XXXVI – Reverse Communism

Here is an excerpt from Thomas Merton’s Seven Storey Mountain (emphasis mine):

[Communism] was an easy and handy religion–too easy in fact. It told me that all the evils in the world were the product of capitalism. Therefore, all that had to be done to get rid of the evils of the world was to get rid of capitalism. This would not be very hard, for capitalism contained the seeds of its own decay (and that indeed is a very obvious truth which nobody would trouble to deny, even some of the most stupid defenders of the system now in force: for our wars are altogether too eloquent in what they have to say on the subject). An Active and enlightened minority–and this minority was understood to be made up of the most intelligent and vital elements of society, was to have the two-fold task of making the oppressed class, the proletariat, conscious of their own power and destiny as future owners of all the means of production, and to “bore from within” in order to gain control of power by every possible means. Some violence, no doubt, would probably be necessary, but only because of the inevitable reaction of capitalism by the use of fascist methods to keep the proletariat in subjection.

I read this and I could not stop myself from thinking about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. It was almost as if she accepted wholesale the mechanism for social change but directed it  from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.

Read it again, modified only to change the ideological perspective:

[Capitalism] was an easy and handy religion–too easy in fact. It told me that all the evils in the world were the product of communism. Therefore, all that had to be done to get rid of the evils of the world was to get rid of communism. This would not be very hard, for communism contained the seeds of its own decay (and that indeed is a very obvious truth which nobody would trouble to deny, even some of the most stupid defenders of the system now in force: for our wars are altogether too eloquent in what they have to say on the subject). An Active and enlightened minority–and this minority was understood to be made up of the most intelligent and vital elements of society, was to have the two-fold task of making the oppressed class, the industrialists, conscious of their own power and destiny as future owners of all the means of production, and to “bore from within” in order to gain control of power by every possible means. Some violence, no doubt, would probably be necessary, but only because of the inevitable reaction of communism by the use of tyrannical methods to keep the industrialists in subjection.

Is this so far removed from Ayn Randian philosophy?

This betrays the lie in the Cult of Demos. It pits one team against the other, like it’s a sport. Whether you’re playing defense or playing offense, you’re still playing the same game. I think that’s why I took to Zippyist philosophical thought like a fish takes to water. He presents an actual alternative to our political realities. I read some political blogs, some religious blogs, and the ones that are angriest are the ones trying to wake up their chosen minority, that minority which is composed of all the most vital and intelligent elements of society, and seize power for themselves.

My friend, who has requested the alias Hambone, put it well when I described what i’m writing about here:

In order for the people in power to not be consumed with concern for losing power, they must rule based on right, not might.

In other words, they must be informed by some morality that is not their own. Ideology is jealous, Morality is just.

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

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.}

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

V – The Dissonant Mutilations of a Society in Decline

“All those who are Equal are not Free; Those who are Free are not Equal” – I have seen this attributed to Milton Friedman but I strangely haven’t been able to confirm. I had been under the impression this was a Thomas Jefferson quote–it is definitely a common axiom thrown around frequently in political discourse.

It is a false dichotomy. These are the two pillars of Liberalism, and two things that people within Liberalism strive for. Milton Friedman himself applies further detail to the discussion of Equality, breaking it down into three attributes: Equality before God, Equality of Opportunity, and Equality of Outcome.

I assert that what that whole dynamic is missing is the concept of Justice.

Equality entered the public discourse along with other Liberal ideals thanks in part due to the Declaration of Independence. “All men are created Equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

This has been bastardized and abused by civil society through the entire duration of America’s life as a nation-state. The ideas themselves are not bad; where we have dragged them is.

Equality, is originally conceived as the idea that All Men are created Equal. All men are created Equal. All men are not equal. We were formed out of the same clay. That is as far as we can go. Milton Friedman accurately diagnoses the modern problem: Equality can be construed as intended, as equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Outcome cannot be guaranteed and so cannot be derived from God. To clarify: Equality of Opportunity means that if two people apply for a job, they want an equal chance to get the job. If two people bid on a house, the probability that one gets it over the other is 50/50. Equality of outcome is the idea that everyone should be able to own a McMansion if they want. I won’t go into the reasons that is invalid.

All God guarantees is that we are indeed Human, and that to be Human is a gift in and of itself, and comes with a sanctity and dignity all its own. From that point on, we are flying under our own power. [ccc reference]

The next concept is a twofer. We have inalienable rights. To Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Now, the idea of rights has come to mean ‘I want to do this and you aren’t allowed to stop me’. And this is an important piece i’ll come back to [[liberal society is free to self destruct without government intervention to preserve them]]. But let’s look first at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. This is seen as unique and innovative because I believe this was the first legal document which was founded on Enlightenment ideals. The first trial run at a political system informed and founded on philosophical enlightenment.

Combining the idea of Rights with these ideals means:

• God gave me my life and Government can’t take it away
• God gave me liberty and Government can’t take it away
• God lets me pursue happiness and Government can’t stop me.

One of these is a statement of natural law (God gave us Life), and the other two are ways of framing Liberalism as Natural Law, and they are rationally incoherent. Government by definition limits Liberty, or Freedom. The pursuit of Happiness is something inherent in the nature of free will, but Government by definition must inhibit the pursuit of happiness where that pursuit is harmful to society.

In short: Equality, Rights, and Liberalism promise three things, and I am intentionally simplifying ad absurdem:

• That everyone is treated the same
• That you can do whatever you want
• That the Government can’t stop you

These cannot all three be true. Either it’s not a government, or we aren’t the same, or we can’t do what we want. We can’t have all three.

As I posited earlier, the missing piece is the idea of Justice. Justice is a Cardinal Virtue, and thus part of Natural Law handed down from God. By which I mean, all men have a sense of Justice, and it cannot be taught but it can be built upon. A Government cannot treat everyone the same, but it can treat you justly, by treating reasonably and in accordance with the circumstances appropriate to a given situation. A government cannot allow all actions, but it can justly decide that certain actions are preferable to others. A government cannot enforce it’s authority arbitrarily, but it can mete out justice in accordance with it’s laws.

And for Justice to be a concept necessary and proper for Government, all men must surely not be equal in fact. For if all men were equal, there would be no need for Justice.

If we enshrined Justice over Equality, it would also diminish this concept of Rights. Rights, as I mentioned before, is (originally conceived as) the idea that God gave us certain things and Government is out of place to infringe upon them. That concept has been warped to a beefed up ‘consent of the governed’ mentality, wherein Rights are limits on Government that prevent any action in a certain field. If we, as a society, favored the Virtue of Justice, then what would matter most is that a Governments decisions are Just.

“I have rights, you can’t do this” does not carry as much weight as “You can’t do this because it is unjust”. The former is confounded by the additional fact that no one can agree what exactly our rights are; whereas the latter can be much more objective by working within the framework of existing law. Liberalism, however, intentionally hamstrings Government and prevents it from acting in the interests of society, because Liberalism is structured as if all government was tyranny. Because Government cannot act to preserve society, society is Free then to pursue the happiness that comes with sin and vice, because they are easy. Government cannot reward virtue, because all men now must be treated equally. Liberal governments are designed to die by suicide because a Liberal government cannot act for it’s own self preservation.

Liberalism, then, is a rationally incoherent rejection of a consequence of Natural Law: That Man naturally orders himself into hierarchies. By rejecting the hierarchies of Man, Liberalism dooms itself to mutilation as it’s lawmakers seek to legislate the cognitive dissonance that is a ‘Liberal Democracy’.

AMDG