Saturday, September 3, 2016


"A great man is necessary a skeptic... The man of faith, the believer, is necessary a small type. Hence "freedom of spirit," i.e, unbelief as an instinct [is a precondition of greatness]. " Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will To Power — 963 (Spring-Fall 1887) 
"I rest my hopes on nothing,” proclaimed Goethe, and masterful minds in all ages have never done otherwise. This unspoken thought gives to all truly great men their manifest superiority over the brainless, vociferating herd. 
The “common people” have always had to be befooled with some written or wooden or golden Idol — some constitution, declaration or gospel. Consequently the majority of them have ever been mental thralls, living and dying in an atmosphere of strong illusion. They are befooled and hypnotized even to this hour, and a large proportion of them must remain so, until time is no more. Indeed the masses of mankind are but the sediment from which all the more valuable elements have been long ago distilled. They are totally incapable of real freedom, and if it was granted to them, they would straightway vote themselves a master, or a thousand masters within twenty-four hours." — Might Is Right — Ragnar RedBeard

The purpose of this final chapter is to:
1. Define my usage of the term 'political nihilism' and how it differentiates from the historical usage of the term.
2. Discuss my aversions to democracy and other herd instincts.
3. Critically examine some crucial political doctrines and theories I find untenable. 
4. Explicate how moral nihilism results in a negation of political theory (Political-Nihilism).

Political philosophy, (aka political theory), has to do with theories which pertain to politics. Theories such as justice, property, natural rights, natural law, authority and so on. Political Nihilism as I define it is a rejection and skepticism of political doctrine and thus a negation of such theories. Hence Political-Nihilism. 

The term Political Nihilism has a lot of baggage due to the fact that political nihilists have been historically socialistic, heavily left leaning and moralistic. I hope to show the distinction between how I use the term and its historical usage.

Political-Nihilism as articulated within this text contends that all legal and moral prescriptions are baseless in the sense that they are not objective, absolute, or binding. They are social constructs at most. 

Political Power-Nihilism (if you will?) concurs with Dmitri Pisarev and his descriptive statement that "[...] whatever will stand the blow is sound, what flies into smithereens is rubbish". 

That is, whatever withstands logical scrutiny survives critique and whatever is found lacking reason and evidence will be flung remorselessly into the dust bins of history. 
Unlike the political nihilism concocted by radical Russian revolutionaries of the past, Political Nihilism as I define it is not an attempt to destroy the current political order, or system of government in order to replace it with another. Or in the immortal words of Max Stirner "Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set no glittering hope on "institutions” 
― Max Stirner

I will not be arguing for socialism or anarcho-syndicalism nor advocating some form of collectivism. I will not put forth utopian fantasies of a stateless voluntary society where violence is no longer necessary and other such passivist—puke. Nor am I going to tell you how non violent cooperation and communication can fix the world. I'm not on some humanitarian mission to liberate mankind from the 'evil' clutches of authoritarianism. This essay is not about 'fixing the world' but rather describing facts concerning socio-political realities. This doesn't mean however that as a radical individualist I don't have my own political feelings, preferences, or agendas. For as you will soon see I will express my distaste for, Goverment, democracy, socialism, collectivism and other slavish-herd propensities within this text. 

Political-Nihilism as I see it is ant-statist! 
Anti-statism is a term which describes resistance to government intervention of any kind. I reject government intervention into my life because I am a kind of radical individualist (I-Theist). I am an Individualist in the sense that I advocate my interests over that of the state, collective, or group. I am strong willed.
I desire maximal freedom for myself and am opposed to collectivism and am thus in opposition to all forms of external governance—as long as its edicts effect me in anyway I deem undesirable. I value self reliance and despise dependence upon a Nanny-State.
Now, unlike anarchists, I'm a moral nihilist who values consistency and thus will not put forth baseless moral arguments against goverment. I will not argue that it is "immoral" for one person or a group of persons to rule another; that initiating force or fraud is "wrong" as I do not believe in moral facts or truths. Rather, I will argue that the "right to rule" doesn't exist. I am an I-Theist thus I reject and oppose those who would rule me. 

In short, I am in agreement with Nietzsche when he wrote: "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." 

And with Stirner when he stated "Whoever will be free must make himself free. Freedom is no fairy gift to fall into a man's lap. What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self. ...liberate yourself as far as you can, and you have done your part; for it is not given to every one to break through all limits..."

You may disagree in attitude. You may wish to be apart of the hive, and to be ruled by it. You may wish to be subjugated and reliant upon a government. You may wish to be micro managed, to be coddled, 'to feel safe', and I have no problem with that as long as your desire doesn't effect me in anyway I find undesirable. I have no plans or panaceas for you unless you interfere with my goals... 

Make no mistake! Politics is about using the violent social mechanism known as 'the state' to impose your will upon others. The current system of governance exists whether I like it or not and as long as Liberal-progressives cast their votes to hinder my freedoms, I may decide to vote for and or endorse candidates that I think may lesson the size of government. I may also endorse those I believe may suppress my political enemies through violent means as long as they seek to suppress me. 

Some anarchists may repudiate my political opportunism on moral grounds, but I will remind them that morality has no objective foundations. 
Some anarchists have moral reservations about using violence as a means to over throw Goverment but I am not a moralist, and thus have no such restrictions. I am for using whatever means necessary to accomplish my ends! 
If it be true (I'm not sure that it is) that government is un-avoidable in that "nature abhors a vacuum" then I want to be that government; or at the very least keep government as small as possible. The following text is about logical critique, and at times expressing my subjective desires and aversions. Note the distinction between moral argumentation, assuming moral truths, and expressing distaste about X. 

“To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures.”

― Friedrich NietzscheThe Will to Power

I am Anti democratic. I am deeply opposed to democracy which I consider herd rule and a slave value. A democratic society places crucial decision-making-power (selecting who will violently rule over their neighbor etc.) into the hands of the average un-educated automaton, and individuals (like me) are forced to suffer the consequences. Let me be clear! I am not concerned for the welfare of the herd.
Unlike herd and slave moralists I have no expectation for you to share my values. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone to live my life, do you, live yours. As long as it doesn't effect me in a way I find undesirable, I don't care what you do. As far as I'm concerned you can have your 'isms' and your masters—just leave me out of it! If you cannot or will not do that, then there is war between us. 

"Basic error: to place the goal in the herd and not in single individuals! The herd is a means, no more! But now one is attempting to understand the herd as an individual and ascribe to it a higher rank than to the individual—profound misunderstanding! ! ! Also to characterize that which makes herdlike, sympathy, [or empathy] as the more valuable side of our nature!"
Friedrich Nietzsche — The Will To Power — 766 (1886—1887) 

Democracy, subjugates the individual will to the will of the herd.
Through democracy exceptional individuals are forced to live under a facade of "equality". The personal desires and greatness of an individual is to some degree subsumed under "the greatest good for the greatest number of the mediocre masses."

DeCasseres articulated the same thought when he wrote: "There exists a 'general good.' It provides for the comfort and well-being of the greatest number of idiots at the expense of brains, culture and character." 

Equalitarianism and democracy are instincts of ‘the herd’. They are valuations that favour the mediocre masses. Democrats, anarchists, socialists, and secular humanists (unwitting atheists) have a herd instinct for these christian-slave values. They demand a society which benefits them (herd animals) and possess an unshakeable faith that the community will be their salvation. The desire to eliminate suffering is a defining characteristic of their 'secular morality', which they purport to be 'objective' and 'progressive'.

"We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all “ragamuffins”; all of us must have nothing, that “all may have.” — Max Stirner — The Ego & Its Own (1844)

Within the modern atheist movement many see themselves as 'free thinkers' liberated from the dogmas of religion. These self professed atheists tend to advocated secular-humanist thought and think of themselves as ‘skeptics' who have over-turned outdated bygone religious ideas of  'good' and 'evil' and fail to realize that they are merely continuing the work of a slave-religion. That is in many ways they are merely substituting 'God' with 'humanity' or the herd-collective. They have replaced the equality of souls before God" with "Equality before the law."
'Equality before the Law,' is a contradiction in terms because Law by its very nature is Inequality. For all who are under law are the subjects of those who enforce and fabricate law. 'The consent of the governed' is a clever lie as every government on earth rests on force.
By my standards, the herd ethic has caused humanity to lapse into a state of degeneration. What I call 'greatness' requires that which the herd animal devalues such as suffering, danger, self-love, egoism, (not to be confused with self deluded egotism) self-reliance, and inequality. It is in the interest of the herd to promote such characteristics as modesty, empathy, submissiveness, obedience, humility, conformity, and so on—thus opposing the development of the higher man while labeling him "evil". Pathological empathy is the herd instinct in the individual. 
As herd morality has continued to developed in the modern secular west it appears to have shed an element of the ascetic ideal and has morphed into a form of utilitarianism. Salvation in the next life has been replaced by 'happiness now' and "the well-being of conscious creatures". With the loss of the vestigial ascetic ideal there exists little inspiration to strive beyond the herd animal. Little room for self evolution or over-coming.
As we have seen Christianity continues to wane in the west, but its slave ethic is perpetuated through and finds its zenith in socio-political-liberalism. In liberal-regressivism self proclaimed victim-hood = status and power. In recent times we have witnessed the grotesque emergence of such phenomena as 'Social-Justice-Warriorism', 'victim culture' and 'The Oppression Olympics'. What else can we reasonably expect from a system of values which was designed to exult the suffering', the oppressed, and the herd!?
Social justice crusaders and their pet down-trodden-ones are now revered and exulted on the basis of their alleged victim status! And privileged to the degree to which they are purported to be 'under-privileged'. These vile freaks of nature attempt to publicly shame and excite herd vengeance against those who hold opinions contrary to their slave ethic. They accuse all deviators of being 'oppressive' and 'hateful', and attempt to publicly smear the characters of those who oppose them.
As a result certain protected identity groups who are plagued with disproportional violent crimes rates, poverty levels (etc) are never called out for their self destructive behavior by the regressive left; but are instead taught to 'blame whitey' and 'institutional racism' for all their ills. This of course dwarfs the mental maturity of many within these minority demographics as they are never forced to see that they are their own worst enemy. That is they are (in many instances) the ones keeping themselves down. I find it reasonable to believe that if someone truly cares for another they will bother to tell them the truth about their self destructive behavior, rather than allow them to wallow in a state of potentially lethal ignorance. So perhaps it is also reasonable to hypothesize that to many of these 'social justice' freaks (if not all)  these 'down trodden' folk are merely a means to gain power.
And speaking of a means to gain power, In these modern-dark-ages the 'social justice cause' has now permeated and gained primacy in the realm of political debate as opportunistic politicians desperately attempt to pander to the most groups with the highest victim status. But how can we reasonably expect any different when democracy is a system where those seeking election to positions of power must pander in order to get elected? Where political candidates must lie and scheme in order to win? This is not a malfunction of democracy, but a feature of democracy.
Thus modern ideals have reduced much of humanity into a pathetic laughing stock! A bunch of dependent infants who compete for victimhood status by seeing who can bewail the loudest. This is the cost of modernity. This is the tragedy of democracy and other herd and slave instincts which have taken precedence over the exceptional's of man kind. This is the consequence of the slave instinct for equality. This is what happens when the scepter of power resides with the mediocre masses.
For numerous aeons the human primate has endured environmental pressures and overcome harsh obstacles which have caused it to become the most extraordinary complex aware beast on the planet.Without these external dangers and challenges he would not be the super-ape he is today. With his exceptional brain power man kind has ever progressively mastered his environment and assimilated a vast array other organisms under his will to power. 
It takes extreme pressures to produce a diamond in the rough, and so it is with individual greatness. I suspect most are born with herd instincts, and they yearn to 'fit in'—to be accepted and to assimilate themselves into the collective. And then there are that species of man I call the 'I-Theist' who naturally transcend such instincts and the mediocre ideals which surround him. Within his breast beats the virile heart of a lion...
To the slave mind it is 'wrong' and perhaps even un-thinkable to put his interests over the will of God, the state, the herd, the collective, humanity, the nation, the greater or the so called 'common good' etc. In contrast, the I-Theist saith in his heart "I am my own deity and my own redeemer! My kingdom come! My will be done!"
"What is not supposed to be my concern! First and foremost, the Good Cause, then God's cause, the cause of mankind, of truth, of freedom, of humanity, of justice; further, the cause of my people, my prince, my fatherland; finally, even the cause of Mind, and a thousand other causes. Only my cause is never to be my concern. "Shame on the egoist who thinks only of himself!... We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too!  Now it is clear, God cares only for what is his, busies himself only with himself, thinks only of himself, and has only himself before his eyes; woe to all that is not well pleasing to him. He serves no higher person, and satisfies only himself. His cause is - a purely egoistic cause.” ― Max Stirner — The Ego & Its Own (1844)
Just as with God, so to with the I-Theist...
Unlike the cattle of mere humanity who (for-the-most-part) are content to uncritically graze upon the pastures of their cultural milieu; the I-Theist is transcendent and in a perpetual state of self-evolution through constant critical analysis, of his own ideas, and those which propagate around him. He strives for consistent skepticism and is thus ever rooting out inconsistencies within and without.
His curiosity about life and existence is insatiable. Unlike the herd animal who wonders through life with blank zombie-like-stares he is not content to live a comfortable illusion. To 'go along to get along'.
With his 'courage for the forbidden' he is continually deconstructing the matrix others have erected to control him. He is his own highest value, and thus he invests heavily into his own intellect.
The 'I-Theist' is a person and a process of internal and external overcoming. A process by which an individual progressively enters new heights of god-hood. In which tribulation and hardship are turned into depth of character, strength, and endurance. What doesn't kill him makes him deity. 

Let us now turn a our critical gaze toward the doctrine of "authority". In order to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, I must first define what I mean by the term "authority" and what I do not mean. 
Often the term authority (Latin AUCTORITAS) is used interchangeably with power and those who possess it, but this is not the particular use of the term I wish to examine. 
Another way the term authority is commonly used is to refer to a person or persons with advanced knowledge and or practical experience in a particular field. This is also, not the kind of authority that will under go examination within this text. 
However, I will note that having an advanced degree in a particular field of study doesn't mean that your arguments are valid or that your propositions are true, nor that they should go unquestioned.
When I use the term "authority" in the following text I mean a person or group of persons who have the "right" to exercise power and control over a given populous. That is, a person or group that a given populous is morally obliged to obey. 
Unlike authoritarians, anarchists and other moralists who argue about what constitutes 'legitimate authority' I refuse to even assume that the concept of "legitimate authority" is even coherent. I will grant no free miracles. 
"The divine right of kings", is a political and religious theory that states a monarchs "right" to rule (authority) is granted by the will of God. Indeed in past pagan cultures rulers were seen as having a "right" to rule others because they were granted this "right" by the gods or because they themselves were believed to be gods. However, even if a God did existed, this fact of existing would not logically produce an obligation to obey (a moral ought). 
Such primitive theories are contingent upon the religio—moral doctrine known as Divine Command Theory and as has already been pointed out it suffers fatal logical flaws and thus I shall spend no more time concerning it. 
How then, can a given group of human primates (or a being called "God") have a moral right to enforce its will on other beings? And how do these ruled human primates (citizens) come to incur a duty to obey? 
Simple answer: No one has a moral right to rule for as we have seen morality is subjective and non binding. Authority of this kind is a myth. Rights themselves are mere human mental constructs. As already stated within this book there are no categorical moral oughts, only conditioned rational oughts. No one is objectively morally "bound" to obey anyone. At best, one can argue if one wants to avoid un-desired punishment B they ought obey those with the power to inflict such a punishment. 
It is often claimed by advocates of authority, and government 'officials' themselves (Police, politicians etc) that government represents you and that government officials act on your behalf. That they alone have the moral right to do things which you do not have the right to do. That is, those calling themselves "government" claim to have the 'moral right' to commit certain acts that you have no right to commit, while claiming that you gave them that right. But how can anyone give what they themselves do not possess? Also, 'moral rightness' doesn't exist and thus no one who genuinely "represents" you has the moral right to violently rule over you.
It is often claimed that the right to rule is derived from the "Consent of the Governed”. That people (tacitly) consent to be ruled through voting, or using public road ways or through living in a particular geographic region (and other such non sense). However, "consent” means to be in voluntarily agreement and to "govern” means to control via force. Therefore the "Consent of the Governed" is incoherent as it is self-contradictory. Also, this claim to 'tacit consent' is proven false by the fact that people explicitly express their lack of consent to be governed. I am not aware of any government who has or has had the consent of everyone it claims or has claimed to have authority over. 
Furthermore, as there are no objective moral truths or standards how can it be cogently argued that an agreement can produce the "moral rightness" of a particular government to rule, or the moral obligation of the governed to comply with those who govern? Such an argument also assumes that performing an action that has been consented to is morally permissible and that performing certain actions without consent are immoral (Rape, theft, etc) But again, I see no logical reason to make such an assumption. 
Ironically, these same advocates of democratic governance will claim that activities such as 'gang rape' is morally reprehensible while not realizing that such activities are democracy in action. That is, a majority forcing its will on the minority through violent, coercive means. So, by their standards what's the problem? 
A common objection voiced by contract theorists against those who critique government and authority is what I call "The love it or leave it fallacy." 
That is, the proponent of authority will respond to your critiques of government by stating "If you don't like it you should just leave!" or sometimes the objection is phrased as a command. "If you don't like it, get the hell out!". 
The problem with this objection is that:
1. It assumes that one has the ability to 'just leave' or 'get the hell out.' However, many moral philosophers will contend that 'ought implies can" and as David Hume pointed out impoverished people do not have the finances to leave. It assumes that there exists some habitable stateless region in which to relocate. To my knowledge there is no such place. Every square inch of habitable land has been carved out by those who wish to rule you. As stated above consent is necessarily voluntary. If you cannot leave government because government is omni-present or you haven't the means to escape it, then consent is not possible. 
2. It assumes the very thing it seeks to prove and is therefore viciously circular. 
  1. Government is morally justified (because you voluntarily consent to it)  
  2. If you don't love it you can leave it (because it is voluntary) 
  3. Therefore government is morally justified (because [back to 1] it is voluntary) 
A common myth believed by the common citizen-slave is that 'Government is a servant of the people'. This however—is a laughable lie! Government gains obedience from its subjects under the threat of lethal force. It perpetuates its existence and expands its power by aggressively gobbling up the wealth of its victims. It cages and even kills those who do not get into the goose-step. Government is not your bitch—maid, it is your master! Does the Government provide some 'services'? Yes, but to claim this makes Government your 'servant' is akin to claiming a factory farmer is the servant of his cattle. Sure, he feeds and provides medical services to the heifer he chains to the milking stanchion, but does this really mean that he is the 'servant' of his dairy cow? And by receiving these services will you really argue that the cow has tacitly consented to ending up on your dinner plate? 

As stated previously in this book, "Government" is a gang of violent primates in costume, who claim the 'right' to monopolize violence. It is a role some human primates fill in order to coercively control other primates. Government is a very small portion of a countries population, just as with a priesthood in a given congregation, and while much of its power consists in its ability to do violence, I think it is unlikely to maintain its control of a given population without a mass belief in authority. The belief in 'Government legitimacy' and theological beliefs are closely tied. I think it is highly likely that the belief in earthly 'authority' stems from the belief in a heavenly one. 
In fact I think it is reasonable to argue that statism is a kind of quasi—religion. Like religion It has sacred garbs, ceremonial rituals, 'special' titles, sacrosanct hymns and incantations. It has its 'Saints' and 'sinners' and even martyrs, (Fallen soldiers) who make 'the ultimate sacrifice'.  It has its 'threats of Hell fire' with its county, state, and federal correctional facilities where the 'justly damned' are relegated; and its deities before which faithful adherents grovel. 
Just as with theism in general, the theology of "Government” depicts a so called 'special' entity, above mere humanity, which issues holy edicts (legislation, laws) to its subjects.
It demands uncritical obedience as a moral imperative. Rebellion toward its enumerable commands (“law breaking”) is deemed as a criminal act (a sin). The mindless-throngs take pleasure in the so called 'righteous' penalties inflicted on deviators (sinners).  
The faithful take pride in their undying loyalty (pride in being a Law abiding tax slave) to the State (God). Within the death cult of statism it is deemed anathema for one to even imagine himself being qualified enough to decide which of the States ( god’s ) commandments should be heeded and which he may disregarded. 
In fact, I have encountered far more hostile emotion from the average herd-ling by criticizing his earthly master (Government) than his 'Good Lord Jesus'. The mindless many believe fervently in the 'authority' of political muppets and their belief has nothing to do with evidence and cogent reasoning. They (the average herd animal) have been conditioned in Government indoctrination centers (schools) to accept the 'authority' of government deities prior to the age of mental maturity. Their neural networks were plugged into the State-Trix long ago, and all they know is captivity. Indeed to these tax cattle there is nothing more terrifying than to be unplugged, than to be free.
There are no beings, human or otherwise with "the moral right to rule" only humans with the power/ability to do so.
"Mastership is eternal. But only for those who cannot overthrow it, and trample it beneath their hoofs...  Strong men are not deterred from pursuing their aim by anything. They go straight to the goal, and that goal is Beauty, Wealth, and Material Power. The mission of Power is to control and exploit the powerless, for to be powerless is to be criminal. The world would indeed be a house of horrors, if all men were “good” and all women — padlocked."
 — Might Is Right — Ragnar RedBeard
Another theory which has been put forth by political philosophers is the notion of "Natural Law". While 'The Divine right of Kings' was a theory put forth in order to convince the gullible masses that a particular dictator has a "moral right to rule", Natural Law Theory seems be an attempt to thwart government over—reach.
Natural Law is a philosophical theory that specific natural rights or values are inherent by virtue of natural human characteristics that can be universally comprehended via human reason. Natural rights are purported to be "natural" in the sense of "not synthetic, or man-made", and not contingent upon human consensus as they derive from human nature, or from the edicts of a deity. 
They are claimed to be universal and to apply to all people (but do apply to non human animals apparently). 
For example It is often asserted that humans have an "inalienable natural right to life" or "to bear fire arms" etc. 
In comparison, 'legal rights' are based upon a given society's customs, laws, statutes, the actions of a legislature. One example of a so called legal right is the right to pic who will violently rule over man kind (to vote)Citizenship (aka slavery) is usually considered as the basis for having legal rights just as it was in the Roman Empire. These legal rights of course are merely concepts or scribbles on paper. They are mental fictions and thus have no objective existence and what human power grants, human power can revoke. 
No document gives more credence to the natural law doctrine than the American Declaration of Independence.  Thomas Jefferson, the author of the now sacrosanct American document was heavily influenced by the Natural Law theory of John Locke. 
In his Second Treatise on Government John Locke wrote,
"The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it which obliges everyone:… that being all equal and independent no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions" [Locke, 270-71].
Natural Law theories are not a strictly modern phenomena and many of such theories have been birthed in the fertile-hallucinogenic-minds of philosophers and theologians over the past 2,000 years. Concerning natural law John Whitehead wrote: "The concept of natural law is one of the most confused ideas in the history of Western thought.”
Indeed, so many versions of Natural Law theory have reared their ugly malformed faces that undertaking them all may not be feasible. However, seeing that most of these theories (if not all) suffer from many of the same affliction it may not be necessary.
Murray Newton Rothbard, a libertarian and political theorist put forth a more modern secular version of Natural Law theory. 
In his book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard wrote: that natural law and natural rights are deducible from essential human characteristics (facts). That is Rothbard doesn’t want to end up with a mere collection of empirical facts concerning human nature, but wants to derive a natural law ethic from them.
But how did he reach such a conclusion? 
In his book The Ethics of Liberty he stated "The observable behavior of each of these entities is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of the interactions. The complex that we build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law. (10)
In the above quote we see that Rothbard is just stating that we can come to know through observations certain behavior characteristics concerning human nature, and the consequences of social and environmental interactions. So it seems thus far it's 'just the facts ma'am!'
However he later writes "The natural law ethic decrees [prescribes] that for all living things, “goodness” is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; “goodness” is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned…In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man’s nature.” (11)
Now, we see that he tries to move from facts about human nature to "decrees" which of course it logically fallacious! He cannot logically deduce oughts ("goodness", what is "best" etc) from a collection of facts about human nature. 
As seen in chapter 2 one might believe they can derive a prescription from facts, but what they are really doing is assuming a value premise which is not derived from reason nor facts, but from sentiment. The 'if clause' is implied. 
It seems that every natural law theory I have examined seems to fall headless before Hume's guillotine. So I will voice only one final objection concerning them before I move on.
I would like to note concerning such theories that find it a bit misleading and disingenuous that these theorists use terms like "Natural Law". Unlike the law of gravity etc these supposed "natural laws" and "rights" can be violated and thus are in need of enforcement. Thus even if these laws existed they would be more akin to legal fictions. So why then do these theorists use such terminology? I believe it is at least partially because they think it makes their opinions appear to have an exulted status, as if their values were something objective and beyond mere human sentiment and moral dogma. It is a ruse meant to ensnare the average dull witted intellect. Ask yourself of what use is any prescription if you lack the power to enforce it?
 Or as Henrik Ibsen put it "Oh yes, right—right. What is the use of having right on your side if you have not got might?"
In order to examine my contention that property and ownership do not exist and why such are illusory, it is imperative that I begin by defining terms. When I say that property and ownership do not exist, I do not mean that physical possession of a thing and physical occupation of land or space doesn't exist. In fact, in my experience when most people use such terms they are not just referring to these physical realities (possession, occupation) but are instead making prescriptions concerning who has the 'moral right' to have exclusive control or access of an object and or a piece of land. After all, to argue that 'one has physical possession of X, therefore they ought have possession of X' is to transgress the is-ought gap.
People say 'That's my car!' which means only he or she should have access and control over it unless he or she consents to allow another access and control.
People say 'HEY! Those are my personal belongings. HANDS OFF!' Or 'That guy just stole my watch!' I find that these are often emotive uses of such propertarian language.
Libertarians have been known to argue that the principle of 'Self-ownership' is the basis of liberty. And that anyone asserting otherwise is arguing for slavery, as slaves are the 'property' of their 'owners' and that If you don't own yourself, someone else does etc. However, this is a false dichotomy as there of course is a 3rd option, that says ownership, the owned, and the owner do not exist. They are mental and linguistic spooks.
This libertarian view concerning "self ownership" assumes a rather infantile dualism in which there is a 'you' that owns 'you'. I have heard it claimed by some libertarians that 'self ownership' means that you have 'control of yourself'. But such claims to self ownership summon silly visions of 'a haunted biological machine'. You do not control you, you don't own you, rather you can only be one thing. You are yourself. Perhaps, this self owner-ship-principle is a consequence of the inherent dualism within language. A person may say "My body" and "My arm" but they are a body, and they are 'their' arm. There is no you outside of you doing any owning. You are not a ghost in a brain sitting behind a control panel. Furthermore, even if we granted this dualist view, it is still the case that from the fact of control, one may not logically deduce prescriptions. 
When propertarian ownership-language is employed it is often the case that we express our subjective expectations. We are expressing an emotion about X. We say that X 'belongs to me' or 'This is mine!' which means (as I have already stated above) that I and only those I grant permission ought have access to, control of, and use of X. That anyone who separates me from X, uses and or accesses X without my consent is doing something inappropriate (something I don't like). 
Now whether such language is used to express emotions, mistaken cognitive beliefs or both, is not the subject we are now undertaking. Regardless which of these positions are valid, it still follows that such expressions are not true.
Example: If I say the ocean exists, this is a true proposition. If I say the ocean is 'immoral' this proposition is either false, an expression of negative emotion about the ocean, or both. But it is not true in either case. Either because it is an erred belief or just not propositional or truth apt. The ocean just is, in spite of your feelings about it. 
The main purpose of examining this prescriptive moral usage of ownership-language is not to refute yet more moral claims made by moralists; but to point out the implications of moral nihilism in the realm of such prescriptive concepts as property and ownership. For if objective morality is illusion and moral truths do not exist—it follows ownership, property, and belongings are illusory as well. While I am saying that concepts such as property and ownership do not correspond to reality, that doesn't mean that I think such concepts aren't useful. 
Objective morality, property, religion, authority, these are all illusions and effective implements of control. Nature does what works. What doesn't takes a dirt nap, and sometimes what works is un-truth or just straight up fiction...
It is a fact of our existence that we possess what we do until a greater force than ourselves (or death) pries it from our grasp. You possess what you do because you have the means (power/ability) to fend off those who would take it by force (either by your own power, the state, or alliances with other powers.) There is no such thing as a 'legitimate right to control and possess'.  Legitimacy is a bed time story for gullible 'grown ups'.  You may think that you 'own a house' and or 'land' but you are only renting these things from the tax-man. You may gullibly believe that you have a right to own a thing, but there is no such thing as 'right'— only might! 
I shall now bring this book to a final close, by succinctly summarizing some of the main points I have argued within these pages. 
— Objective-Morality, & Authority Are illusions —
— The free man is a warrior–skeptic —
— Power is the basis of life & Law —
— Existence is force against force —
— Life is will to power —

No comments:

Post a Comment