"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." Friedrich Nietzche

"Any and all non-violent, non-coercive, non-larcenous, consensual adult behavior that does not physically harm other people or their property or directly and immediately endangers same, that does not disturb the peace or create a public nuisance, and that is done in private, especially on private property, is the inalienable right of all adults. In a truly free and liberty-loving society, ruled by a secular government, no laws should be passed to prohibit such behavior. Any laws now existing that are contrary to the above definition of inalienable rights are violations of the rights of adults and should be made null and void." D. M. Mitchell (from The Myth of Inalienable Rights, at: http://dowehaverights.blogspot.com/)

Monday, September 17, 2007

What Would You Do If You Had To Choose?

The following is from my work titled 52 Perverse Questions. First, I will give you the definition of "perverse" as presented in 52PQ, then I will give you the preface to that work, finally, I will give you one of the questions and my answer to it. The purpose of 52PQ, my whole purpose in life actually, is to try and get people to think, and to think logically. That is much harder than it sounds. I've been at it for nearly 50 years and I haven't converted many to the logical, versus emotional, side of life.

Perverse, a definition: obstinately or unreasonably wrong; refusing to do the right, or to admit error, self-willed (Webster’s New Standard Dictionary). This then begs the question of what is wrong and what is right? Can questions be perverse, or is it the answers to the questions, that is, the actions taken in regard to the questions that are perverse? What rules do we need in our modern society to navigate the questions that life puts before us so that we make right decisions instead of wrong or perverse decisions?


“It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual’s incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500.”Albert J. Nock

In 2006, the “incurious attitude” of the people towards the “phenomenon of the State,” if anything, is even stronger than in 1935. Few citizens question from where or from whom the government gets its legitimate power, or why the government should be allowed to control personal aspects of the lives of its citizens even when those aspects do not violate the rights of others. The average citizens merely accepts that the phenomenon, that is, the power of the government, is a given, just as they believed that the power of the Church in 1500 was a given.

The government passes laws (as did the Church) which it then enforces upon pain of fines, imprisonment, or, if you should resist too strongly, death. It would be wise to never forget that you cannot equate law and justice. Law does not always equal that which is right or just…the protection of our inalienable rights. At one time, in the United States of America, it was legal to own people. The United States Supreme Court upheld the laws that allowed slavery. Those laws were neither right nor just. They were perverse and hideous. So was the Supreme Court for upholding those laws.

Quite often the decisions of the Supreme Court are merely reflections of what either the powerful or a majority of the people, at a particular time, believes to be correct behavior and have nothing to do with absolute truths and justice. When laws violate the inalienable rights of citizens there can be no justice. Citizens do not have a duty or obligation to obey such laws. Indeed, good citizens have a duty and obligation to see that such laws are struck down and removed from the books and that those who have participated in making and upholding those laws are removed from office, as those people are perverse and direct threats to the inalienable rights of all citizens.

Question 8, from my 52PQ: Assume that a young man and young woman that you know have fallen in love and are planning to get married. They were orphaned as babies, one and two years old. Due to circumstances at the time the children were sent to two different orphanages and later adopted by two different families. You knew their parents and know that they are actually half-brother and half-sister; same mother, different fathers. The records have been lost and no one but you knows the relationship of these two young people, not even the young couple's adoptive families. Further, the young woman has become pregnant by the young man. You must choose between (A) telling them the truth (and you have the evidence to back up your words) or (B) wishing them a very happy and long marriage and congratulating them on the pregnancy.

The answer for number 8: Half brother and sister are nearly like first cousins who, in many states of the United States and many other nations, can legally marry. Were they full brother and sister you might wish to inform them and let them make the decision themselves. Abraham, of the Bible, and his wife Sarah were half brother and sister; same father, different mothers. The major problem with having sex with a close relative—incest—is the possibility of producing mentally and/or physically weak, sickly, or deformed children, due to reinforcement of bad recessive genes. People who carry bad recessive genes can marry with no legal problems, even if both persons carry the bad recessive, as long as they are not close relatives, because there is no DNA screening done. Further, not every child born of an incestuous relationship is genetically damaged. It is possible that this couple, the half brother and sister could well have normal, healthy children. If you tell them now it would serve no purpose except to upset them, maybe break up a happy couple, and cause her to get an abortion or, at the very least, worry herself sick until the birth of the child. (B) = correct.

Question number 8 is a rather "tame" one. There are many others that a majority of the people who read them would find shocking. Still, all the questions are designed to make one think logically . . . if one can.

No comments: