SNIP So not only should one comply with the civil authority to the extent that it is legally and morally correct to do so, but one should not lose his peace over the internal struggle against an illusory power. Or, put another way, one can stop worrying about getting stopped for speeding without a radar detector simply by complying (more or less) with the traffic law. You don't have to be concerned about getting a ticket for an HOV violation if you just stay out of the HOV lane at rush hour. Such things help build a habit of patience, as well.
This stuff has a lot to do with why I practice law and talk about voluntary compliance a lot. In a society in which we (and all the other Wal-Mart Shoppers) are at least indirectly responsible for the laws we choose to enact, we have a special responsibility to all the others in the game to play by the rules. It's also why I've been questioning, lately, my participation in a system that I believe to be in a state of decay. There are good and honest people in every nook and cranny of The System (or as Marcus Borg puts it, "the Domination System"), but there is also a whole lot of just plain humans who are not intellectually honest and who regard the importance of individual people as more significant than the importance of our law. How can people be voluntarily compliant when just that part of the law which is codified would take a lifetime just to read, much less to understand?
First, let me say I recognize you are sharper and wiser than I, and that this is probably a large part semantics; so, to avoid lots of conditionals, and alternatives, I'll just dive in, treating your text in a more literal sense, saying:
I disagree.
I set my own standards for conduct. Not the state. Not society; certainly not a society that is willing to rule other equals without their express individual consent. Certainly not a society that is willing to try to seize the levers of power in order to force others to behave the way they want. If my conscience and ethics happens to coincide with "the law" and "morality", fine. It is just a matter of the two happening to coincide. Nothing more. The last who was so much better than I that he deserved to rule me was tacked up to a cross by the Romans almost two millennia ago.
I have absolutely no responsibility to others to play by the rules of yet others. Especially when most of those rules were invented by self-serving, pandering politicians. And, double-especially when those pandering, self-serving politicians rely on an asserted authority from men dead for over two hundred years.
No. My responsibility to others is not to initiate aggression against them. To leave them alone. Or, to persuade them to my ideas. Nothing more. And, they owe me the same responsibility. No one,
not one! has my signature on a contract or agreement to accept one jot more responsibility. For ****** sure, pathetically few have ever offered me the same in return even verbally.
Do I speed? No. Is it because I want to comply? No. Is it because I no longer want to go fast? You bet. Do I sometimes speed? It is very rare; but, when I do, you can bet its because I decided I wanted to or needed to (not counting accidentally). When I "comply" with some government rule, regulation, or law, you can bet its either coincidence--I happened to already have the same or higher ethical standard--or it was a grudging decision not to risk exposing myself to enforcement. I don't need "society" in the form of its "government" to tell me that murder, robbery, burglary, fraud, rape, and arson are wrong. I'm not going to go out shoot up some heroin if government suddenly decides to legalize it.
I think at the bottom of this is self-respect and self-worth. Years ago I was talking with a real live, honest-to-god, made-a-living-from-it psych. She told me our self-esteem is tied to our sense of accomplishment in life or some such. Rubbish. Years later I discovered our self-esteem is tied directly to our self-recognized harmful acts of commission and omission against our fellow human beings. No qualifications. No conditions. Plain and simple. What did you do? Who did you do it to? What should you have done that you didn't? Who did you not do it for when you should have? And, our sense of self-worth is tied directly to our contributions to others. What contribution did you make exactly to who?
While I still seek redemption, I have little doubt about my own ethics. And, I know to a relatively exacting degree my contributions to my fellows. You see, I've had some time to think it over. Some time for introspection. Can't claim I've attained Bodhi; I'm not a Louis Pasteur, Jonas Salk, or Mother Theresa. But, I am damn sure I am not a risk to others who is so stupid or dangerous he needs regulated, lawed, or ruled. And, I am damn sure nobody else is so much better than I that they deserve to set themselves above me and rule me. Once you stop doubting your own self-worth, start recovering your self-respect, you come to realize the rest of the world isn't enough better than you that they deserve to rule you. You come to realize that the "rulers" are just playing on your own self-doubts about your own self-worth and ethics--and everybody else's.
Which is really just another way of saying the individual really is
all-important. I know that isn't what User meant when he said some treat the individual as more important than the law; I'm just using his comment as a jumping off point. The fact is, without individuals, there can be no society. Rulers are just playing down the individual, banking on his own lack of self-worth and self-respect, using his own appreciation of his fellow human beings to get him to elevate society (other individuals) above himself, their arguments always calling on the individual to make some sacrifice for the "good of society."
Do I respect the individual? You decide. Here is a simple idea I've expressed for maybe two years now: "There is no person on this earth I hate so much that I would actually vote to afflict him with government."
