As I stated in my last article, the bigger the State the smaller the moral consequence. To be clear, the reduction in moral consequence is more of a psychosis, rather than a manifest reality, and this due to the substitution of morality for legality in the minds and thus the practical sociology of the populace which has been incessantly indoctrinated into the collectivist metaphysical premise for thousands of years, I’d argue. There is of course no actual eradication of moral consequence, because this is impossible via legality. Collectivism, you see, due to its object rational error and its rank violation of that which makes consciousness, conceptualization, agency, and all by which truth can be known and thus reality defined, experienced, and made possible, is a lie. A fantasy. Thus, all such “effects” of collectivism, whether they be described as positive or negative, are purely psychosis—a belief that that which cannot exists does exist, and efficaciously so. Further, the actual destructive consequences of collectivism are not due to collectivism qua collectivism, or collectivism per se, but to the attempt to apply madness to a reality that is ipso facto utterly exclusive of the collectivist lie, and can only respond to truth, even if the truth is that society is attempting to conjure up a lie and make it true. Which is what governed societies do. And which is why they all torment the denizens of the world to some degree or another and collapse so dreadfully.
At any rate, because morality and legality are entirely different ethical system, legality will not merely augment morality, but must necessarily replace it. The greater the replacement of moral consequence with legal consequence the greater the perception that moral problems—everything from crime to education to economics—are been handled. Though this is the perception, and may perhaps be true by strict collectivist definition, the remediation and prevention of moral problems in society is only because the individual—he who exercises morality, itself…who exercises will and choice—has become more and more marginalized under Law.
The individual is antithetical to the collective ideal, which is the philosophical rationale for all societies which are ruled. Which is to say, all societies. That is, to governments and “the people” as a collective Ideal which the government represents as its tangible incarnation. The individual, being an agent of will, is the practical manifestation of morality, whereas the government, being an agent of force, is the practical manifestation of legality. Thus, individual moral consequence is perhaps technically mitigated by government, but only because government mitigates the individual at his very existential root.
Moral consequence is a product of one’s will, choice, and action. The individual is existentially—by his nature, that is—in direct contrast and opposition to government, which is a product of force, compulsion, and obedience. And therefore individuals who accept that government and law have legitimacy—or, as is so oft annoyingly equivocated, have a “legitimate role”, whatever that means…it’s double-talk, really—must necessarily accept that their own individuality is an impostor, or an illusion, or a lie, or all three, regardless of what they might say, or think, or think they think, because collectivism and government are corollary. You do not get government without a prevailing societal acceptance of the collectivist metaphysic. Period. Full stop. And if collectivism is the metaphysical standard of society, which the presence of government objectively proves, then legality must be the ethical standard. And if legality is the ethical standard, then morality is irrelevant by definition, and thus so is the individual.