don’t know, it’s not wrong to assume the worst.}

XIII -The Tyranny Problem

I was reviewing my posts and I came upon two related statements about tyranny which appeared contradictory. I highlight them here. In one, I argued that Liberalism creates problems for government systems by beginning as if all government were tyranny. In the other, I argued that any government which fails to uphold virtue or which abdicates it’s moral responsibility to the populace is a tyranny. My gut reaction is that these two claims were contradictory. Now i’m not so sure.

Government as a Burden on the People

The liberal view, in the original context as the view held by the framers of the constitution of the United States of America, is that all government is tyranny. This is because, to a Liberal, the base state of man is liberty. Government by definition limits liberty by creating laws and structure in which man is obligated to operate. All the limits on government are designed as limits on tyranny. In the Liberal perspective, tyranny is defined as ‘Sovereign power that limits in any way the liberty of a people’.

Government as a Moral Authority

My view, which I hesitate to label for fear of creating confusion, is that government has a responsibility to uphold and promote virtue; failing to do so, that government is Tyranny. Stated succinctly, tyranny is defined as ‘Sovereign power that abdicates it’s moral responsibility to the people’. Government may limit liberty if it is just in so doing.

Irreconcilable Conflict of Terms

To a liberal, my definition is tyranny. To me, the liberal definition is not inherently tyranny but inevitably leads to it. A perfectly formed Christian population^[1] could support a liberal system, because there would be no question about the values of that population. But if you make the reasonable assumption that people will not all have uniform moral values, then the liberal system breaks down. My view does not inevitably lead to tyranny unless the leaders are not perfectly formed Christians. This can be controlled for, but only at the expense of maximum liberty. Is the goal of government to maximize liberty or to maximize virtue? It cannot be both, and each, to the other, is tyrannical.

The Zippy Catholic Dilemma

This is where we get into some pretty troubling territory. By my own statement, I hold our current system of government to be tyranny because it is not working to maximize virtue. In fact, Zippy took this a step further by pointing out that our very own liberal government is complicit in perpetrating the biggest mass murder in human history. He at other points discussed how he refused to vote, because he refused to participate in said political system, and further held voting as material participation in mortal sin.

I understand his point. The part of me that wants to avoid sin and end mass murder is strongly moved by this. The part of me that wants to offer Charity to my fellow man wants to continue to participate in the system and hope for change. The Dilemma is this: If you acknowledge something is Tyranny, what is your obligation to separate yourself from that Tyranny? Can we distinguish ourselves from a nation which is not holy? I do not feel satisfied with doing nothing, which is how I characterize Zippy’s position of not voting. I consider that a Benedict option of American politics. But in doing something, Zippy would consider that as material participation in mortal sin.

I would frame the problem as a syllogism thusly:

Participation in Tyranny can be sin.
Not participating in Tyranny cannot change Tyranny.
Therefore: [???]

I open it to all readers to consider how best to resolve the dilemma.

AMDG

---

^{[1]This is the subject of a future article I’m stewing on. For simplicity’s sake, i’m going to refer to a ‘Perfectly Formed Christian Population’ as a pretend utopic nation, Edeny. So to restate my sentence: The Liberal System works in Edeny; or it would work if America were populated by Edenites.}