Tuesday, July 2, 2019

The Counter Enlightenment: Secular Law, Common Culture and Personal Liberty (6)

The actions of man are guided by three separate authorities: secular law, cultural traditions and moral choices based on personal values. It is very important to be aware of this distinction: in the philosophy of Liberty the law or a democratic majority can't by allowed to trespass on individual morality.

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. (Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Secular versus sacred authority: introduction

Historically the distinction between secular authority and sacred authority largely followed the separation of Church and State, but the distinct 'authorities' that rule our lives mean much more than that. It is very important to know the history that led to this separation, so that we can determine which aspects can be controlled by secular law (and by extension, by democratic principles) (secular authority), what part of our lives is ruled by culture and tradition (here referred to as 'ethos') and what part is exclusively our private consideration (here referred to as morality). In other words, what is the proper field for the law, which part may be ruled by society and what is our personal domain? The secular must be practical and universal (for example the traffic code); ethos pertains to culture, traditions, and national identity; morality is personal choice based on voluntary values. In psychological terms, the secular and the ethos are external locus of control, while morality is the inner locus of control. 


For the last half a century or so most wars waged by the West are fought under Just War Theory, rooted in Biblical sources. The theory describes a number of conditions that justify going to war. But in practice this international law functions as a handicap to those who subscribe to it. 

Why We Caved To Our Enemy, Iran 

Michael Walzer explains Just War Theory (JWT). The doctrine is a Western construct based, not on the brutal reality of war, stateless anarchy and immoral combatants, but on an ideal world. More information in the introduction at the bottom of the page. 

UPDATE: Forget about the intricate details of our nuclear agreement with Iran—the number of centrifuges permitted, the degree of uranium enrichment allowed, the amount of advance notification required before inspectors can visit a nuclear facility. There is really only one question that matters: If an Iranian nuclear capacity poses an objective threat to America—if we have reason to fear that such weapons will be used aggressively against us—why are we relying for our safety on an agreement with the aggressor?

The Counter Enlightenment: Internationalism (7)

This posting is part of a series on the ideological and political movements that -- since the Enlightenment -- have been working  towards the destruction of the values of the age of reason and Liberty.  In this installment, Internationalism. 

Glenn Beck explains the UN's diabolical "Agenda 21".

Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political and economic cooperation among nations and peoples. The root can be reduced to teleological narratives in 18th Century Protestantism (chapters on Kant and Hegel), as well as well as Socialist and Left Liberal doctrines. Internationalists see humans not as individuals, but as a species in a one-world social construct. They don't distinguish between the metaphysical and the mad-made, since they deny the existence of free will. Internationalists do recognize universal human values, but these are not determined voluntarily by individuals, but collectively in the social environment. Internationalists believe humanity as a species has higher interests (like world peace) that transcend short term group interests. Strife is typically the result of group competition for power and control of resources. Internationalism is against Nationalism, patriotism and war, the result of group competition. Proponents are members of the 4 Socialist Internationals (source), and Liberal utilitarians. They are active in supranational institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, in non-governmental organizations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Bilderberg Conferences, and the World Federalist Movement (source), to name but a few.