Extreme Even for Me — Throwing out the Rule of Law? No Thanks

Your mistake is that you place written law ahead of moral law. As you have written before, the only moral purpose of government at any level is the protection of individual rights. Just as laws that infringe on individual rights are invalid, so too are laws that prohibit government from protecting individual rights. Therefore, the absence of a constitutional amndment authorizing the government to protect abortion rights can and should be disregarded. If the state governments would criminalize abortion, the Federal government should step in and garuntee to uphold abortion rights. Protecting individual rights is ALWAYS the right thing for the government to do regardless of the flaws in the Constitution. A proper Constitution is important, but philosophy is more important than any political device.

This was a comment left anonymously here.

In essence, it’s a subtle acceptance of much of what is wrong in the American States at present. It’s not obvious of course, but it is there none the less, and it is most definitely worth pointing out. Especially because Ayn Rand was of the same opinion, and this is one of the few areas I very strongly disagree with her — much like her indifference towards gun ownership. Apparently I am not alone in my disagreement however.

In any case, I have bolded what is especially disturbing — “laws prohibiting government from protecting individual rights”. This is bolded because in the context used, it is a complete dismissal of federalism and the objective history and subsequent laws American government at all levels are organized under.

It is a contradiction because it is the root cause of the homogeneziation of our country that has directly resulted in a softly tyrannical “national government”, which is not authorized under our supreme law as a valid structure of government.

That’s right, there is no such thing as a “national” government in the American States. We have a FEDERAL government that is authorized under the United States Constitution and THESE TWO ARE NOT APPROXIMIATE SYNONYMS (further reading).

Not to get “biblical” here, but as the saying goes, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

And this is indeed one of them — impregnating an entire culture that there is such thing as a national American government, and installing the idea that this is synonymous with the federal government which was voluntarily authorized via the United States Constitution.

And why is this important?

Because national presupposes superior to and above.

Federal, properly understood, signifies general government between the States that make up the federal union of American States.

The dichotomy that’s been washed over your eyes as insignificant is overpowering vs in between — or to call out its exact nature, master versus mediator.

Which is the basic premise underpinning this supposed supporter of individual rights. Government is just government eh?

Not quite. And what he is proposing is tantamount to an all power federal government that acts as a national government — ordering the States to obey, or face violent force. In it’s infancy, this is the kind of thinking that led to the American Holocaust, also known as the American Civil War, where ~650,000 people died, the modern equivalent of 5+ million.

Which, to put it in perspective, is the equivalent today of blowing a handful of American States off the face of the earth.

That is end conclusion of throwing out the rule of law for how our government is and was objectively organized for the range of the moment caveman style approach to protecting individual rights. It is tantamount to blurting out every passing thought and trying to pass it as effective, open, and honest communication.

It is complete, monolithic, war mongering, nonsense. It is the same logic crusading neo-con christians use today to justify undeclared, unconstitutional, illegal invasions in the middle east — for “moral duty” to protect Israel and forcefully install democracy (wtf?), to protect women from brutal cultural practices, “save the children” from growing up in a primitive culture, etc.

This kind of thinking is the anti-thesis to Declarationism, which is the only fully consistent and rationally patriotic political philosophy an American can hold that is actually possible to practice in our federal union and is in fact the law.

It specifically prohibits the federal government from initiating force against any State and instead seeks to suspend it from the union for violating individual rights, and if not remedied in a reasonable amount of time, eject it from the voluntary federal union which is the united American States.

The greatest country on earth and to have ever existed.

States as such being in violation of their contract with the nation that the Declaration of Independence created, and subsequently forfeiting their participation in such union by violating the rights of man the individual, man the hero, and man the rational being.

— Anthony Dream Johnson

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

16 Responses to Extreme Even for Me — Throwing out the Rule of Law? No Thanks

  1. disappointment October 18, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Yours is the libertarian argument – Ayn Rand’s political philosophy divorced from its foundations in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Your beliefs are exactly the reason for the loss of the original American Republic.

    The root cause of our government’s tendency to become increasingly tyrannical is the country’s intellectual degeneration, i.e. the propagation of bad philosophical ideas, not lack of respect for the Constitution. The latter is only a consequence of the former. Even a perfect Constitution wouldn’t hold off the growth of the state in a country that didn’t uphold the philosophy of individual rights on an intellectual level.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is sheer bullshit. The real reason that America MUST be involved in the middle east is that this country has vital economic interests (yes, OIL) in the region. It is morally right for Americans to both produce oil in the middle east and purchase oil from foreigners who produce it there. If a roving band of Muslim tribal chiefs like the government of Iran obstructs Americans’ ability to acquire oil in the middle east, the US government must protect the rights of Americans by annihilating the aggressor (Iran).

    I agree that America shouldn’t pursue foolish, altruistic policies like interfering in the internal affair of other countries. Instead, America’s foreign policy should be as follows: if a foreign government obstructs the flow of oil to America, KABOOM, goodbye. If a foreign government sponsors terrorism against Americans, KABOOM, goodbye. Make Americans feel threatened in any way? Dismantle your military or else KABOOM, goodbye.

    Rather than allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we should instead use our own nuclear weapons to leave a giant crater were Iran is now. America shouldn’t tolerate this fucking Muslim bullshit for two seconds.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

      Nonsense. Declarationism is the American exercise of capitalism and is fully encompassing. It is not a flavor of libertarianism that avoids philosophy at all turns. Quite the opposite.

      What’s more, you are creating a lethal and false dichotomy between written American law and objective morality. It is this dichotomy that declarationism closes. This is it’s beauty, and why it is superior to the contradictory political philosophies of our day.

      What you claim to be an “intellectual level” is in fact the assertion that written law is open to the subjective interpretation of any one person, group, State, or nation. I am stating that the Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution, and the entire history of our country, can be objectively and is accurately interpreted to be, Declarationism.

      That no government between the States has or can ever have the legal authority to violate the rights of the individual — that any State in such a union of States is in violation with the DOI and should be ejected from the Union if such violations are not corrected for.

      Declarationism states that the rights of man are not, have never, and can never be up for delegation to any government, or other group of individuals.

      I am stating that while it may not be practical, it is fully legal to defend your life with any force necessary against involuntary taxes, military slavery, and all other federal violations of your right to exist and exist for your own sake.

      Regarding your “kaboom” comments, to say they are disturbing is an understatement. “Kaboom” in your context means murdering a couple million people, inciting intense hated against our country, and generally acting on emotional whims — with nuclear weapons. Retaliatory defense is not the equivalent of terrorizing the world, which is exactly what you are suggesting.

      • disappointment October 18, 2011 at 5:33 pm #

        Either accept that a certain number of Muslims have to die for the crimes of their governments or accept that a certain number of Americans have to starve to death when the oil stops coming in and we can’t grow food anymore. It’s either-or.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

          The essence of your comment is lose/lose.

          The sign of the morally depraved — the zero for all.

          For me to live you have to die?

          +1 -1 = 0

          Nonsense, like everything else you’ve written.

          • disappointment October 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

            an act of justifiable retaliation != a loss of any kind

            • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 5:50 pm #

              So if you spit in my face and cause me embarrassment I’m justified in blowing your head off?

              That’s like saying we should have nuked the entire middle east when governments there refused to pluck Bin Laden out of a hole in the ground.

              • disappointment October 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

                1) I don’t spit at people.

                2) Sponsoring terrorism is something much worse than spitting.

                3) There are intermediate steps between passivity and nuking another country.

                4) If we had dealt with the middle east rationally from the get-go, 9/11 would never have happened.

                5) Any government that protected Bin Laden would have deserved to be bombed even if we didn’t actually go through with it.

                • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

                  1) I didn’t say you did — I said if you did.

                  2) Sponsoring terrorism is worse than spitting in someone’s face. This doesn’t change the fact that I’m not justified in chopping your hand off for stealing grapefruit out of my backyard.

                  3) I am not an advocate of neutrality, and neither is Ron Paul. I’m an advocate of retaliatory force in self-defense for extreme situations that appropriately call for it.

                  I suppose the phrase “don’t go to war and kill tens of millions of people carelessly” has no meaning to you.

                  4) This is an assumption you’ll never prove, and is not supported by pestering these people with bullets and bombs for the past 50+ years.

                  These people are highly irrational. The conventional solution has been a half way kinda sorta somewhat behind the scenes war for decades. Your uber awesome solution is to blow them off the face of the earth — yesterday.

                  You say this as if it would not inspire leagues of suicide terrorism and calls for “holy war” from all remaining Muslims on the planet.

                  That’s like blowing up an anthill and next expecting the remaining ants that landed on your face not to bite you with everything they have and then some.

                  5) Any government openly and actively protecting Bin Laden would have deserved this. Refusing to speak on the matter is something entirely.

  2. disappointment October 18, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    P.S. if everyone in the world was an Objectivist, we could have a single code of laws governing entire Earth and it wouldn’t matter because nobody would ever attempt to violate the rights of anyone else. Remember, “there are no conflicts of interest among rational men.”

    • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

      No, we couldn’t, and this is the core of the issue that is totally flying over your head. The entire world should be governed by the same principles — the individual rights of man.

      How these are upheld in detail is going to change from one geographic region to the next, including police organization, court systems, and especially, military defense against other nations, no matter who is running those other nations, how moral, and how consistently rational they are in sum total.

      • disappointment October 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

        Why? Why should the organization of government be different between two areas? Why should the penalty for armed robbery be 10 years in one country and 5 years in another? How does any principle change from one region to the next?

        • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 5:44 pm #

          Because to be fully rational is to act to the best of your ability on your total sum knowledge, WITH A RESPECT FOR FUTURE KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN MADE MANIFEST.

          You’re talking about universally — which is to say globally — prescribing punishment for a specific crime in all cultures across the entire world.

          You’re talking about perfection that will never exist. I’m talking about an ideal life on earth, the best and highest possible.

          Who are you to dictate how many years someone spends in jail for armed robbery 3,000 miles from where you live on a year round basis?

          Yeah, the same thing happens here — in a different society, to different people, with different values. You’re changing context dramatically and ignoring it as if all human beings and cultures were fucking clones.

          Man the mindless robot is your tune.

          • disappointment October 18, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

            See my previous post that started with “P.S.” I was specifically talking about a hypothetical scenario where everyone in the world subscribes to the philosophy of individual rights. That’s the context, and IT IS possible. I predict that 200 years from now, good philosophy will be as widespread as bad philosophy is now.

            The purpose of having sovereign state governments as opposed to an all-powerful federal government is to resist the tendency of the federal government to grow and become tyrannical. That tendency is the direct result of bad philosophy propagated by a country’s intellectuals and acted upon by its voters. If everyone in America was an Objectivist, nobody would aspire to abuse the power of government, there would be no tendency for the Federal government to grow and the reason for having state government would be rendered obsolete.

            You argue that this is irrelevant because we don’t live in a country where everyone is an Objectivist. Well, in the absence of respect for individual rights, our politicians don’t respect the Constitution anyway. We have 50 sovereign state governments, and the Federal government tramples most of our rights anyway. So how are we any better off?

            My point is that the direction of a country is determined by philosophy, NOT how the Constitution defines the structure of the government.

            • Anthony Dream Johnson October 18, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

              As I mentioned, you think range of the moment. You are a caveman protecting his family with a club while his neighbors are being tortured, shot, and thrown in gas chambers.

              I suspect you think this way because you fail to acknowledge man is a being of volitional consciousness, has free will, and must CHOOSE to accept the axioms of existence.

              6.5 billion people could be fully and completely rational tomorrow and remain so for the rest of their lives.

              This does not guarantee, nor is it possible to guarantee by the very essence of man’s nature, that all men will forever make the right choices.

              You cannot FORCE people to THINK. The two are antagonistic to the highest degree possible.

              You’re talking about State governments being obsolete, failing to mention how such entities are done away with, and ignoring the fate of your children, your grandchildren, and their children after them.

              Rational self-interest includes thinking long range for the new human lives you produce and are responsible for until they accumulate enough knowledge and mature psychologically into adults.

              You have a sophisticated hedonistic philosophy.


              My point is your dichotomy is false — between the legal, objective, definable structure of government and it’s total philosophy.

              Not everyone for all time will always choose reason as an absolute — no matter how many do now.

              This is the entire point of having written law that permeates generations. Law, properly, is the concretization of moral, rational, and proper government into reality for as long as can be maintained.

  3. disappointment October 18, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    Hedonism is a moral philosophy that holds pleasure as the standard of value. Nothing I said implies that anything other than life is the standard of value. You’re misusing the concept of hedonism.

    Nothing I said implies that consciousness isn’t volitional or that people can be forced to think. That is your own absurd extrapolation.

    How the American government should be configured is a complex question for the field of political science. Having accepted the axiom of existence, reason as one’s only absolute and life as his standard of value, one could still arrive at any number of conclusions. Those premises only lead to the abstract principle that the moral purpose of government is to uphold individual rights. Whatever “the” correct political system is, the answer doesn’t flow directly from philosophy. I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said on the subject, but accusing anyone who disagrees with you on how the US government should be run of not understanding philosophical principles is a fail argument.

  4. Geoff October 20, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    I agree with the commenter on at least one point; your dichotomy between federal and state governments is a false one. Government is government, whether it is on a city, county, territory, state, federal or international level. The moral purpose is the same for each. The question of which level a particular piece of legislation should occur is entirely a logistical question. Logistics change as technology evolves, in particular transportation, communication, and information organization/retreival. As these technologies improve, the world gets effectively smaller and centralization becomes comparatively cheaper. The first such centralization was the centralization of military for the sake of protection against the British empire, but this was not nor should it have been the last: http://www.armchairphilosophizing.com/2011/08/designing-moral-government-part-3-local.html.

Make your mark