How much should you respect individual conscience?
Individual conscience must be respected at all times.
Thomas Jefferson said it was sinful to make a man fund what his conscience hates. This should be a universal principle.
- If a man hates a war, must he support it?
- If a woman is offended by the teachings at “government” schools, must she pay for them?
Are you willing to be the armed person who shows up at their door to collect, or do you want to be the kind of person who respects individual conscience in all things?
Do you favor initiated force to impose your preferences, or empathy-motivated Zero Aggression. If you choose the latter, sign-up below.
(3 Comments)
By Lisa August 5, 2015 - 1:19 pm
Thomas Jefferson also hated the idea of patents, but he became the first head of the patent office, because having someone with his sentiments would ensure that patents were only granted with great circumspection. Point being, that Thomas Jefferson not only funded what he hated, he also lead the office.
I have always leaned toward libertarianism. But, truly, how is it that we would get anything done using “empathy” as a constant yardstick? I can empathize with someone whilst completely disagreeing with them on how to solve the problem at hand. Ultimately, decisions have to come down to a vote–and not everyone will agree (just as Thomas Jefferson didn’t agree with patents). And if those who dissent are allowed to live outside the law, then we don’t really have laws–we have suggestions. And how do you govern a country like this? Especially, when people have extremely wide ranging moral compasses.
I don’t know. I’m extremely frustrated by my government. I believe we have become a fascist state, but I need a more real/practical answer than “empathy” and “conscience.” Don’t get me wrong, that’s a great starting place, but I don’t know how that translates into actionable change. And when I have sent friends here for practical answers to their questions about libertarianism, these “mental levers” have not helped.
And, no, I don’t want to be the person who “respects individual conscience in all things.’ Because, to me, some people ‘s conscience’s are twisted. Or maybe you think mine is twisted. Which is why decisions based on a majority vote is a good idea. The problem comes in when the votes are cast by corrupt, self-serving politicians. And when lobbyists and corporations have more political power than citizens. So frustrating!
I will continue to vote for libertarianesque candidates like Ron Paul, but this “Zero Agression” — “Mental Lever” thing isn’t helping me define myself or libertarianism.
By Perry Willis August 5, 2015 - 2:27 pm
Hi Lisa. More Metnal Levers will be added over time. Rome was not built in day. We will have more and more answers to the practical questions that trouble you and others. These first few are just a beginning.
Implicit in your comments it the idea that we all need to submit to one solution for any given problem. But the part of our society that works best — the Voluntary Sector — does not work this way. It works by offering a multitude of competing solutions. We need that too for most of the problems that government attempts to solve. Seen in this way there is no need for a majority to impose a preferred solution on everyone.
Government itself should be limited to purely defensive functions — primarily police and courts, with verdicts being controlled entirely by juries. Our laws should be limited to statutes against force and fraud, rather than trying to dictate every little detail of our lives. This is the kind of government that widespread acceptance of the Zero Aggression Principle would give us.
I hope that you will continue to interact with us so that you can learn more about this subject. If you do I think you will find the intellectual journey to be well worth taking.
By JackW September 4, 2019 - 2:23 pm
Remember that hate is evidence of fear. Voting is an act of violence; politics is violence and political government is the bane of humanity; it is not Christian. The assumption is that the “law” is valid but ask the Marc Stevens/Lysander Spooner Question: What factual evidence do you, judge, prosecutor, politician/legislator, IRS agent, policeman or anyone, have that the constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some state such as commie/socialist, Democrat tyrannized corruptifornias? It doesn’t exist and never has else we would be slaves on the plantation state run by masters/politicians and their overseers/judges/enforcers in the “land of the free and home of the brave.” How diabolically ironic is that?
I don’t know. I’m extremely frustrated by my government. I believe we have become a fascist state, but I need a more real/practical answer than “empathy” and “conscience.” Don’t get me wrong, that’s a great starting place, but I don’t know how that translates into actionable change. And when I have sent friends here for practical answers to their questions about libertarianism, these “mental levers” have not helped. [And voters sanctioned the creation of the alleged “fascist” state. Hummm? Voting is an act of violence!
Again, assuming the “law” is somehow righteous and everyone must abide by what is corrupted, then one is approving of violence/aggression/force which of course is immoral. Voting is immoral!
Respecting one’s right to his opinion or beliefs or “false religion” or conscience is one thing but it doesn’t mean that one respects the right of one to use force or violence or aggression to act on his “conscience.”
If one peremptorily denies one his free will, freedom to choose, then he has usurped God’s gift of free will, freedom to choose, to all. No one I know has ever proved he was anointed by God to override God’s gift of free will, freedom to choose.
Thomas Sowell once remarked that the question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best. Only you with God given free will, freedom to choose, should decide for you how to conduct your life and then you live with the results as a responsible adult.