Morality101.net

This Morality webpage should have been the very first, but it was long delayed by secondary considerations which I have allowed to distract me.  Even today, expect that I shall continue to enhance and fine-tune this page.

To myself, morality is very simple, but the objective of helping others to grasp, contemplate, accept and adopt as the principles by which one may have and build a life with happiness and prosperity — that requires example and elaboration.

“Morality” and “Philosophy” seem hugely daunting and intimidating words, but true morality is neither intricate nor complex, despite that the subject has inspired the penning of countless books, billions of words, has consumed the entire lifetimes of some and the never-ending diatribe of many, seeming to demand far more time and effort than most humans care to endure.

From our USA Declaration of Independence, which states … “All men [have] certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These few words contain the essence of true Morality. Your rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are absolutes — they are not negotiable.  For You to compromise even any small part of those rights is immoral unto yourself, and unto your world.

Contrary to common belief, the above words are NOT contained within our Constitution. The Constitutional Amendments serve to partially correct that amazing oversight, but the sum of those Amendments fails to encompass the full meaning, and some contradict the meaning of that original phrase within the Declaration of Independence. Anyway, while the essence of morality is contained within that simple phrase, it seems that far too many do not bother to consider those words and thus cannot relate those to lives of true freedom.

Your RIGHT TO LIFE is an entirely personal and individual right, which cannot exist except that each person OWNS their life and all, which is necessary and thus proper, to sustain and enhance Life.  “Life” necessarily encompasses the entire spectrum of the components of Humanity.

Far beyond the basics of merely continuing to breathe, of having a beating heart, Human Life means not only the instincts necessary for survival, which are merely characteristics of all animals. Only Human life necessarily includes the the Mind and the ability to apply the human capability to Reason based upon all that is observable by one’s Senses, and to use one’s Reason to abstract and conceive of things beyond — innovation, improvement, expansion, and creation.

The only valid Morality is necessarily based upon our knowledge of that which Exists — those things which are known and knowable — which therefore can be perceived by our senses of vision, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Our senses proved our means of perceiving that which exists, and our mind can consider, expand upon and organize those perceptions, and by use of Reason can draw conclusions which necessarily conform to the knowable Existence, and/or provable by logical and scientific process.  Animals cannot Reason.  Reasoning is the unique, special and most precious characteristic of Humanity.

• Your life belongs only to YOU, which means… it does NOT belong to anyone else.
• Who has the right to your life? Only YOU!
• Who has the right to control or manipulate your Life? Only YOU!
• Who determines the level of quality of your Life? Only YOU!
• Who then is Responsible for your Life?  Hmmm, would that be YOU?
• Further, you are also responsible for the family which you have chosen, but no others.
• And in return your family is equally responsible for you.You may Choose to assume responsibility for others whom you value, but…
• The extent and longevity of responsibility for those others is strictly your Personal Choice.

Right to Life: Of course you have the right to life and therefore that life belongs to You.  If anyone else were to take your life, You would not exist, having neither Life nor any need or even desire for Life.  It sounds so elementary, doesn’t it?  Therefore, each of us must have our personal right to life.  To sustain and enhance that life is our primary duty to ourselves, for without life we are nothing.  Did I say something wrong here?  I think not,

which brings us to Your…
Right to Liberty: Most of us seldom think deeply about Liberty or Freedom – it’s just a word, something we’re supposed to have, and if “They” tell us we have Liberty, we tend to take “Them” at their word.  We truly do need to think about Liberty, each and every time we make choices affecting our Lives,  We need th consider whether we are truly Free to make those choices, or whether “They” have already made or limited those choices without your consent.

How is your Life sustained and enhanced?  With Your…
Property: — which is everything you own, hopefully because you earned it!  Property  includes your money, your income, your home, your earned assets, , your investments, even your wristwatch, your food and clothing.  But most importantly, Life includes Your Mind,  all Your Mind creates and does to enable your continuing survival and gain happiness and comfort for yourselves and your personal Circle.  Would you allow others to steal your property?  Of course not, for earning and accumulating and using your property is necessary to sustain and enhance your Life!  If you cannot and do not sustain your life, and if you fail to insist up your Right to do so, you die.  Being dead, you are unable to help your family, your friends, or your freely chosen charitable choices.  Once dead, how do you accumulate property to sustain and enhance the life of yourself and your loved ones?

Might you use your…
Mind? Would you use your mind to weigh the pros and cons of your every move, to make the best decisions toward your better Life?  Or would you cede your Mind for such  decisions over to someone else?  Who knows better than you what will be the best choices for your personal Life?  Would you turn your choices over to your neighbor, or to the criminal on another street, or to your mayor and council, or your governor, or your congressman, or your president?  Who can know better than you what is best for your personal life?  Who knows best of your circumstances, your desires, and your abilities?  Whose mind is really superior to Yours?

Which leads right into the necessity of having…
Personal Choice: Our choices are ours alone to make.  We can make good choices and reap the rewards, or we can make poor choices for which we will pay the price of decreased prosperity and happiness, or even cause loss of  Your Life.  If You turn your personal choices over to someone else, will that someone somehow care less about their own life, or will they be too busy making their own personal choices?  Can you really trust them to somehow make better choices for You than you can make for yourself?  This is not a rhetorical question!  If You will cede your Mind to another, then are you Human, or are you merely an animal, an entity without the unique  human ability to Reason?

Pursuit of Happiness. So long as you are alive and able, your property is yours with which to pursue the happiness you have earned, for yourself, your family and your chosen friends.  Happiness is not given, it is earned by your effort and your virtue.  It is to be treasured, and is not to be diminished by being stolen from you by neighbors, or governments or other criminals.  Happiness may be enhanced by sharing with those you treasure.  Even your charity via gift or effort may increase your happiness.

In furthering your Morality, realize that You are entirely responsible for your own Life.  You are also equally responsible allowing all others the same equal Right to Life.

This same post is always available as a Page.  With this present theme it always shows in the top header.
Thank you for your visit and any comments you might make.  If a comment  box is not showing, just click the Title, which gets to this page as a stand-alone with comment box.  You’ll need to login or register to comment.

Original post found at:  http://townhall.com

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Our Problem is Immorality

by Walter E. Williams

Most of our nation’s great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. You say, “That’s a pretty heavy charge, Williams. You’d better be prepared to back it up with evidence!” I’ll try with a few questions for you to answer.

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends.

In thinking about questions of morality, my initial premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property. That’s simple. What’s complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one’s private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.

The reason why your college professor, politician or minister cannot give a simple yes or no answer to the question of whether one person should be used to serve the purposes of another is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind’s most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government.

Unfortunately, there is no way out of our immoral quagmire. The reason is that now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral. People who choose to be moral and refuse congressional handouts will find themselves losers. They’ll be paying higher and higher taxes to support increasing numbers of those paying lower and lower taxes. As it stands now, close to 50 percent of income earners have no federal income tax liability and as such, what do they care about rising income taxes? In other words, once legalized theft begins, it becomes too costly to remain moral and self-sufficient. You might as well join in the looting, including the current looting in the name of stimulating the economy.

I am all too afraid that a historian, a hundred years from now, will footnote America as a historical curiosity where people once enjoyed private property rights and limited government but it all returned to mankind’s normal state of affairs — arbitrary abuse and control by the powerful elite.

digg story

“It is as much a petition to our fellow Americans as from them,” explains Farah. “Think of it as a way to get a national debate started on whether or not we are still committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We need that dialogue now, more than ever.”

“It is as much a petition to our fellow Americans as from them,” explains Farah. “Think of it as a way to get a national debate started on whether or not we are still committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. We need that dialogue now, more than ever.”

Sign the petition now.

read more | digg story

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved.

Following is the complete article from Original URL

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.” Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:

“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”

This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:

“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)

Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:

“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”

It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:

“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”

Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:

“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)

It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his “Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.

read more | digg story

It’s called the non-initiation, or non-aggression principle, and it is the only philosophical framework and ethical system that doesn’t require either an appeal to divine authority, or appeal to collectivism… (actually perhaps it should best be stated as simply not requiring an appeal to authority at all), to be internally justified and consistent.

Striker: this makes much sense

read more | digg story

Cutting the Gordian Knot

The simple nonaggression principle holds nobody (or groups of bodies) initiates force against another for any purpose. The simple SNaP becomes sacred as we collectively assert of it, “There is none higher.”