5 votes

Why Do We Obey?

By Eric Peters

If some random guy ordered you to submit to his will – or else – most of us would at least consider it assault. Many of us would try to escape – or defend ourselves. Very few would quietly submit. And almost no one would submit willingly.

But when exactly the same thing is done to us by a person wearing a uniform, most of us not only submit and obey – we do so without even questioning the rightness of the thing.

The uniform – and other totems of officialized authority – confer legitimacy upon the illegitimate. It is a startling thing. It reveals that most people are incapable of grasping the concept of a moral principle – that something which is wrong when committed by an unsanctioned individual is just as wrong when committed by a sanctioned individual – or a group of them.

If it is wrong to kill, then it is always wrong to kill. If it is wrong to steal, then it is always wrong to steal. Neither killing no theft nor any other intrinsically wrong act becomes not-wrong because it’s sanctioned, approved or euphemized by the state, or by a politician, or by a bureaucracy. Stalin reportedly once said that a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths a statistic. Nothing could be further from the truth. A million single deaths is an atrocity – as much as a single individual death is a tragedy. And you are no less the victim of theft if the theft is done by a collective or its purported agent – under color of law, or via the ballot box.

Theft is theft. The essential nature of the thing is not altered by how it is done – or by whom.

There may be shades of grey in many aspects of life – but not when it comes to questions of basic morality. Your life is yours – and it follows that you are entitled by right to be at liberty. Else your life is not yours, but rather the chattel property of someone else – to whatever extent that other person (or persons) exercises control over your life, and against your will.

Similarly, it follows that if you own your life, then you also own the fruits of the labor of your body and mind, of that which is you. To say that random others – what collectivist psychopaths refer to as “society” – have a moral claim to the fruits of your labor is merely another way of saying you are owned, wholly or in part, to the extent you are forced by threat of violence to hand over the fruits of your body and of your mind. You are either free – or you are slightly more (or less) enslaved.

There is no in-between. It is impossible – a contradiction in terms.

A free man is beholden to none – except those he freely chooses to be beholden to. An enslaved man has no such free choice. He is beholden to whomever “society” – that is, to whomever wields political power over him – decrees. At best, he may plead to be slightly less enslaved, or to have the fruits of the labor of his body and mind forcibly distributed against his will to random strangers or groups of them, or projects or causes, he finds somewhat less disagreeable. But he cannot refuse; he is not permitted to say no. He is bound by a “social contract” he never signed, by consent he never gave. By debts and obligations assumed on his behalf by people he has never met, much less entrusted with proxy power.

More:

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/08/11/why-do-we-obey/

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

great article! it echos my

great article! it echos my feeling. Ive often asked people what a judicial function is that affords a judge immunity. I have regularly seen judges issue orders absent any findings of facts and based on no laws. Since an act such as this has nothing to do with a judicial function why does judge get immunity? If he rapes your wife its fine so long as he keeps his rope on......how ridiculous!

VERY fine article.

"The great tragedy of our time is not that human liberty is dying. It is that so many of us are willing accomplices in its murder."

Thanks for a great read.

wrong

I don't know that I've every met anyone who thinks it's always wrong to kill. If you want to be persuasive, then you have to start with some assertions people can accept.