I'm having a little trouble getting in the state of mind necessary to write the sort Comprehensible Nonsense parable that I want as a companion piece to "Little Ms Deeds", so I am still working on The Parable of the Evil of Root", I hope you will bear with me, but I find myself with some thoughts on authority that Kosher raised by his posting at :
http://open.salon.com/blog/koshersalaami/2012/05/09/dirty_hands
and I would like your thoughts as an aid to putting down my thoughts on the relationship between Reason, Self, and Authority- including the moral vs the legal authority of a system of government or regulation imposed upon or agreed to by a Reasoning being. - which is the underlying theme of my next post in the Chautauqua.
So: Kosher puts forth that he is a new congressman, and he is faced with the dilemna of either
1.voting his coscience or
2. Helping people
he poses this in the dilemna of whether he should accept a "deal" with a more powerful colleague who wishes to trade support for Kosher's Gay Marriage bill for kosher's support on a bill that is envionmentally unfriendly. -see kosher's post for more detail and comment
Anyway, my comments:
By whose Rules will you play? Are there any rules?
Is what you talk about a sportsmanlike endeavor, or a Free for All?
Is anything that a congressman does dishonorable, or is it honorable simply because he “helps” people ?
I find myself musing on my career as a wrestler. I didn't wrestle in high school, my high school didn't have a team. Our football team wrestled other schools football teams, as winter conditioning, but we had no formal league and no formal referees. I'd been practicing judo and other self defense arts since I 'd been 6, and no one was too clear about what sorts of pressure or choke holds were illegal in collegiate wrestling, so I was never disqualified for my “unintentional” use of such holds. I won all of my matches .
I made the OSU wrestling team my freshman year, not because I could wrestle, but because I could fight, and the coach saw some hope of teaching me to fight by the rules.
I spent my wrestling career at OSU being the practice dummy for a kid that went on to be Big ten champ in my weight class, and did so for 3 years. I got kind of tired of being out wrestled within the rules, but he was wrestling and I was “judo”ing. He'd come to OSU on a wrestling scholarship from Cleveland, and had had years of practice within the rules, which are specifically designed to keep anyone from getting hurt.
One day, he grew particularly contemptuous of me and called me a “Fish” ( a grave insult in wrestling )
We faced off again and I threw him over my hip and got him on the mat and choked him out. ( Both of which would have gotten me disqualified in a match ) and I said, “Jim, are we wrestling or are we fighting, cause it makes a difference.”
So, are you going to congress to play by the rules or not? The Rules are the rule of Reason, Enlightenment, Liberty, Freedom and Self Government. These rules are pretty clearly laid out in the Constitution. As a representative of the people, you are not there as a governor, but as a referee.
I've lost the reference for this quote, but to me it sums up the expectations of a Liberal government. You are not there to either vote your conscience or Help people- ( your help to one will necessarily be someone else's Harm)
Government by the people, Liberal government
“…does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this -- that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes.”
That said, the Constitution has about as much to do with the way the federal government currently, behaves as the NCAA rules of intercollegiate wrestling have to do with the WWE ( late WWF) Professional wrestling, It sickens and amuses me that anyone in Washington pretends differently.
As someone trained in the martial arts, I recognize the difference between the WWE charade, and the rules of athletic competition, as well as being aware that the rules I operate under as a martial artist in self defense is simply to “Win”.
I tried to be honorable in collegiate wrestling and not hurt anyone, and so I never did wrestle in an actual collegiate meet. You might think that that means that I would approve of the free for all atmosphere of the WWE ( or by extension, our current federal government)
What I would say is, whatever the WWE is doing, it isn't wrestling.
Whatever the Federal government is currently doing, it isn't Liberal government.
As far as getting my hands dirty, I'd quit trying to weight the outcome one way or the other, and referee fairly, not “help”, and not attempt to impose my conscience on others.
I'd try to play by the rules as written, not as interpreted by “Professionals”
And if I had to fight for my life ( or my honor) with a “professional wrestler”, I wouldn't wrestle him.
I'd shoot him.
Kosher replies:
"HRdR,
A good question but I don't think the one I'm asking. I'm not talking about cheating per se. Still, I enjoyed the story in the comment."
My next comment:
Kosher
What I'm getting at is a variation of what Jan is saying-
As a Congressman, you do not have legitimate authority to either vote your conscience, or "help" people-
He says essentially that you can't avoid getting your hands dirty- which is true, I am saying that you pose a question that exceeds your authority.
We have Professional Wrestlers ( actors, clowns, stunt-men) pretending to hold an intercollegiate wrestling meet, making up the rules as they go along.
I'll make another example- If you are the investigator in a missing child case, and you've caught the child molester that you believe has kidnapped a child- will you torture him to to find out where the child is?
The short and nasty answer is that you haven't the authority to do so. That you would even think about doing it is corruption of your actual legal authority.
That you would go ahead and torture your prisoner ( as the noble cops on the TV crime dramas do) would, in a system of honor, require that you then cleanse yourself and the office, by committing Seppuku. ( (by the way, you have the wrong guy)
In relation to my parable of "Professional Wrestlers" holding an intercollegiate wrestling meet and "Dirty Hands", I'm further struck by the notion that once you've decided that what you are doing is essentially a morality play with rules that you make up solely for entertainment and your own enrichment, it's too late to quibble about "Dirty Hands" ( "the rules" vs your morality )
If you're going to hold a circus in a church, you might as well be the clown as the ringmaster. In either case, I'm not going to mistake you for a priest, and it is insulting and absurd that you should dress up in vestments and pretend to be one.
PS- not YOU personally, I'm afraid i was thinking of some of our more self righteous congress critters- of either denomination.
kosher replied:
HRdR,
Exceeds your authority how? Congress can legislate all sorts of things that it should legislate. What would be wrong with, for example, increasing Pell Grants?
So if we think that it would be good for the economy to give students more aid for college education, but the only way we can accomplish that is by putting a pork barrel project in some legislator's district, do we do it? It's essentially legislative graft, but these kids need help, and our economy could run into problems if they stay in debt their whole lives. In an ideal world, we don't deal with graft, but someone puts a pretty face on this pork barrel project and calls it necessary, even though we know different.
So, clean hands and a bad economy and students fighting with debt for the rest of their lives, or dirty hands (which has a little ambiguity when people claim that the pork barrel project really isn't one) and a better economy with students suffering less?
What is being moral? What is being naive? What is being responsible? What is being realistic? I can make either case.
my response:
"Can" and "May" are different attitudes toward consent. To have valid authority to legislate, you must have my CONSENT- not my implied consent, not consent that I've some how unwittingly given by my presence in society, you need my actual informed consent, or I have no moral obligation to comply, and we are back to government by force majeur. To paraphrase Younger bear in "Little Big Man", if you force me without my consent (Rape- Rapio- Latin :seize by force) , I am free to kill you without becoming a bad person.
In the same manner, that consent to have sex is the difference between making love and rape- let's be clear about what we are discussing.
Of course, congress DOES all sorts of things it doesn't have the authority to do under the Constitution. ( I'm sorry, the process for amending the Constitution does not include bribing someone you hate by pretending his seizure of unauthorized power is "legal" so that he will pretend yours is. )
The analogy I make is that Wrestling, as defined by the NCAA has a certain set of rules. Either you agree to play by them, or your play is not sanctioned by the NCAA.
To have our current congress pretend that it is operating under the Constitution is as ludicrous as the WWE seeking to hold an NCAA sanctioned tournament.
I was pushing the analogy by pointing out that I was constrained by NCAA rules from using a more deadly form of fighting to obtain "victory", and that there is a clear distinction between what the rules authorize for wrestling competition vs mortal combat. I could certainly have chocked to death the kid who beat me at wrestling, but I doubt that they would have let me compete in his place.
"Professional" wrestling is not mortal combat, it is the performance art version of NCAA wrestling, wherein the actors do a morality play that has been worked out among them beforehand. No one with any sense actually thinks that there are any rules that actually apply, the referee is a mere stooge and buffoon. who may or may not do his own bit to further the action by taking bribes, turning a blind eye, or just being terminally gullible.
Our congress is currently way beyond any authority ever envisioned by the Constitution. Your agonizing over whether going along to get along with the stunt men currently pretending to authority is roughly equivalent to agonizing over whether you should abide by the NCAA rule about “no choke holds” while everyone around you is hitting each other with chairs.
Or, as in the other, perhaps more applicable metaphor, it is like a clown troop who have taken over a church and are mockingly performing a black mass on the alter. That one of them should scruple about whether he is “permitted” to hear confessions is both rather naive and rather ludicrous. ( We won't get into blasphemous and heretical)
All that to say, I don't recognize the authority of Congress, as they are currently interpreting the rules: ie: so that the big time wrestling promoters ( Crony Capitalists) can make huge profits and pay the promotional fees and bribes so necessary for the continuance of the performance.
That doesn't mean that I don't have to put up with them.
What it means is that, if one of the “professional Wrestlers” challenges me to a “Fight” ( tries to enforce his unlawful “authority”) I 'm not going to go all “Martial Arts” on him. I'm going to shoot him. And I won't become a bad person by doing so.
Gay Marriage? The state has no business being in the marriage promotion business .
If you want to give certain advantages to “incorporated” couples ( or multiples- or pets, or lawn furniture) we can discuss it, but I won't consent to your authority to make a law concerning it. ( we really need to revisit the whole concept of Non – natural personhood)
Environmental legislation? That is a valid public concern, as far as empirical evidence can be gathered of public harm- but I'm not willing to consent to the legislation of hysteria and puffery by “statistical analysis” by either side of an issue.
You, perhaps are unconcerned with my permission, and will wave it aside as irrelevant-
And then our “government” can revert from any semblance of “Liberality” and “ Democracy” and get back to the honest basics of who is most efficient at either killing off or enslaving those who will not consent to be raped. I've got neighbors who are looking forward to it- how about you?
So you are making a similar case to Jan's - that the question is irrelevant because the institution in question is so far past legitimate that what I'm asking is the equivalent of (to use a cliche) rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I'm puzzled by one thing you said: "I'm not willing to consent to the legislation of hysteria and puffery by 'statistical analysis' by either side of an issue." What's your problem with statistical analysis in particular? It's actually quite useful. It can also be manipulated, though manipulation can often be spotted if the numbers aren't actually fabricated.
One of these days I might write a post about the basics of keeping research valid and how to tell if someone is trying to or not. I try not to toss around too much jargon but I won't hesitate to use a term like "controlling for a variable." It occurs to me that not all readers will know what I'm talking about.
Similar, but not the same.
It's quite possible ( not likely) that the wrestlers in the WWE could decide that they will go back to playing by NCAA rules. ( Many of them are former collegiate wrestlers) In wrestling practice at OSU, we would quite often have informal "wrastling" matches, what you might think of as precoursers of mixed martial arts contests. but we knew the difference.
You could make a difference in congress, just by refusing to play or go along until everyone agrees to return to the original rules. many of the 2010 freshman class T-party congressmen were elected on a pledge to do just that.
As for blasphemous clowns taking over the church, hell, any 16th century Roman Catholic clergy man would have told you that that was exactly what Martin Luther and his gang were doing.
Not by Catholic doctrine, but by protestant, any one of the clowns might find himself called by god and lead the circus back into the righteous use of the church as it was meant to be.
It is absolutely worth running for congress, but going along to get along is why the people have lost respect for congress and government in general, and quite frankly, refuse to recognize its authority to meddle with their lives.
Is congress to be a body that has the consent of the people, or is it to be like any other instrument of rape, used by the privileged to lend an air of authority to their crimes?
Would you mind if I posted your theme, and my comments and your replies on my blog? I am interested in how others view the authority and consent which we allow our government.
"Science" is so corrupted by "Funding" at this point that it has become the collection of cherry picked statistics that prove whatever your funding source wants to prove - science must rely on statistics for some of its theories about things too large to be directly measured, true. But, as they say, statistics may not lie, but statisticians do.
That statistics don't lie but statisticians do is my point.
I'm getting the impression that a lot of the readers of this post aren't quite getting where I'm going. My point wasn't about going along to get along - it was not about surviving in an institution. The dilemma I posed had those factors listed but that wasn't the core of the question. The core was about the tension between maintaining purity and getting something done. I'm assuming that the protagonist in my scenario is moral throughout the decision.
Thanks
My point in regard to the question of maintaining purity vs getting something done, is that you cannot "get something done" unless you have the authority to do it. Your moral purity is what gives you the authority to enforce your will on others. ( Torture the kidnapper to find out where he has the victim). But, in acquiring the means, you have lost the end.
Many warrior tribes ( including the Israelites, if I'm not mistaken) have/had elaborate purification rituals that must be observed to regain honor after a warrior had polluted himself by "doing what was necessary".
My point about congress is their insistence that there is no set of rules binding them, They and the rest of the federal government are mainly composed of lawyers willing to quibble endlessly with you about what the meaning of "is" is, rather than acknowledge the plain fact that they have abandoned any pretext of moral authority. ( By moral authority I mean both the consent of the governed and the ability to lead by example)
The Chinese and Japanese had the best system for deciding whether "getting something done" was worth breaking your moral code. A warrior could do anything he felt necessary, so long as he killed himself after ward.
I'd be delighted to see that moral code adopted by our congress.
I have an obligation to love and help all beings as if they were my SELF- and in doing so, I both accept and express my love of god ( my community of being)
I divide all beings into “Reasonable Creatures” and “varmints”
Reasonable Creatures include all creatures, human or not, with whom I share communion- mutual respect and love. This includes my pets, your pets and most domestic creatures.
“Varmints” are those creatures ( some will present themselves as human) with whom I cannot maintain a reasonable relationship of mutual respect. I am enjoined to love them anyway.
The difference is, that if varmints will not respect me, I may ask them to please not annoy me, until finally I have had enough, ( “enough” may be anywhere from seconds in the case of an ambushing predator to decades with an unresponsive official) and from that point on, I may treat them as sports equipment. (in the most loving way possible, of course) without becoming a bad person.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Darla Carmichael
Michael E. Ross
Inverted Interrobang
Doc Vega
mistylee<3
Steve Kenny
Salon.com
Comments
1. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
2. History and law are written by the winners.
Outside of those, it's always been pretty much anything goes... LBJ kept files on anyone and everyone who contacted his office during his entire political career. My favorite example of his tactics (apocryphal or not) was when he ran for the primary to the US Senate he told his minions to spread rumors that a rival Democrat "...has had intimate knowledge of barnyard animals." When the minions objected saying it wasn't true, LBJ scoffed and replied,"Hell I know that! I just want see what happens when that poor SOB denies it!" When it came time to get the 1965 Civil Right Act through congress, LBJ buttered up progressive Republicans and didn't just twist the arms of reluctant Democrats, but threatened to reveal embarrassing details of their personal behavior that would destroy their political careers.
Those are the ethics of politics 60 years ago, it was much worse when Jefferson and Lincoln ran for President.
Here's the deal. The entire examination is bindblowingly fraught with that old string...reality.
I'd much rather deal in the more controllable (and often much more swallow ready) fictions.
At least today...daddy has a hangover.
There's a critical detail missing from the discussion, which seems to be missing in replies. In the scenario I painted, the new Congressman (which, here, seems to be played by me) understands that he cannot affect the outcome of the bad environmental legislation no matter which way he votes. So, if he gives the more senior Congressman his vote, it is a cosmetic display of gratitude but it will not result in any environmental damage per se; that damage is already a foregone conclusion. My Congressman would look like an ass by placing that vote but would 1. not actually harm any constituents or even the cause of any constituents and 2. would help some deserving constituents significantly by getting rid of an injustice. So the question is: Is it better to vote one's conscience on both bills independently, regardless of consequences, or is it better to net out a more desireable outcome but to look less than honorable while doing so? That's look less honorable to one's constituents, probably not to one's peers, who are going to be far more familiar with how the political game works. I can make both cases. If my Congressman's vote on the environmental bill had the potential to really help it pass, my path would be clear and there wouldn't be a dilemma. This is not about ranking the priorities of constituents, it's about getting more for constituents possibly at the cost of one's image and reputation.
My post is not about "how ethical do you need to be?" It's about how there are moral consequences in both directions and also about how many choices involve moral consequences in both directions. My objection is with those who fail to recognize that they face dilemmas when they do; refusing to acknowledge one's responsibilities in both directions when they exist doesn't constitute a moral choice, just the avoidance of one.