As reported on KSL.com the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made it official policy today to call for the state to restrict the right of individuals to deny employment, housing, etc. to gays. Unfortunately the statement is couched in terms of “protecting rights”, which this most assuredly is not. No one has a right to someone else’s property. The idea is an absurd contradiction. If you have the final say over a thing’s disposition then that thing is yours – your property. If someone else has the final say, then it is the property of that other person. We can speak of multiple persons each having an “interest” in property such as when two people each hold an equal 50% undivided joint interest in a property. But that is different than saying that any random unspecified person has a right to march into your residence or business and demand a bed or a job you would otherwise deny to him, and threaten to bring the power (armed force) of the state to bear against you if you refuse. That is the “right” being “protected” today. The right to initiate force against another to prevent him from using his property in a way you don’t agree with. It is the right to use violence to get your way. It is the right to be a beast, an animal, an uncivilized barbarian. That is the right that is being protected by all non-discrimination legislation.
Now of course I am personally opposed to irrationality, which to me includes any discrimination on the basis of irrelevant facts. I cannot see how a person’s sexual orientation would even come into the conversation over terms of lodging or employment. If it did, somehow, the innkeeper or employer who turned away an otherwise acceptable customer or employee on that basis alone is irrational and irrational means bad. But I would so much more want to live in a society where everyone respects the right of every other person to be free.
Free to live as they choose and to do what they choose with their own property. Free from violence, or the threat of violence, from another or others. When the violence is threatened by one person acting alone we call him a criminal. When it comes from a group of individuals we usually call them a criminal gang. But when it comes from a group (police) who were hired by another group (politicians) who persuaded another group (voters) to place lead filings next to their names on a piece of paper (voting) then we call that “The Law” and we bow down and worship it as thoroughly as the idolatrous image of any other false god ever fashioned.
The extent to which we allow others to do with their own lives and property what we would prefer they didn’t, without using violence or threatening violence against them for so doing, is the extent to which we are human beings and not animals. Violence is the way of the jungle where beasts have their way based on their power to violently impose their interests over that of the other beasts. It is how they eat, procreate and otherwise survive. But humans, when acting as humans, as sons and daughters of God, do no violence toward one another unless it is in response to the violence of others. They never initiate violence. And when they do retaliate, it is only reluctantly, taking care to do so only to that level required to quell the violence and redress the wrongs it brought about. This is what Jesus taught. It is a part of the higher law. But it is not because He taught it that it is right. It is because it right that He taught it. The right to be free from the initiation of violence is the only political ethic consistent with the fact that man relies on his own individual capacity to reason for his survival. The extent to which you are forced to comply with another’s judgment is the extent that he has deprived you of the capacity to survive and made a poor substitute for it – his judgment.
One can only judge based on what he knows and all that he knows is contained within his mind. Words are imperfect symbols which stand for the concepts we hold within our minds but are not those concepts themselves. Words must always fail to convey a portion of what we mean by them since the meaning we attribute to them is informed by all we have experienced and come to believe. To take an extreme example, what does “red” mean to someone who cannot see? A better example is to consider what concept the word “beauty” might conjure in the mind of an adult raised and educated with access to the finest art ever produced. Now consider what “beauty” would mean to a starving and impoverished child. It is impossible to learn enough about another through words or ancillary forms of communication to justify imposing our judgment over their own as their means of survival. And even if we could, we would be denying them the right to live their own life by living it for them. No amount of having their best interests at heart can justify denying them the opportunity to live a life of their own. The right of the individual to live his own life as he freely chooses, so long as he respects that same right of others, is the only appropriate political ethic for human beings.
So why would the Church announce this policy?
The Church’s official position on legal matters is not doctrine nor part of the gospel. It is not revelation nor necessarily inspired. It is not an exercise in ecumenical authority but administrative. That is why whenever it makes such comments, members are always “encouraged” (or such similar undemanding language) to comply with it.
I am sure that the Church’s official policy is to obey all the laws of all the jurisdictions where the Church is found, and to “encourage” all members to do the same. I think if the Church had been organized at the time of the American Revolution it’s policy would have been the same. But revolutionary leaders are rightly considered righteous men and heroes and were all baptised by proxy and said to have accepted the saving ordinances performed on their behalf.
I think the interests of the Church as an administrative body, a corporate legal entity, are not necessarily identical to the interests of any specific individual and that in all cases the individual must look to the scriptures and the Holy Ghost as the most important external guides to inform his own rational judgment. No one has properly discharged his moral agency by simply mimicking what someone else has done. Everyone’s circumstances are unique and that is why salvation is the result in the proper discharge of individual moral agency.
Personally, I remain opposed to investing the state with greater authority to interfere with the decisions of individuals as to who they employ, who they house, or whatever else they do and for whatever reason with respect to their own lives and property. I would divest it of such authority as it presently usurps by force.
So this isn’t an inspired decision?
I think this is not necessarily inspired, but may be, but the main point is that this statement is what it is and nothing more – the official position of the Church, based on the Church’s interests as perceived by those who have stated this position for it. I certainly don’t believe every statement, position, or policy taken by any man or group of men is infallible and as members of the Church we are not bound to accept anything for doctrine that has not been sustained in General Conference as such.
This is not a statement of principle or doctrine but a statement of policy. They are saying that the Church (the legal entity) is taking this position in light of all the present cultural, social, legal circumstances and how the Church’s interests may be best pursued in that context.
The Church is not in a position to ignore the law or the state. It must accommodate both. Historically, and this may be another instance of it, its greater interests require that it accommodate social-cultural norms.
In the 1800s it accommodated slavery with policies of not allowing slaves to join the Church without their master’s consent. During the period where racial segregation was culturally prominent it barred blacks from the Priesthood and the temple, although exceptions were made that proved that this was not consistent with eternal principles but only temporary policies. To accommodate sexist cultural norms women could not be baptised or endowed without their husband’s consent. It was worse in Paul’s day when women were forbidden to speak in church.
These are all temporary expedients designed to secure the Church’s position within the existing legal-cultural milieu. They were not declarations of moral principles. They were attempts to ensure that strong social forces did not distract from the real mission of the Church. The Church has always been spiritually revolutionary but rarely politically. Think of Christ’s time. Personally he lived as he knew best and accepted the consequences but he never counseled the Church as a whole to oppose the state authorities. He counseled Peter to put away his sword.
Consistent with eternal principles the Church readily accepts the emancipation of slaves, the equality of the races and sexes. But it was individuals, including individual Church members, and not the Church as a body, which brought about these changes.
Sure, I’d prefer not to see the Church take this stand, but if those whose calling it is to make these decisions know something I don’t that requires them to go to this length to accommodate the gay lobby to minimize them as a distraction from the Church’s mission, then I can accept it. But only for what it is and that is not a constraint on my own judgment.
In this recent article, Matthew Sparkes looks at the current status of Bitcoin. He argues that what is much more important is the fate of the blockchain, the decentralized infrastructure upon which Bitcoin is based, but which does not depend upon Bitcoin for its existence. Or does it? He says that if the price of Bitcoin falls far enough, it is possible that a cascade of failing Bitcoin miners will bring the infrastructure to a stand still. With no mining activity, the length of time it takes to confirm transactions, whether of Bitcoin or any other transaction, would grow until finally they might never be confirmed.
This scary possibility is enough to encourage me, as someone who looks forward to the scenario Sparkes described last June in this piece, to continue to hold Bitcoin regardless of the downward trend.
A better translation of Genesis 2:18 reveals the true stature of woman in the eyes of God.
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”
The Hebrew word rendered as “help” is “ezer” which has two roots. One means “to rescue” or “to save” and the other means “to be strong”. It is used several times in the Bible and the majority of time it is used to describe God with reference to the kind of help he provides. Consider the kind of “help” God provided to Moses and the children of Israel in crossing the Red Sea. He opened the sea and let them cross on dry land. That’s the kind of help we’re talking about here, not the kind of help as in, “she helps out around the house.”
The word translated as “meet” is “k’enegdo” which does not mean “meet” as in “fit” or “appropriate” but “equal”. So to convey the intended meaning of the phrase accurately probably requires more words than what the King James translators used.
“I will make a strong companion for him who will be his equal.” Or perhaps, “I will make an equal to him to be a strong companion.”
Whatever the wording, the original intent is clear and ought to inform our view of the proper relationship between man and woman.
See Eve and the Choice Made in Eden by Beverly Campbell for this insight and more.
Lots of people make fun of those of us who typically wait until Christmas Eve before hitting the mall. (Uuggh, the thought of it turns my stomach.) But it’s last minute shoppers like me who have the moral high ground.
What kind of person, I ask you, buys something for someone else – something the other person wants or even needs – and then stows it away in a closet for days, weeks, even MONTHS instead of giving it to that person? Isn’t the value of the gift increased by it timeliness? Example, giving parents a high chair is a fine gift – but not when their youngest child is already 8 years old. In this day and age, when almost everything contains at least some tech that is starting to become obsolete the minute it leaves the shelf (or more accurately, the plant where it was made), the value of the gift can be expected to diminish rapidly. The latest gadget in October may have its title usurped by December. At the very least, it’s price may have dropped.
The more thoughtful gift is the one given when it is most valuable. Therefore, if you buy a gift for someone in October, give it to them in October. “But,” you protest, “that means I have to buy something else for Christmas.” Poor baby! Is the gift about your own convenience or is about wanting to improve the life of the recipient? If the latter, then the greatest improvement possible ought to be the goal. If your primary concern is your own convenience then sure, stash to gift – but look up, not down, to those of us who place the interests of the recipient of the gift above the trifle of convenience.
Merry Christmas!
I really like how John Horgan put that bigoted, pseudo-scientific, anti-religious tag team of Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins in their place. The idea of offering the fact that quantum fluctuations can result in virtual particles becoming real as an answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing is an insult to the intelligence of their audience, or worse, an appeal to their anti-religious prejudice as being sufficient to blind them to the absurdity of the proposition. As Horgan correctly rejoins, just where or where do the quantum fields that can give rise to virtual particles come from? Surely quantum fields are something and not nothing. Krauss’ thesis would be just plain silly if it weren’t so clearly intended simply as a rallying point for equally rabid atheists whose own pseudo-religious fervor trumps any appeal to reason and quest for truth.
I disagree with Horgan’s view that science is incapable of discovering an answer to that question but only, I think, because I prefer a broader conception of science than he apparently does. If by science we only include testable hypotheses then of course this question will always remain outside because there will never again be, if there ever were, a condition where literally nothing exists. Even if everything that is, ceased to be, there would always remain the fact that it had been. Besides, it would surely leave any test without anyone to observe the results.
I prefer to characterize science broadly as the search for knowledge about the nature of the world and that would include philosophy. I think if you construct a hypothesis which does not allow for testing but does permit you to make a reasonable assessment of probabilities, perhaps by eliminating the alternatives, or at least assessing them to be less likely, then that counts as science – especially if more narrowly scientific procedures can provide evidence that helps you make relevant assessments.
Nice infographical summary here.
I’m starting a collection of links to stories about the abuse of power by police, politicians and any other so-called “public servants”. Lots of people complain about this abusive behaviour but few understand its cause. Power is the ability to get one’s way, to affect one’s environment, to have control over one’s circumstances. We all need and want power and that’s good. But there are only two kinds of power. One is acquired by reason, persuasion, and respect. It is the power over that which one acquires a right to
by voluntary exchange, by bringing into being, by discovery, or by first use (homesteading). The other is the power asserted by brute force, violence. The former is appropriate for rational animals – humans – who maintain and enhance their lives by virtue of their mind’s ability to reason. The latter is appropriate for wild animals. It is a measure of how far we are from becoming truly civilized that we permit these beasts to exercise power over us.
Police abuse of driver caught on dashcam. Charges dropped but no wrong doing found.
Man shot on sight while peacefully shopping. And this is why the Fascist States of America may be headed for a race war.
Suicidal teen shot 16 times by psychopathic cops.
Cops taser man to death while handcuffed because he was too tired to walk.
Two cops repeatedly punch a prone man posing no threat in the head while onlookers plead with them to stop.
A few formulas I came up with and want to save.
S = 1/I
The measure of entropy is inversely proportional to that of intelligence. So this might be a catchy little way of expressing extropy.
AI > I – AI
The measure of so-called artificial intelligence will exceed the measure of “organic” intelligence before the previous formula will become of any practical consequence.
These would be catchier if there was a neat symbol of intelligence. Oh well.
Neither the right of self-defence, nor the right to property, includes the right to pose an immediate threat to another’s life. In the absence of circumstances which would justify the need to carry loaded, high-powered weapons around other people, the implied threat to those other people in having the immediate ability to inflict serious harm or death upon them is a violation of their right to life and liberty.
Justin Bourque (the Moncton shooter) is not a defender of liberty, he is a violator of liberty. He is abusing his own liberty by threatening that of others. By doing so he forfeits the claim he has on others to respect his rights. It is irrational for anyone to conclude that the rest of us are safe merely because he is shooting at state agents. That is far too fine a distinction to make when your life may depend on it. What if he is looking for whatever target of opportunity present themselves? What if he mistakenly takes you for a state agent? What if he decides you pose a threat to his rights and decides to execute his judgment against you right on the spot? What if he is simply deranged? High? Intoxicated?
Even in my perfect political model, if I see Bourque walking around as he was, I call whatever agency is obliged to defend me. In fact, I would be justified, once I see him actually initiating deadly force against others, to use it against him.
Anarcho-capitalism is based on the right to do what you want with what’s yours – not the right to hold the lives of others on the thinnest of treads that you can snip on a whim.
Consider the perspective of the woman who phoned in the complaint. She did not see Bourque and think, “I believe he is breaking the firearms laws. I must report him.” She saw him and thought, “There are no wild animals about, there are no criminals, no invaders. I see no possible threat to this man that could justify him walking about with a deadly weapon. Perhaps he sees me as a threat or perhaps he is the one about to initiate violence.” Under the circumstances, for her to have taken the chance that he possed no threat of initiating violence, when she might never have a chance to reconsider, would be unreasonable to the point of insane.
Even if we assume we were endowed with some super power of perception that assured us that his only targets were state agents, and that he would not misidentify anyone as a state agent, we should not condone his actions. Just as electoral politics is a deceptive shell game rigged to ensure statist outcomes, surely armed revolution is even worse. If it comes down to a matter of who can exert the most force, the state clearly wins. What is so attractive about the agorist position is that, over time, given the rapid pace of technological change that empowers the individual vis a vis the state, the power and therefore authority of the state will inevitably whither and die. The only thing that could interfere with that is if the state’s pseudo-authority to use force were bolstered by people worried about idiots like Bourque roaming the streets.
Nothing can set the cause of liberty back so efficiently as a good scare. Remember 9-11?
I believe Justin Trudeau will probably become the next Prime Minister of Canada in a landslide sometime in 2015. That’s because he has all the right values for the office. In a recent speech at a charity event he showed the same class as his father by using the most vulgar language which polite hypocrites at least reserve for more private affairs.
But that wasn’t even the worst part of his speech. Lost in the media furor over his vulgarity was the meaning of what he said, which was far worse.
“I will tell you, there is no experience like stepping into this ring and measuring yourself,” Trudeau said, recalling his match with now-suspended Sen. Patrick Brazeau in a similar charity event only a few years ago. “Not your name, your fortune, your intelligence, your beauty; none of that f—-ing matters.”
Of all people we ought to hold politicians strictly accountable for the meaning of their words. After all, they are posturing to be worthy of our votes – those magical pencil marks that convey to them authority to do violence to our neighbours, authority we do not have and therefore cannot actually convey, but that doesn’t matter because so many still accept the politically convenient fiction. Others can be afforded the benefit of the doubt and forgiven for a slip of the tongue or other occasional indiscretion, but those who would exercise the levers of the state should never be given a free pass.
But Trudeau doesn’t assess himself, or presumably others, by such criteria. His measure of a man is how hard he can throw his fist into another person’s face.
Words and deeds spring from a person’s judgment which in turn is derived from his intelligence. Beauty is not merely superficial but an appreciation for the degree to which the beautiful subject is fully integrated, symmetrical, efficient – in short, how well it serves its purpose. A beautiful song evokes emotion. A beautiful face evokes a smile. A beautiful equation imparts a sense of how nature is an integrated whole. A person’s name represents a legacy one inherits from previous generations. A standard one ought to try to live up to or improve upon so as to leave a better legacy to those who succeed to that name. Your fortune, unless it is inherited or stolen, represents the value your fellow humans place on the product of your mind. None of this matters to Trudeau.
To Trudeau what really matters is a “sport”, if its even that, which mandates gratuitous violence. A throwback to barbaric times. A stand in for warfare. What should women, children, the elderly, the infirm take from the message that our next Prime Minister thinks one’s ability to physically fight is what determines a person’s worth? Should they feel safe casting their lots for this barbarian? If so, they are fools.
And that’s why I am quite sure he will win. Because they are fools. Generally speaking of course. There are exceptions but they are too rare to matter when one is speaking of the electorate. He will win, not in spite of the fact that he is a crass barbarian but because of it. I have no doubt that his vulgarity was not a careless slip but was carefully scripted by his handlers. They want him to appear “real”, “human”, to his core constituency – the young and the foolish.
Well those who vote, for him, or at all, will get what they deserve. And the innocent will suffer – but thankfully not for long.
