I was surfing around last night, and found an excellent Ravi Zacharias video. In my opinion, he is the premier intellectual of our day. His skills in logic and, to put it plainly, getting to the point of an issue are unsurpassed by anyone I have encountered.
Here’s a magnificent video clip of an argument he presents.
Hat tip: The Well-Drained Mind. This video and the thought behind it uncannily coincides with a blog post I read and with which have been participating: Pushing the Political Easy Button. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the biggest dissent is over the definition of words. You’ll have to visit the post for a full and better idea of what is going on– I dare not try a synopsis here for fear of making the issue long in tooth. But it’s a good post.Today, young people (and, granted, older people as well, although this is found less frequently) desire to define themselves. They often take long-established terms and redefine them according to their own experiences and insights. I believe this is unfavorable. It makes the topic of discussion too slippery and leaves one with more universal skepticism than a solid conviction of truth to be discovered. I’ll take the leisure of posting just a small bit from the blog post to which I referred:
Anarchy is not just a desire to eliminate the State: it is a moral commitment to voluntary interactions and non-violent principles. The Anarchist is a person committed to helping his fellow man, not hurting him through either political means or more mundane criminal means…
The reason we lack freedom is the government, plain and simple. But in order to move towards a free society we need to do so much more than remove government. We need to reeducate as many people as possible into understanding that government is the one thing standing in the way of freedom. As long as the general populace continues to see government as the solution instead of the problem we will continue to be slaves.
That’s what all of my posts on anarchy are about: educating as many as possible. Showing them the truth that government is standing in the way of their freedom and is incapable of doing anything but constricting it.
I found much error in this. My response:
I don’t understand how one could eliminate government. Where there are two people, there’s government. Government is the system whereby it enacts and enforces rules so a group can interact with each other, essentially… I’m sorry, I don’t think this constitutes anarchy. Anarchy is defined as a state of society without government or law. “Helping fellow man” is something completely different. If one’s political purpose is to “help fellow man” that immediately constitutes a form of government– a rule of law whereby one helps another– and cannot be defined as anarchy.
The reply, in brief:
Your assumptions are faulty, Mrs. Mecomber, although widely accepted as fact. There can (and often are) two (or more) people coexisting without government. To claim otherwise is to deny the evidence all around us. Children play with each other sans rules constantly. Couples do not always have an authority figure.
While you are correct that government enacts and enforces rules, your assumption that such a body is necessary remains unproven. There have been countless societies throughout history that existed and prospered without a central authority figure.
And my response, again, edited for brevity:
no, I don’t think my logic is faulty. Children playing with each other DO have rules. The rule is to 1) play with each other, 2) play peacefully. If one child is hitting the other, haven’t the rules been broken? Or perhaps the rules are to hit each other.. then, playing peacefully rule is broken. One does not need an authority figure to have a government– self-rule is a rule.
I think perhaps you are confusing a central authority figure as a form of government? This does not matter. The authority of the law constitutes authority (i.e., a form of governing) just as much as a figure, or figurehead.
You are denying the existence of something that you need to be existing in order to deny it. See?
In case you haven’t noticed, I am talking about government as one of the laws of nature (see Locke’s writings). I am talking about the essence of government, based upon the necessity of law itself, which is inherent of nature and of life.
Therefore, it seems the big hang-up is over what is “anarchy” and what is “government.” Anarchy is defined as rejecting a state or form of government, yet anarchy is a form of government– it is a form of government that rejects forms of government. If you took the time to watch the video clip in this post, Ravi Zacharias makes the same point about atheism:
“If you’re an atheist, what are you denying?”
You cannot deny nothing that is there. How can you make a moral judgment in an amoral universe? It’s like C.S. Lewis said: “Atheism makes no sense. If the universe has no meaning, we never should have found out that it has no meaning.”
Update: The comments on the post just kept flowing. I made my final point and could not make it any clearer:
I’m sorry, but self-rule is a form of government. Self-rule is not an amorphous karmic philosophy that will naturally occur as soon as mean old men get out of the way.
“Philathropism” is a philosophic gesture, which perhaps defines your point much more than the “rejection” of government. There have to be “checks and balances” that protect self-rule, because of the corruption of human nature. Therefore, self-rule must be enforceable, even if everyone desires self-rule, because humans will at some point deny someone else’s own self-rule to gain something for his own self. To deny this is truly delusional, as history and experience provides.
An intervening commenter named Francois (about whom the post was written, actually) interjected with this mind-whirling post:
Government is not an evolution. It is a devolution. It is a corruption of morality in the name of dominance and hierarchy. Once we take down government, humans will once again live in relative peace, instead of the state of war we live in today.
Holy cow! This betrayed all intent. A kum-bay-yah lovefest of holding hands in perfect harmony is not the whole picture here. Flabbergasted, all I could say was:
Wow, reminds me of Citizen Genet.
Francois, you said: “Once we take down government…” what if OUR self-rule says we do NOT want government taken down? See what I mean! You become our tyrants, and what’s worse, you think you impose your tyranny on us for our own good! Hypocrite!
What illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical blather!
It’s been an interesting and turgid discussion. The anarchists didn’t seem to agree, but then again– these are anarchists! They are going to reject anything that is said to them anyway! lol. 
|
|
|
|
|
 |
January 17th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Very good post, Mom!
I can see his point in saying that “As long as the general populace continues to see government as the solution instead of the problem we will continue to be slaves”; however, it does not logically follow from this point that the institution of government is a threat to liberty. It is more accurate to say, that a government of MAN (i.e., govt. by the whims of rulers or the whims of the populous) is a threat to liberty.
When men are not restrained by the authority of the supreme law from trampling on one another’s rights, there is tyranny. The reason that there has been tyranny in this country by our government is because it has loosed itself from the chains of the Constitution.
The answer to the problem is not to remove government (defined as “authority figure”); for men without being ruled by right are prone to do wrong to one another. The answer is for this populous to return to virtue, and for the government to become a government of LAW under the Constitution once again.
If men could easily govern themselves, then no authority figure would be necessary; but too often, large bodies of men cannot govern themselves without devolving into numerous factions and a state of anarchy (i.e., rejecting the rule of the authority figure as well as the rule of law). As Publius (either Hamilton or Madison) wrote:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Federalist 51
Just my thoughts.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
[Mrs. Mecomber stands back in shock and awe at the articulate logic and deft writing skills of The Historian]
January 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I listened to the video and it makes a very valid point. However, it is not applicable to my argument for several reasons. Here are the most salient-
1) I don’t rail against “government” as a theory, but against the current governmental systems in play.
2) Anarchy has NOTHING to do with government or lack thereof. It’s very definition means: “An-”=no “archos”=ruler. This is not some modern made up defintion as you imply, but the actual meaning of the words.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Historian-
We agree on many points, but come to different conclusions. You correctly point out that “If men could easily govern themselves, then no authority figure would be necessary; but too often, large bodies of men cannot govern themselves without devolving into numerous factions and a state of anarchy (i.e., rejecting the rule of the authority figure as well as the rule of law).”
However, what you (and America’s Founding Fathers) fail to see is that if man can’t be trusted to run his own life, then how can he be trusted to run the lives of others?
Should an entity other than man wish to try their hand at governing then I’d be willing to give it a chance.
The post itself delves into the fact that it will not be easy for man in his current state to live in true freedom and that government is a necessary evil for the moment. However, to believe that because something is necessary at the moment it will therefore always be necessary is a logical fallacy. The same thing was said about slavery and all sorts of oppression in the not too distant past.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Aahz, thanks so much for reading my post and leaving your comments.
Governments are based upon governmental theories. It was either you or the other commenter at your own blog who said that governments require a “ruling class.” This is so. This is also true for “self-rule,” because the ruling class is the entire class.
There is this assumption that 1) people are being forced to live under government, and 2) people left to themselves would honor and respect others left to themselves. This is just not so.
I believe the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Has it ever occurred to you that MOST people DESIRE to live under a “government” (government as classified as you vaguely define it, an established state w/laws)? That MOST people feel (and in good governments, truly are) protected?
These anarchic motions were hashed out and proved wrong during the French Revolution, which dissolved into a pool of blood and chaos. And in the end, the people embraced a ruling class once again, for their own protection. I don’t believe that socialism is a “good” government, but it was better than the rule of the guillotine.
No one is forcing you to remain in the United States. This is what I do not understand. Being under a government and being a slave are two different things. Not all governments are as good as the U.S. (and I will say that our modern government has strayed farrrr beyond it’s own constitutional restraints and IS becoming more tyrannical), but American citizens are not slaves in need of liberators. I strongly suspect that the flowers and love message of the hard-core anarchists with whom you associate are not interested in “helping” people, but are just as power-hungry as those anti-constitutionalists and socialists.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
It was,indeed Francois who claimed a government required a ruling class.
There is no assumption in that post (or in any of my other writings) that if government were to magically disappear then all would be joy and light. In fact, the whole point of the post is that this would not be so.
However, I DO believe that people CAN get along if left to themselves. There are countless examples of this very thing happening.
You’re right that the French revolution was a disaster. But then, instituting democracy in Somalia was a disaster as well. The country has only flourished since the formal government was abandoned and the people left to fend for themselves.
And you’re flat out wrong that people are free to live without government in the modern world. Tell that to the people at Ruby Ridge or Waco. I, for example, am NOT free to leave the United States. My passport has been revoked and should I leave US territories I am subject to arrest.
The US government takes my earnings without my consent, determines where I may travel and how, and determines what I may put in my body and how. PLEASE explain how this is different from slavery?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Oh, I totally skipped a section of your comment…
Of COURSE it has occurred to me that many people desire to live under a government. What’s your point? The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.
As for the Declaration of Independence it is a great document. As is the Constitution. However, they are also both rife with hypocrisy - All men are created unless they’re black, or female, or foreign, or not landowners.
If all men are to be treated equally then there can be no ruling class. What gives George W. Bush (or my local cop for that matter) the right to control my life if we are all supposed to be equal beings?
January 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
OK, I will try to keep this brief.
PLEASE DON’T get me going on GWBush or Waco or Ruby Ridge!! I will blow a gasket. I saw “America: Freedom to Fascism,” lol. I think we are on the same page when it comes to this.
Just because democracy (what a crappy concept, anyway) failed in Somalia does not mean all government fails, nor fails in Somalia. The people are not running around free to fend for themselves. There is still a form of government there– be it tribal, regional, familial, etc.
You’d said: “The US government takes my earnings without my consent, determines where I may travel and how, and determines what I may put in my body and how. PLEASE explain how this is different from slavery?” Honey, people VOTE. We have a represntative government. Now, I hate taxes and Social Security and abortion and etc etc… that is the point I made earlier– our government has strayed from its original moorings. This is why we have the problems we do. Nonetheless, you can always do what was told me at your blog: get enough people to get on your own side, and win the people over. But I’d rather have rule of law, even bad law, than rule of guillotine or rule of the jungle.
I think we see common ground on many things, especially that our current government is becoming tyrannical. I, however, see no point in casting off restraint. I think we need to return to the things that made our country great to begin with. You greatly misinterpret the Declaration and Constitution.
Sorry about your passport.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Never saw America: Freedom To Fascism, so am not sure what it’s about.
And just because the French revolution failed does not mean all anarchistic states fail either. Somalia has no government as defined anywhere I have read. It has free people entering into (and exiting) agreements at will. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this fits your personal defintion of government, because you still refuse to provide one.
Absolutely we’ve strayed from the Constitution. Getting back to it would be an excellent step in the right direction. That’s why I support Ron Paul. But it’s not the end of the path to freedom, just a pitstop along the way. The fact that we can vote does not mean we’re not slaves. Is that all the word “slave” means in your world? Someone who can’t vote?
We are forced to do what politicians dictate regardless of how we vote. We are slaves. I did not have an opportunity to vote on the vast majority of laws that are imposed upon me, nor did you. Even if we were, it’s still the tyranny of the majority.
Our government may be called a representative government, but there is not a single person in office representing my desires - to live free and allow others to do the same. Every so-called representative is just sitting around imposing their will on the people - exactly like a slave master.
No one at Philaahzophy is suggesting either the rule of the guillotine or the rule of the jungle. Those are YOUR assumptions. Why do you fail to see the other options?
And you have no idea how I interpret either the Declaration or the Constitution. But feel free to enlighten me as to how Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is anything but tyrannical. Or how Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 supports freedom in any way.
As for the Declaration it was, in and of itself, a tyrannical act. For it presumed to speak for all colonists, including those who enjoyed living under the King. You, yourself, argued the tyranny of such a presumption on my blog.
We obviously share common ground on many issues. I think the difference is that you continually make assumptions about who I am and what I believe and refuse to answer straightforward questions that would aid in mutual understanding. Meanwhile I’m just trying to understand your point of view so as to better debate the issue itself instead of the terms used.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
No, of course I don’t mean a slave is defined as one who cannot vote. Sigh. I think you are the one making assumptions and judgments about me, here.
You accuse me of making assumptions of who you are, yet you are not open to discussion to find the truth of the matter, but to “better debate” your opinions. Since we don’t know each other, I understand that you naturally question my statements, but do understand that I studied law and government for decades and I do know what I am talking about.
I was not assuming that YOU are attempting rule by guillotine. However, history has PROVEN that without government, arbitrary tyranny commences which leads to chaos and bloodshed. I seriously doubt that you are as open-minded as you claim to be. Your arguments about the Constitution have been hashed over again and again. I do not have the time or the space to give you ten year’s worth of lessons on Constitutional law or philosophy… I can only direct you to the Federalist papers and the Annals of Congress for your specific questions. I, too, had such questions, and years of research has led me to the point I am now.
Perhaps I will write more, later.. but right now I have to go! Thanks again for your comments. No hard feelings, I hope.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I didn’t think you meant a slave was only one who could not vote, but that was the implication, hence the question. Please explain to me how I am NOT a slave to the government when I cannot own land (property tax), am not entitled to the fruits of my labor (income tax), am not free to move about without asking permission (driver’s licenses & passports), and am attacked and physically punished for non-compliance? That’s only a short list. We, as Americans, must receive permission from the government for anything we wish to do and must follow its dictates for fear of punishment. How is that not slavery?
Congratulations. I have studied law and government, as well as history and philosophy for decades as well. I also know what I’m talking about. I’ve read and reread the Federalist papers and other documents of America’s founders and found them to be full of the same pro-state arguments that you are making. The voices I agree with were drowned out or compromised away by those in favor of tyranny as the Constitution clearly shows.
And you’re simply WRONG about history proving that “without government, arbitrary tyranny commences which leads to chaos and bloodshed.” The American West, for example, did not become a bloody battleground until the government came in with the military. Pirate ships were run without either government or guillotine. Somalia has existed without for government for nearly two decades now without chaos, is improving faster than most African nations, and the primary bloodshed is amongst those tribes trying to be recognized (by outsiders) as the government. History shows a much larger percentage of time that warfare happened under governments than under anarchy.
Should you decide to return to either conversation may I suggest starting with answering some of the questions you’ve been asked instead of submitting one liners, insults and self-congratulations.
And no, there are no hard feelings. You’ve lasted longer than many before devolving your arguments to “because I say so” and “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong”.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Wow, what a powerful, intelligent, and caring speaker. This is the best video I have seen all year! Thank you for sharing this with us. I actually watched it twice so I could take notes the second time.
January 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Aahz, I wish you and Francois would stop acting like disgruntled little boys because someone challenges you. I don’t HAVE to answer your questions, and I really don’t care if you call me a “coward” for not being YOUR slave while you demand all this attention. I have a life, you know. Just because you boys grow impatient that I am not jumping up to answer everyone of your demands does not make me your enemy.
You are not a slave in the United States. You can L-E-A-V-E. So you whine that “they took my passport away.” Well, that’s an aberration… MOST people haven’t! Your pal at your blog said you anarchists were going to take down the government. That’s treason!
You CAN own land! You just RENT it from the government, lol. You are the ones making assumptions about me. I see many problems, too. Sheesh! But for you, it’s like… if I am not bobbing my head in devoted agreement and hanging on your every word as wonderful freedom and truth, I’m a “coward” and a “statist.”
So anyway… just because you pay taxes does not make you a slave. By the way, in the olden days, property taxes were paid by the White Guys, not the slaves. The issue of income tax is relatively new in American history. If you knew your history as well as you boast, I suspect you’d know this. But paying income tax doesn’t make you a slave, either.
The American West WAS filled with bloodshed– for example, my own ancestor was killed in a saloon trying to uphold order and catch a thief. This stuff happened all the time, because there was no law and order. No “goodness” of man to make everything so glorious out there! The territories ASKED to become states and therefore to submit under the Union and the Constitution. No federal army forced law on any of these territories. I am not saying every law or lawful order is perfect, but it’s much better than complete disorder! Before official law and order, it was every man for himself, and the weak and vulnerable suffered. It was chaos! Anarchy is always chaos.
Anarchism makes no sense. Even whether you “feel” you are a slave or not. Social groups MUST have a system of rules within a social order; this is not only necessary, it is inherent in mankind. Self-rule is a delusion, because at some point, one person’s self-rule is going to infringe on another person’s self-rule. You keep saying there are numerous examples of perfect self-rule, and you threw Somalia around… you say you know Somalia is practically living in self-rule bliss– where’s your proof? My sources tell me people in Somalia ARE living under government, a transitional government, and various groups of “self-rule” are infringing on others’ “self-rule,” and it is plagued by Civil War. But where are all these countries with this glorious self-rule you talk about? And why aren’t we all running over there to them– especially you anarchists?
As for the Constitution, I can go on and on about it, but perhaps The Historian can find some time to respond, as she is much more articulate and this is all fresh in her mind from her continual studies. I will say that it seems your daunting accusations about the Declaration and Constitution providing equal rights for only white guys is something you were taught, not something you inferred from the documents or from common sense.
See you in Somalia?
January 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Jim, thanks for visiting. I’m glad you liked the video!
January 18th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Woah. This is one LONG conversation.
I am writing my reply now, but it is so long, I think I will have to post it on my blog. The response will deal with the various historical issues addressed in this discussion.
I will let you know when the post is up, but right now I am not able to complete it — it is getting late.
Talk to you then.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
That’s fine. Let me know and I will link to you.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Hello everyone. I am sorry that my response is so late in coming, but it is here. I have been extremely busy, and only had time to finish it today. Thanks so much for your patience.