The Point of Law is to Eradicate Moral Consequence, Not Enforce it (PART ONE)

Under a legal system reigns legal ethics. Legal ethics are exclusive of moral ethics because morality has to do with choice and legality has to do with obedience. Another way we could put it, so as not to completely nullify either concept within the framework of ethics, is this: obedience drives individual will under a system of legal ethics and will drives obedience under a system of moral ethics. Because of the root mutual exclusivity of these two ethical categories, morality has fundamentally no meaning nor relevancy to or within a legal system. That is, in a society governed by a political ruling class, which we call Government, or the State, this ruling class will necessarily appeal to the Law for its legitimacy of purpose and power. It exists to make sure everyone is acting ethically. All that is necessary is to convince the masses that legality is the best way to do this. Which isn’t difficult because it seems that humanity almost universally accepts the collectivist metaphysical premise: that the individual is a product of some greater collection of parts—the tribe or the nation or the race, for example—or some outside force of nature or of the divine; that the individual, as a function of something outside of him, is, in fact, an existential illusion, or a mystery, or a lie.

Since morality has no meaning nor relevancy under the auspices of government, because government is necessarily rooted in legality, then moral consequence likewise has no meaning.  Society is organized according to legality, and this enforced by government. In a framework like this, moral consequence then can have no place in the organization protocol. Society is to be ruled, and this makes it fundamentally subject to obedience, not to the choice of individuals living out a distinct and metaphysically singular existence. The point of the State is to eradicate the consequence of moral choice in order that perfect legal order can be established and realized, and by this, the perfect ethical utopia—perfect goodness—and this as the proof of the legitimacy and efficacy of government, which really means the legitimacy and efficacy of the ruling class, and this really means the manifestation of the zenith of power, which is absolute, which is the point of collectivism.  And this is why we see, as the nations wear on in their programmed and inevitable way, from rise to certain collapse, more and more reliance upon the law for the remediation and prevention of social woes, and less and less on individual choice and responsibility.

The reason the State gets bigger, up until the point the State no longer asks what its citizens want or think, is no mystery, and yet the amount of woe and teeth gnashing and shaking of fists at the heavens at every expression of government excess and increase by those of a more conservative or libertarian political bent belies the simplicity of what should be perfectly obvious. The reason the State gets bigger is because the people want it bigger. Period. To vote for government, because of the very nature of government and because of the metaphysical and eithical presumptions one must accept in order to accept the existence of government in the first place, is to tacitly or implicitly, at best, desire government to grow; to desire the reduction of individual choice and the increase in government control. You cannot affirm government (by voting, for example) whilst simultaneously demand it contradict itself by giving you more freedom and itself less authority.  That’s like getting a cat, buying it litter and cat food and cat toys and scratching posts and calling it Felix and then decrying the fact that it’s not a dog.

So, yes, the State gets bigger because the people want it bigger. And its not hard to see why people want this, and are so tempted by government, and why it seems to win every time when it comes down to choosing how society will be organized.  People WANT to be ruled MUCH more than they want to be free. It’s obvious, its arrant, and here’s why:

The existence of the State is a hedge against moral consequence, by the very fact that it supplants morality with legality. The bigger the State then, it is eventually assumed, the smaller the moral consequence…and the smaller individual misery due to bad choices. In a legal system morality is null, and thus unwanted moral consequence should likewise be null and this should translate into people no longer feeling such consequence. And if you think people don’t know this, or don’t understand it on some fundamental level, just look at how quick people are to appeal to the Law when some shit goes down that they don’t like. Don’t like abortion, make it illegal; like abortion, protect it by Law. Don’t like guns, make them illegal; like guns, waggle your finger emphatically in the direction of the second amendment. Don’t like illegal aliens, have the government build a wall; like illegal aliens, have the government provide them with public subsidies and sanctuary. And the list goes on and on and on—education, healthcare, poverty, war, etc. etc.—unto absolute power. Without getting into the minutiae of it right now, it will suffice to say that all of this can be handled by appealing to choice and the responsibility of individuals to deal with the consequnces of those choices. Why don’t we, then, you ask. Well…I suspect because it’s not as linear; not as mathematical; not as ostensibly simple. Legality is also very abstract, which makes it look and feel very intellectual, requiring a high degree of erudition and competence to mange it. Which makes people feel safe in the hands of those who say they shall wield it for the common good.

The bigger the State the smaller the perceived moral consequence.  The smaller the moral consequence the greater the perception that social woes are being or have been handled. And, well, they have been, legally. But not morally, which is why moral degeneration continues not only unabated but even exponentially, whilst legal intervention increases likewise exponentially, as though there is an inverse relationship between the two. But people, confusing moral ethics with legal ethics, continue to vote for this person or that, swinging back and forth with the regularity of a pendulum between the conservative parties and liberal ones, seeking out more and more radical players, in the futile hope that if they just get the right person in charge everything will be fine. Instead of blaming the philosophical assumptions which legitimize government, they blame rulers for not ruling properly. As morality then declines in a morality-less system, and as moral consequence continues to be felt with greater severity, the people begin to vote in greater numbers for ideologues and authoritarians…people who will push or promise to push their agendas with greater force and less compromise. This is because once you’ve accepted that government is good and government is truth and authority is reality and legality is ethics, you understand—though perhaps subconsciously; or even emotionally—that the more despotic the ruler, and the more worthless and disinterested he is at doing anything other than slaking his own thirst for power, the BETTER he is at ruling. Because power IS the only rational objective of ruling Authority, period.

END PART ONE

 

 

Advertisements

On This Memorial Day Let Us Remember…That We are not Particularly Special

On this memorial day, let us remember that despite what we may wish, our nation is not particularly special or unique in the grand scope of empires of the past several millennia. America, the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, et al, have risen and declined in essentially the exact same way…and any variations are minor and unimportant. Political principles, ideals, technology, intellect, racial pedigree…none of this, though as diverse between nations as possible, makes any difference at all. Our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Suffrage….unique perhaps in their own narrow context, but they matter not in altering the inevitable course of great nations and empires. America is, unfortunately, a re-running of the Matrix, doing what the program always does and always must do. There is nothing new under the sun.

“It is, therefore, interesting to note that the life-expectation of a great nation does not appear to be in any way affected by the nature of its [political] institutions. Past empires show almost every possible variation of political system, but all go through the same procedure from the Age of Pioneers through Conquest, Commerce, Affluence to decline and collapse.”

-Sir John Glubb, “The Fate of Empires”

If it is Good That Guns be Made Legal Then it Must be Good That They be Made Illegal: Legal Ethics Belong to Authority, Period

     Though I do understand why we are concerned that America’s second amendment may be suspended by an increasingly overt form of government autocracy, what we should not be is surprised. Once morality—moral ethics—has been replaced by legality—legal ethics—then we must understand that what is legal may be rendered illegal at any moment and for any reason without any hypocrisy nor rational violation on the part of the Authority (the State, in this case), which exists as the practical and necessary manifestation of the Law.
     Why is this?
     Well, legality itself is the problem. You see, legality makes all men criminals because it criminalizes will. Our (mine and yours) own choice to act on our own behalf is subordinated to the Law….indeed, that’s the whole point of law—we may act only insofar as we are allowed to act. Our individual wills then are not free…they are hedged in by the law, and guided necessarily to their eventual and inevitable complete nullification, which the Law implies according to its philosophical premises. This nullification of will by law grows more overt and obvious over time by nature and necessity, regardless of what kind of political officials are put in charge of the law’s carrying out. The pebble which is dropped will fall, no matter the character of the man who lets it go. This is why all governments must and do eventually snap the bloody trap of collectivist despotism…government, ironically, is the trap which becomes trapped. It’s in the premises. That is, it’s the nature of government. Government by its very root philosophical purpose and meaning is independent of man’s will. That’s the whole idea. Under law, which means under authority, which means under government, it’s not about will and choice, it’s about obedience. This is obvious and I hope needs no explanation…legal dictums are commands, they are not suggestions. And the most benevolent ruler of all cannot change this fact, because if he did, he would not be a ruler in the first place. A contradiction in terms—e.g. a ruler who does not RULE, for example—cannot be made manifest. It cannot be made real.
     To summarize the above, man’s will is nullified by law. Obedience to the law is the ethical standard, not morality, which has to do with will…with choice. And obedience to the law really means obedience to the Authority, without which the law has no practical relevancy and thus no functional existence.
     So now to guns, specifically.
     The problem is not that guns may be made illegal (and almost certainly will be), the problem is that some ruling class of political elites think that they have the right to subordinate man’s will to that which they decide to allow…by law. The problem is not that guns (or anything else for that matter) may be deemed illegal, it’s that we accept that our lives are futile absent an Authority (government) which claims for itself the right to allow man to act—which means to exist, at root, once the logic is teased out—by placing him under law, and thus which subordinates his will entirely by making it subject to an external ethical standard (the Law) utterly in the hands of this Authority. So, while it’s technically correct to state that it’s wrong to make guns illegal, the bigger issue is that we accept that they should be subject to legality at all.
     My overarching message here is that you cannot synthesize morality and legality. They are completely antipodal ethical premises. If we accept that guns are properly subject to the law, then why do we cry foul when the Authority makes them illegal? To accept legal ethics is accept that the Authority—which IS the practical incarnation of Law—knows what should and should not be allowed at any given moment. What you want became irrelevant the moment you agreed that the Law was good and by extension that government was good and by extension that your existence should be ruled, not chosen by you. So to say that guns should be legal and not illegal is some very, very fine hypocrisy, quite frankly.
     Unless you happen to be one of the ruling elite.

The People, the Vote, Representation, and Why All Governments are Tyrannies

By virtue of their underlying metaphysical premises, all collectives, no matter what parameter is selected as the focal point of group identity, necessarily sacrifice individuals.  And they will do this categorically, I should add, with varying degrees of conspicuity.  In a collective, then, we should really spend our energies examining who is not represented rather than what is. Because the necessary lack of real representation for the individual reveals the inherent hypocrisy and contradiction of government, even one which claims that it is established “for the People”.

“The People”, you see, is merely a  projection of the State.  It—not “they”—is a single political unit, based on the metaphysics which give the  group an existential Oneness…that is, all individuals are nothing…they are an epiphenomenon, at best, of the collective metaphysical context. In a collective, even one like the “People”, the individual, if acknowledged at all by the State, is an abstract conceptual figment of the group, not the other way around.  “The People”, is a device, practically speaking, then…an artifice, wherein the government’s natural objective, itself, is projected upon the masses of individuals.  Authoritative Power—the State—must and will only ever serve itself, because Authority is always its own end; and thus Authority is always absolutely singular. The object of its rule, then, the “People”, will become and must be a mirror image of itself.  Individuals by nature stand in opposition to the singularity of Authoritative Power, and the first step in eliminating this opposition is to name individuals after itself.  And from this we wind up with the “People”.  Not “the Persons”, you see, because that would suggest an individual metaphysic, not a collective one. But the People…well, that implies no individual distinctions whatsoever, I submit.  What I mean is that individuals are metaphysically redefined as merely a euphemism for the State, and then are “served” and “represented”.  What this means, practically speaking, is that representation is nothing more than the difference between those who at any given moment are a nominal expression of the State’s ruling power—those who’s votes result in their candidate winning—and those who are not—those who’s candidates lose.  And this is why, inevitably, in all governments, without exception, in all places and at all times, the evolution of the State reveals the exponential rise of government power and the exponential decline of the power of the individual.

A common counterargument to this is to claim that since the vote is driving the polices of the State (at least in theory), then power must thus truly be a derivative of the will of the People.  But, remember that “People” is a collective ideal, and has nothing to do with any individual whatsoever; it is utterly opposed to the individual at the very root level of metaphysical definition. It is, as I have said, nothing more than an expression of the State, itself.  So, the “will of the People” can extend no further than how the “People” is defined, according only to the State, because the State is by its nature, purpose, and definition an authoritative enterprise, period. Full stop. Further, thePeople”, as opposed to the “Persons”, implies collective unity, where the sum of all individuals becomes a thing itself…and even more, becomes that metaphysical singularity which the State exists to “serve”.  The State cannot serve the individual qua the individual.  For the individual is, alone, a natural epistemological, ethical, and political singularity, opposed to the singularity of the Collective (e.g. the “People”), and thus cannot be controlled by the force of Authoritative power, because the individual, himself, is the root of his own existence by his primary and absolute ability to exist in the first place; and being the root, must manifest his existence by his OWN power—his will—and not the power of that which is outside of him.  So the State does not collectivize the individual out of mere convenience’s sake, but because the coercive nature of Authority is entirely incompatible with the individual in every way possible, all the way down to the root of existence itself.  And so by defining man as “People”, the individual is supplanted by the group, the group not only thus to merely possess additional existential properties from that of the “simple” individual, but possessing an entirely new and utterly distinct metaphysical definition altogether, which inexorably eradicates the individual by that metaphysical distinction.  The individual is no longer existentially valid when compared to the collective.  “The People” then becomes the real political unit which the State “represents” and “serves”.

Of course, before the “People” can be “served”, they must be practically defined.  This definition must be bereft of any individualist contribution.  Individuals are not recognized as legitimately existant by the Authority because they possess their own will, which Power cannot recognize, being incompatible with will, as will is rooted in choice and thus reasoning, whilst power is rooted in violence and thus madness.  So the “People” are a metaphysical collective created by the State, which is by nature and necessity devoid of individuality.  Then, for the purposes of political expediency on the part of the ruling classes, the “People” is capriciously (and hypocritically) segmented into abstract categories like “race”, or “economic class”, or “social class”, or “religion”, or “culture”, or “native status”, or “patriotism”, or  “disadvantage”, or some combination thereof, etc. etc. from which “issues” to be voted upon can be harvested and which thus are duly and dutifully accepted and employed by the various political constituencies as an expression of “self government”. As if.

This is all fallacy, of course, because when we are operating within the context of power at the hands of a ruling political elite which manifests its will via the absolute legal (not moral) right to compel behavior by force (the Law), then any and all political issues and any and all acts of political participation by the “People” must necessarily serve the State, period. The political interplay between the Governement and the Governed is nothing more than an ouroboros of State Power, wherein the State devours itself in the form of the “People” (the collective Ideal which is fundamentally incarnate in the State) in order to feed and grow itself.  And this contradiction inevitably leads to its calamitous downfall—it is the proverbial snake swallowing its own tail, and thus it simultaneously starves and gorges itself to death until it finally collapses, taking whole bloody swaths of humanity with it back to the fiery pit of human avarice, hubris, madness, and self-loathing from which it springs.

Now, a little more about voting.

The option of A or B (or C or D or E, etc.) as seen in the political act of voting, is an invalid choice.  True choice is never really between A or B, but in actuality is this:  between A or NOT A, and B or NOT B.  I can have one or the other, or neither.  Having neither must be an option for a truly free person.  But notice how “neither” is conspicuously absent from the voting process when the State is officiating.  This is because “neither” is in fact a rejection of the State. But the State, being Authority, which is Force, which is violence, cannot recognize such an option as “NOT itself”, and thus cannot recognize the individual’s true choice and thus never, ever allows “neither” to be an option.  For even those who do not vote at all vote, and by that I mean that they will be subject to its results, whether they like it or not.  The choice not to vote leaves those who do not vote under the thumb of the elected rulers every bit as much as those who do.  And thus their choice not to vote, like voting itself, is not really a choice at all.  You see, once the individual has been metaphysically redefined by the State according to the ephemeral and furiously destructive principles of collectivism, voting becomes an entirely State-run, State-serving, State-centerened, State-expanding exercise, period.

 

The Absolute Ethics of Violence

The nature of groups organized according to collectivist metaphysical principles (the individual as a function of group identity, not the other way around) is to conquer. When one collective conquers another, we are simply witnessing a natural process. For example, when Europeans conquered the tribal peoples of America, they were simply pursuing the logical course of their metaphysics. And today, when “ethnic minorities” of the Americas are quickly reconquering the land using collectivist metaphysics expressed specifically through Marxist politics to wrestle control of the state away from the “whites”, they are simply pursuing the logical course of their metaphysics. Which are, except for mere labels, completely identical. So what we have is a lateral move. We have the evolution of collectivist metaphysical principles, destructive and irrational as they are, as they express themselves via the ebb and flow of violent oppression over the whole of the earth while it ceaselessly runs red with blood

To cry injustice at any of this by anyone except the individualist is dishonest equivocation. That is, it is merely to assert that one collective somehow holds the moral high ground over another in a given circumstance. This is of course entirely irrational because once the individual, by way of collectivist metaphysics, has been subordinated—to be eventually sacrificed one way or another—to the collectivist Ideal (the Tribe, the Nation, the Church, the People, the Common Good, the Race, the Worker’s Utopia, etc. etc.) at the hands of the ruling class (the King, the Leader, the State, the Government, the Priest), etc.) then the only ethical plumbline is violence. Since collectivist Ideals are naturally and necessarily absolute, ethereal, and transcendent, and individuals are naturally and necessarily outside of the Ideal and therefore cannot from this existential frame of reference reason themselves into choosing their own obedience and sacrifice (choice and reason being fundamentally incompatible with obedience and sacrifice, by definition and principle), then it becomes necessary to use violence and violence alone to subordinate all things (and propaganda and lies, deception and artifice qualify as violence, since they are intended to subvert the individual qua the individual and lead him to accept his own denial). The utter ruin of everything becomes the practical manifestation of the Ideal, and thus we shouldn’t be surprised when collectivist metaphysics bring abject and object destruction to those “outsiders” (other collectives) who are not able to exert ethical superiority over the conquering collective. That is, are not capable of weilding superior violence. What is surprising is when those collectives who are conquered cry foul, scream racism, and shout injustice as if equivocation and throwing temper tantrums is anything but meaningless noise. They should know that according to their own accepted and asserted metaphysics “might makes right”.

Further, if they do know this and cry foul anyway, they are liars. And if they don’t know this and cry foul anyway, they are fools.

Relativity: A very interesting philosophical paradox

Absolute relativity—that is, relativity absent a reference from which to observe it and organize the implicit relationships—actually precludes relative distinctions between objects, which precludes relativity itself. In other words, unreferenced to a non-relative observational constant, relativity is not relative, it’s infinite.  But of course infinity is purely a concept, because what is infinite cannot exist because it cannot be given a place or a time and thus cannot be defined.  And yet if relativity is referenced to an observational constant, then it’s not actually relative.  Meaning that there is no relativity qua relativity.  Relativity becomes, itself, relative TO the observer.  Meaning that the observer decides what relativity is, and absolutely so, at any given moment, depending on how he chooses to define it according to himself.

In other words, relativity, like infinity, is a concept.  Neither of these things are actual.  And yet if the relative relationships between the objects the observer conceptualizes are not actual, and if the observer possesses a body which is likewise a relative object with a relative relationship to other objects which is not actual, then how does the observer actually observe anything in order to conceptualize it? And if relativity is not a thing, and thus everything is infinite, but infinity cannot exist except conceptually, then what is anything? What exists? How is reality even possible?

So here is where we leave it, the paradox only to be unraveled by throwing out the metaphysics that the giants of history have given us, replacing them with much better, more rational metaphysics that we who stand on their shoulders might devise.  For those who stand on the shoulders of a giant may see things that the giant cannot see, and because of that knowledge build him a step stool.

Infinity cannot be infinite and relativity cannot be relative without the observer.  But they cannot be “infinity” and “relativity”, respectively, with the observer, either.  And yet, they are both necessary to the definition of the observer, himself, and to his purpose.  Thus we know that relativity, infinity, and observer are symbiotic…are corollary.  But how? And What?

The answer is Ability.

There is No Such Rational Thing as Amoral Reality…it is Impossible

For something to be true, it must have value. Hence, for reality to be real—as reality and truth are in the existential and ontological sense equivalent—it must have value. And by value we mean a degree of moral worth…the degree to which it affirms the reference for reality.  That is, reality is only relevant if it has relevance TO that which can give it meaning or purpose…that is, the Observer—the individual, like you and me. Reality and morality are corollary. This is because reality, for it to be defined meaningfully (relevantly and efficaciously) as such, requires a conscious (self-aware) Observer—one who conceptualizes, and integrates concepts to create ideas. But determinism—any flavor of determinism (e.g. scientific platonism; Christian platonism—which is basically the whole of protestant and catholic orthodoxy) rejects this. It asserts reality, truth, meaning without value. This is completely irrational. It is a total lie.

How the Law Promotes Crime (Part Two)

The law, by making right and wrong a function of obedience, thus nullifying morality by nullifying choice, does not provide any fundamentally rational incentive for the individual to avoid the behavior the law forbids under threat of punishment via the state. The law tacitly proclaims the individual irrelevant. Even more than irrelevant. Counter productive; an aberration; anathema; a mistake; unnatural. The individual, you see, is self-aware, which means that he thinks for himself, and has an absolute frame of reference from himself (singular) that demands that he exist and act to and for himself. This is of course not what the state wants; it is not reflective of what the state needs and what the state is. The state, by its nature, demands that all individuals view reality from the perspective of the state, and act to and from and for ITSELF. Because the state is Authority. It is the incarnation of the collective ideal to which all men are then bound. The collective ideal is the reality which necessitates the Authority of the state…to compel individuals out of their individuality and into the collective.

But the individual of course cannot do this…for he only observes reality from a single existential position: himself. By his nature and because of that nature the individual chooses. He must chooose. He must will.

Because knowledge (thought) is rooted in distinctions between truth and lie, and good and evil, knowledge is the practical working out of these distinctions. And the practical working out of these distinctions implies choice. But the law sees choice as anathema…as completely unnatural. The law is force, and force has nothing to do with choice. Man cannot choose to obey because obedience implies force, and force makes choice irrelevant.

Absent choice—absent will—man has no frame of reference for himself. A man whose choice is considered illegitmate must also consider his existence illegitimate. For absent choice the distinction between right and wrong and true and false and good and evil are irrelevant to him, and thus any knowledge, even that of his own SELF, is entirely meaningless. And this, taken to its logical intellectual conclusion, means that no one actually exists to obey the law in the first place. As soon as the law becomes the ethical standard the individual ceases to exist. He cannot obey because he isn’t real. His very nature is anthethical to reality as defined and accepted by the state. And thus the state’s law delegitimizes man at the level of his root existence. And because he has been delegitimized, he cannot be truly, rationally, incentivized to obey.

The state will claim that the law safeguards the best interests of the individual (sometimes by explicitly collectivizing him, a la Marxist totalitarianism). But this is impossible because it cannot recognize him. And the individual, I submit, understands this fact in his base instinct, and therefore the market for crime goes up because the law provides no meaningful reason to obey it. All it can offer as a disincentive is punishment, but this inevitably fails because for man to be perpetually under law he is, implicitly, already punished, and perpetually so…for existing. And so if the desire or reward for committing a crime outweighs the chances of getting caught or the penalty, then crime, by the very ethics which underwrite the law, is going to be worth it. Crime thus has implicit value. And this, dear readers, is why there is a market for crime.

Further, and even more troubling, is that a given individual may view the commission of a crime—the disobeying of the law—as an expression of his truth…of his individuality. And thus he may feel empowered and even free by his crime. Of course certain acts defined by law as criminal can certainly also be immoral—as in the case of theft or murder, for example—but the criminal, should he intuit in his soul nothing more than that the law renders his individuality meaningless, will not apprehend this. He may engage in crime as a sort of means of self-expression, not understanding that just because an act is illegal does not mean that it is not also actually immoral.

Now, for those of us who do understand that violations of other individuals are immoral, the law at root has nothing to do with why we do not commit such acts. We do not commit them because they are illegal but because they are immoral. We reject them upon the truth of their immorality in spite of the law, understanding that the law has nothing to do with evil or good, but only with power. I submit that if someone refrains from murder simply because he does not want to be punished then he has committed murder already in his heart…because he has conceded the law’s false morality and rejected the value of the individual. For there is nothing truly immoral under law because the law does not recognize morality’s one true and rational standard:

You, and me.

How the Law Promotes Crime (Part One)

We are led to believe, in western Democracies, that legality and morality are related.  We are taught that our governments make something illegal because it is, at root, immoral.  We pride ourselves in our ability to discern true evil from true good and then dictate behavior to men, through the coercive power of the state and according to the law, in the service of the good, where the good is not merely what is subjective according some ultimately unproven/unverified root assumption about the nature of reality (metaphysics), but is Absolute…or as close as humanity can come to it.

The truth, however, is that legality and morality are entirely different ethics, as I have discussed in previous articles on this blog. If something is illegal, then it is only immoral apart from the law. That is, what is illegal may be immoral, but it can be so only when it is removed out from under the auspices of law and the metaphysics from which law stems.  That is, though an illegal act may also be immoral, the law cannot recognize it as such.  It is NOT immoral according to the law.  This is because ethical behavior dictated by law precludes choice, because the law FORCES behavior via the coercion of the state regardless of one’s will to engage in it or not.  This is the nature of law…this is the whole POINT of law.  Obedience, not choice, is how the law is fulfilled.  And obedience means that ethics are rooted in authority—the State—and the authority’s legal imperative to compel man to submit to the law by violence, if necessary.  To underwrite ethics by requiring submission to authority as the means by which ethical behavior will be brought about renders choice irrelevant.  “Obey or die” is the fundamental mantra…meaning that under law the authority, the State, has the right to force you to act in specific ways that the law deems ethical, up to and including your death.

Morality on the other hand—that is, true good—demands choice, and so it can have nothing fundamentally to do with law.  To be moral means necessarily to act morally.  And the only means by which one can act morally is to will it.  To choose it.  Only choice makes an act truly moral or immoral.

The reason that crime is never eliminated in a society ruled by law and not by choice has nothing to do with human nature—that “there will always be bad people” as we are so often told.  This is merely a form of ethical determinism which ultimately renders morality irrelevant, and paves the way for rapacious and mendacious men to seize power under the guise of “keeping the peace” or “ensuring a civilized society”.  It’s all a lie.  If you don’t belive me, take a cursory look at America’s national debt and then ask yourself how a financial liability like that happens in the absence of selfish, power-drugged, self-worshiping boobs.

The answer is, it doesn’t.

Further, the argument “there will always be bad people” is non-falsifiable, which makes it tautological, and ultimately nonsensical.  The argument is that there will always be bad people because man is inherently bad.  In other words, there will always be bad people because there will always be bad people.  But here’s the truth:  The reason why crime is never eliminated under the rule of law is because law, by necessarily excluding choice, wrecks morality.

The only way to eliminate crime, you see, is to eliminate the market for crime.  The only way to eliminate the market for crime is to incentivize people to stop buying it, as it were, which in turn demands that men will stop selling it.  And the only real and fundamental way to disincentivize crime is to define and value it according to what is truly immoral; and the only way to do that is to make ethics a function of choice, not obedience to the law. Once we define crime as truly immoral, and rationally and objectively so, and value it as such, man can understand that it is rationally and objectively destructive to himself, at all times and in all contexts.  And thus, the consequences for crime are real, absolute, and existential. [Note: A discussion of morality as a function of an objective metaphysical premise—that is, a rational definition of the nature of reality—is beyond the scope of this article; please reference this blog for other articles dealing with this topic.]

Law cannot make crime immoral, as I said, because it invalidates choice.  And so, at root, law cannot give a real, rational reason why people should avoid it.  “So you don’t get punished by the authorities” is not a real, lasting, or fundamentally meaningful incentive because the consequences for crime defined by law are not really objective, and thus have nothing to do with the fundamental nature of reality.  The consequences of crime defined according to the law have nothing to do with any real devaluation of man qua man.  The law serves the authority at root, not the individual.  It has nothing to do with man, and thus it says nothing about his true worth and his true value and his true morality.  And I submit that men instinctively know this.  And that is very, very important.

The law is not “to the man”, so to speak, but to the state.  To the authority.  Violations of law are not violations of morality when morality is defined according to the ethics of law, which is the only way the state CAN define it, because  the state is FORCE, by its very nature, not choice.  Thus, the commission of crime is really only bad for the state—the authority—not for man, himself, as far as the law is concerned.  And I believe that men instinctively know this as well.  Therefore, as far as the individual is concerned, who has been taught that morality is a function of law, breaking the law is only “bad” if he gets caught.  So crime becomes a gamble, not an act of immorality.  If one can commit a crime beyond the eyes of the authority, then there is no consequence for crime. The commission of a crime says nothing about the individual, morally and existentially speaking, because the law is not about recognizing his individuality and therefore his will and choice, but rejecting the legitimacy of these things, and thus is about nothing more than subordinating him to the authority.

Without the authority to enforce it, the law is neutered, and the law cannot define moral and immoral behavior, so a man not caught hasn’t actually done anything wrong, according to the law.  Unless you are caught and punished, you never did anything bad, because “right” and “wrong” are only relevant if the law judges you.  And before the law can judge you the authority must catch you.  So crime, again, legally speaking, is merely a gamble.  A game of chance; or a game of desire.  A high chance of evading the law can make the commission of a crime very rewarding; a desire that transcends the fear of getting caught and/or the pain of punishment makes it worth committing the crime.  But a truly immoral act is never worth it…and can never be worth it.  Period.  A truly immoral act can destroy the individual at his very root Self, now and forever.  And this, and only this, will ultimately deter men from acts of immorality, and eventually weed out from humanity those who would choose such acts for whatever vile reason.

I am, of course, not suggesting that men break the law…that would be an entirely false and foolish interpretation of my arguments here.  I am suggesting that if society’s objective is the elimination of crime, then we must understand the difference between morality and legality, and why the two are not compatible, and why the former is rational and the latter is not, and how thus the latter ironically guarantees the perpetuation and promotion of that which it seeks to end.

Opposites are Not Corollaries!

The problem with metaphysics is that no one seems to be able to get away from duality.  No one can figure out how to get a multiplicity of reality from a singularity, even though they may assume and/or assert that their dualism is in fact a singular metaphysical primary.  Which is understandable.  It’s certainly a complicated paradox to unravel.  And on the face of it appears to be wholly contradictory, and this is why I think philosphers and psuedophilosopers didn’t and don’t seem to possess an indefatigable resolve to reconcile it.  Because they don’t recognize it as a paradox, but as a contradiction.  Of course the irony here is that once you reject a singular metaphysical fundamental as a contradiction, and thus necessarily adopt a dualistic metaphysic (e.g. existence/existing (is and action), darkness/lightness (good/evil), the ying yang of far east philosophies, total existential insufficiency/moral responsibility a la Christianity, the interplay of the infinite and the finite a la Jordan Peterson) contradiction, itself, becomes the fundamental.  By conceding that contradiction is not possible, and thus rejecting either implicitly or explicitly a single metaphysical fundamental, contradiction, by virtue of a dualistic premise where contrary notions are fused, becomes everything. Somehow, by some contortion and distortion of logic, mutually exclusive propositions relate to each other and compliment each other.  And somehow this passes for the singularity metaphysics demands.

To be blunt, this is absurd.  You don’t get to select opposites like infinity and finity, or lightness and darkness and then magically make them a corollary and then claim to have solved the metaphysical problem.  This must be understood:  Opposites are not corollaries.  They cannot, and never were, and never will be corollaries.  They are opposite.  Which means that by definition they are not functionally the same thing.  Once opposites become “two sides of the same coin”…that is, once opposites become One, then truth is impossible.  Because by this logic truth and lie become One; good and evil are One; is and is not are One.  And from this there is no limit to the madness and the destruction madness will spawn.

Here’s a relatively simple way to look at corollaries:

A corollary is when the perceivable can only abstractly—cognitively or conceptually you might say—be separated, for the purposes of arguing or achieving a certain rational objective.  Practically manifest these “separations” are one and the same.  Love and relationship, or labor and property, or action and ability…these are examples of true corollaries.  To perceive one is to necessarily perceive the other.  This is not the case with opposites.  Left and right are not simultaneously perceived.  The observer, from his given position, can only perceive one at a time.  If you see someone turning right, you cannot and are not also seeing him turn left unless and until you change your position.  It is the same with up and down, towards and away from…even good and evil require a shift in one’s ethical position…that is, one’s ethical premise.

Now, while it is true that left may imply right—that a positive implies a negative, in general terms—the antipode does not make a corollary.  In fact it is quite the contrary.  With opposites like left and right we have an implied antithesis.  That is, distinction, not oneness, is implied…and indeed, distinction is precisely what is observed from any given location.  A corollary is completely different.  What is implied is non-distinction.  A as One is broken up into conceptual notions that all imply the efficacious, observable, practical singular existence of A as A.  Implication then itself is nothing. What is implied is the difference between opposites and corollaries.

A corollary is implied oneness, not implied distinction.  So a corollary can serve, and indeed will serve, as the metaphysical fundamental.  ABILITY—-action-relativity-conceptualization-language-communication-Self/Other…this is a proper metaphysical corollary.  All components imply Ability and Ability implies all components.  This is a proper start to metaphysics because it is an actual corollary.  Opposites like good and evil or infinity and finity are not proper metaphysical notions.