Obstacles to Humans Behaving Morally (1)

A recent series of my blogs and shows has focused on the dire human need for a “Universal Morality (UM),” showing that the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the only worthy candidate to fit that role.

Now I’m going to begin to guide us through moral and practical responses to the most common objections that arise in relation to the notion of a Universal Morality and its implications.

Most Common Mind Traps

The Non-Aggression Principle states that “No one is permitted to initiate force against another except in true self-defense.”  The natural extension of this sovereignty for every individual is a condition of voluntary association with rules (based on the NAP) but no rulers — a society without authoritarian government — a “stateless” society.

When most people entertain this notion, however, their worldview starts to explode — triggering many “but what about…” questions, based on survival instincts as well as the propaganda we have received since we were children.

Customarily these thoughts put a stop to critical and innovative thinking, but if we take the time to address each of these primary considerations and see how it is resolved through common sense and morality, the gates to a whole new thriving kind of civilization can be opened.

It’s not an infinite set of doubts that arise. It’s a relatively small collection of genuine, natural  concerns that fit into six important categories: Ethics, Services, Money, Human Nature, Compromise, and Law. If we truly want to be free to thrive, it’s critical that we take them one by one, to find a practical way that works morally — without violating the Non-Aggression Principle.

Ethics

Mind-trap #1

Question

Shouldn’t the “Good of the Group” supersede the rights of a single individual?

False Moral Theory

What is most important is “the good of the group.” We must transcend our individual “selfishness,” and sacrifice for “the greater good” because that would be most “fair.”

Reasoning

This approach sounds caring at first glance. I believed this most of my life. But this thinking has created the coercive systems of authority (socialist, communist, fascist, democratic…) which have brought us to the brink of destruction. We need to look deeper and see that the idea of a group is an abstraction — like a “dozen” or a “flock” — it is not in physical reality. Individual people, eggs and birds are. “The group,” though useful as an idea, is a fiction. So, sacrificing the rights of real people for a fictional idea is not only faulty logic, but a dangerous ruse by the few that has justified coercion and violence against the many throughout history.

It doesn’t mean you can’t choose to think or act for the community. It means you can’t use the idea of a “collective” as an excuse to violate even one person. As soon as we do (and call it “government,” “legislation,” “regulation,” “taxation” etc.), we have sown the seed of tyranny that will grow to take over our lives and threaten our very existence.

Examples

Pharaohs, royalty, dictatorships, socialism, communism, fascism… all become tyrannical rule.

Even democracy is actually mob rule — an extreme example of which is a lynch mob: only one dissenting vote. It is said that “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.”

Politicians speak of “the Social Contract,” but none of us have ever signed any agreement to be ruled.

The cultural assumption that we must be ruled leads to unwitting compliance with such dangerous and immoral travesties known by names like “divine right to rule,” “manifest destiny,” “eminent domain,” and “executive privilege.”

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” — Chairman Mao

“Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.” — Joseph Stalin

“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.” — Adolf Hitler

“The constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even port to be a contract between persons now existing.” — Lysander Spooner

Mind-trap #2

Question

Shouldn’t “fairness” supersede “freedom?”

False Moral Theory

We are trained by government schools to believe that “fairness” is more important than individual liberty, so we have to be willing to give up some of our freedom and property if politicians ruling the group deem it to be in the interests of the group they rule. Who gets to decide what is fair? The illegitimate government? And on what basis? Certainly not the non-aggression principle — the only moral rule to satisfy rational criteria for a Universal Morality.

Reasoning

I was fooled by this for decades before finally letting in, for authentic inspection, the thoroughly logical process that exposes that violating any person, because someone more rich and powerful or even the majority opinion orders it, is the absolutely fundamental “unfairness.” This misunderstanding is the disguised and sugar-coated beginning of the virus of tyranny — the cancer of the body politic.

Regarding equality, it makes sense to me that it is equality of the rights — to free choice, voluntary exchange, private property, self-ownership and the right not to be violated — that is the noble and core morality of being “equal.” Mandatory “wealth re-distribution” for equal outcomes (“equity”) is just a fancy excuse for stealing.

Of course, many have been damaged by our corrupt governance and fake money systems. A truth and reconciliation phase of transition is called for. This can be accomplished with funds taken from the imperialist war budget and the unnecessary interest paid by “taxpayers” in the U.S. to the fraudulent Federal Reserve. But in the long run, it is defense of unalienable rights — not stealing from some to keep or give to others that is moral and therefore sustainable.

Examples

Mandatory “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) and “Affirmative Action” decrees (hiring by DEI quotas) are clever authoritarian covers for actually discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, religion or other so-called “identities” rather than honoring their individual rights and merit.

“Re-distribution of Wealth” — is a semantic deception for theft — under the myth of authority.

A government printing money out of thin air, backed by nothing, causes inflation (dilution of purchasing power of the currency) which triggers increases in taxation — all of which is theft.

The American Revolutionary War was fought to the death over a 3% tax that was being imposed by the King in England who was still “ruling” the colonies. Now, with state and federal taxes amounting to 25–30%, citizens are supposed to passively comply — and most do because they are uninformed or understandably afraid of the consequences of not going along.

“The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent or be shot.” — Lysander Spooner

In a next blog I will describe how this moral compass can finally guide us to success with services like roads, schools, caring for the sick and helping the poor.