Modernity reframes all authority as “abuse”
August 27, 2013 § 36 Comments
Abuse of authority is pretty pervasive in human societies, because human beings are fallen creatures and we frequently abuse the things over which we are stewards. A recent thread at The Orthosphere turned into a discussion of the relationship between Christian orthodoxy and slavery. This discussion in turn depends on mostly unspoken assumptions about property.
Liberalism has always used the fallenness of actual human beings in authority as a rhetorical means of attacking authority in general. In manosphere terms this represents a colossal multi-century cultural “reframe”: rather than expressing outrage at actual abuse and attempting to get actual abuse corrected, distinguishing between legitimate authority/hierarchy and its abuse, authority/hierarchy in general is treated by liberalism as intrinsically abusive.
Ironically, by attacking all hierarchy/authority as abuse liberalism leaves us with only arid concepts of authority (including the authority of ownership), concepts which are intrinsically abusive. My comment in the Orthosphere thread:
I’ve been saying for a long time now that it isn’t just slavery that is intrinsically wrong under modern conceptions of property: all “ownership” is intrinsically wrong under modern conceptions of property. The proprietor understood as tinpot god, completely unfettered triumphant Will, unchecked lord and master over some (any) material thing at all is morally problematic.
When ownership is understood properly, as a cognate of stewardship and sovereignty, the supposed problems disappear.
In attacking all authority/hierarchy (monarchy, aristocracy, male headship of the household, etc) as intrinsically abusive – because the mere existence of nonconsensual authority/hierarchy violates the core liberal tenet of equality – liberalism creates a world in which nothing but abuse is possible.
So I am smart enough to know that you do not care at all what I, or probably anyone, thinks about your opinions. But I gotta say, the world must be a terrible and terrifying place for you — thought it’d be fun to see through your perspective for a day or two, and then come back to the progressive reality ushered in over the past several centuries. Like watching a matinée slasher horror film before walking out of the cinema into the bright early spring sunshine.
And of course I don’t expect you to actually post this.
Looks like I was wrong about your posting. Happy that it is so.
Welcome back, miliukov.
I myself felt a bit lacking the definitions of property that libertarians and other economists use but I have never been able to convince anybody to see my point.
But I wonder what exactly you find lacking in conventional definition of property?
I regard property relation as a consequence of the rational nature of man. A property right (notice the word “right”) is a conclusion of a series of arguments, ultimately to the premise that man must eat by sweat of his brow.
A sovereign defines the space in which these arguments can be made and settled. That is, a sovereign defines a state of law.
Gian:
In a nutshell, I would suggest that modernity looks at property and sees something over which a man can assert his arbitrary will, as opposed to something over which a man has (some) authority because he is responsible for it.
And of course I don’t expect you to actually post this.
Project, much?
“But I gotta say, the world must be a terrible and terrifying place for you”
Having met Zippy personally, this is simply not true. Not for me either. Or as Chesterton put it:
All the world is darkened by these terrible falsifications of the nature of Man and the duty he owes his Creator. For solace we look not to the morbid optimism of the world, but to a hope which was ably captured in a statement of the man from whose short book we shamelessly take our own title, who by his great “metaphysical intuition of being” penetrated to the heart of these falsifications. His words were these: “The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.”
Or, just think of us as the brownies from Willow: http://youtu.be/lCxEqH7u_iM 😀
Like.
Surely the economists talk in terms of ‘bundles of rights’ when they talk about property.
It is only Mieseans or some conservatives that tend to be property absolutists.
Gian:
It depends on the property. Leftists are extreme absolutists when it comes to the body qua property, for example. The tattoo epidemic reflects this attitude in popular culture.
Self-ownership is, I believe, the axiom on which libertarians base their philosophy. This only shows how akin libertarians are to the left.
The tattoo epidemic reflects this attitude in popular culture.
I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. I’d be interested in a survey to see if there is any correlation between people with tattoos and belief in “right to die”.
There is definitely correlation between tattoos and promiscuity: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-to-screen-good-girls-from-bad.html
I’ll add something to the tattoos and promiscuity link:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/tattoos-and-body-modifications-links.html
[…] discussed how modernity’s concept of property is broken, because in its zeal to reframe all authority as abuse it attempts to substitute the human will for natural-law based authority. Thus modernity frequently […]
[…] This applies across the board. We are stewards, we are not owners, as Zippy quite correctly points out. […]
[…] In Modernity reframes all authority as “abuse”, Zippy Catholic writes: […]
A bad man, or a bad husband, or a bad priest, is going to be a progressive – not because all progressives are bad people, but because, progressivism being where the power is, all bad people are progressives.
He will therefore both assert and disown the authority appropriate to his role. He will be, among other things, a “feminist”. So, pick up on him disowning.
[…] Modernity reframes all authority as “abuse”, Zippy Catholic […]
“Self-ownership is, I believe, the axiom on which libertarians base their philosophy. This only shows how akin libertarians are to the left.”
I’m not sure about that. The American left is very selective in how it applies the concept of property and self-ownership. It’s like “my body [and the other person living inside of me] is mine. Everything else belongs to the state.”
Libertarians couple freedom with property rights. In this regard, I agree with them. Property taxes, for example, mean I am merely “renting” my land from the government.
I also agree with the philosphical/biblical approach to stewardship, but I do not wish to make this law for everyone to obey.
[…] as legitimate precisely because they see themselves as defending the freedom and equal rights of the oppressed (and potential oppressed) against authoritarian […]
[…] may exist in a non-normative sense, but they (contra reality) have no teeth, and indeed must be made to have no teeth. Behaviorism proposes to reduce the human experience to nothing but observable […]
[…] the mind viruses that modernity uses to short circuit your thinking. By presenting you with a false alternative between liberalism and tyranny, liberalism always […]
[…] But modernity values freedom – personal autonomy – above all else, which is actually why our politics becomes so tyrannical; and the idea of grown human beings placed under the authority of other flawed human beings is anathema. […]
[…] officers, and teachers must still bear the full weight of responsibility for their charges but they no longer have any authority to guide, correct, or […]
[…] the most part, most people don’t even know what usury means anymore. Most people think that authority is the problem. But every new person who learns, who understands, who accepts is a tiny shovelful of dirt carried […]
[…] configures itself in a disorganized, organic, patriarchal cluster of hierarchies. Human beings do often tend to abuse authority when they have it, so moderns are always looking for some way to practice politics by abolishing it: to replace […]
[…] It also makes folks think that real things are unreal. A husband and father’s authority is just tyranny. The wife’s commitment to satisfy the marriage debt is rape. Taxation is theft, because the […]
[…] the extent of their commitment to liberalism), an insufferable sense of entitlement and a view of authority as tyranny. Part and parcel to that sense of entitlement is begging the question in favor of their own […]
[…] and thus destroys politics. It invalidates actual authority (authority in action), makes rejection of authority into the principle of authority, thereby unleashing the unconstrained […]
[…] or ruling classes are typically composed of fairly mediocre ordinary human beings, and that is all for the best. Everyone seems to assume that we need political leaders and popes […]
[…] I’ve argued before that there are no free societies: that when people use the term “free” or “freedom” in a political context what they really mean is that the “more free” society puts the right sort of people in prison. “Less free” societies put the wrong sort of people in prison; so “freedom” in the political motte has become a way of expressing the speaker’s approval of that society’s rules and customs, while tyranny has become a way of expressing disapproval[1]. […]
[…] and equal wills of the individuals who make up a polity. Opposing itself to natural authority as inherently tyrannical, liberalism insists that all authority must be mediated through the triumph of the human will. […]
[…] a civil society with minimal violence; a society which does not require a lot of messy exercise of easily-abused authority, auhtority which in any case just falls to certain people by accident of birth. Nothing […]
[…] it dissolve? Who could have predicted that treating human authority and hierarchy as if it were what is wrong with the world would lead to its dissolution and reconstitution as an inhuman […]
[…] and their beloved simulations and fictions; people who believe that messy human authority and fallibility can be dispensed with and replaced by machines. There are always substantial numbers of naive […]