Only discriminating authoritarians can resist tyranny

March 22, 2014 § 112 Comments

Liberalism believes itself to be anti-authoritarian.  In fact anti-authoritarianism is intrinsic to liberalism and is what constitutes its self-justification.   Liberals see their political views as legitimate precisely because they see themselves as defending the freedom and equal rights of the oppressed (and potential oppressed) against authoritarian tyrants.

However, this is an illusion.  There are no anti-authoritarian political philosophies.

It is important to be clear here.  I am not suggesting that liberalism could be, but is not, authentically anti-authoritarian.  I am pointing out that anti-authoritarian political philosophies are not possible.  They do not and cannot exist, even in principle.  A rationally coherent anti-authoritarian political philosophy is no more possible than white blackness, good evil, round squares, or any other self-contradictory concept.  Politics and governance just are the exercise of discriminating authority: authoritarianism is essential to politics and cannot be divorced from it.

So there is no such thing as anti-authoritarian politics.  As I’ve suggested before, there is only politics that is self-aware enough to know that it discriminates authoritatively in favor of a particular conception of the good, and politics that lacks self-awareness. Even anarchism proposes to impose its particular vision of the good on everyone.

It follows, perhaps counterintuitively, that only self-consciously discriminatory and authoritarian political philosophies are actually capable of coherently resisting tyranny.

§ 112 Responses to Only discriminating authoritarians can resist tyranny

  • Mike T says:

    This raises the question of precisely what is tyranny outside of a liberal context since non-liberals place a much lower premium on individual freedom relative to authority.

  • Zippy says:

    Under liberalism there is no coherent understanding of tyranny. Otherwise, though, tyranny is what it has always been: abuse of authority.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    This raises the question of precisely what is tyranny outside of a liberal context since non-liberals place a much lower premium on individual freedom relative to authority.

    Sin?

  • Mike T says:

    It follows, perhaps counterintuitively, that only self-consciously discriminatory and authoritarian political philosophies are actually capable of coherently resisting tyranny.

    Probably true in theory, but the anti-tyranny authoritarian is a creature I’ve never encountered as far as I can tell.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Reblogged this on Sunshine Mary and commented:
    Oh Sunshine Mary, you may be saying to yourself right about now, do we really have to talk about liberalism, authority, liberty, and freedom again? Can’t we just talk about sex? It’s so much more fun.

    Yes, dear reader, I agree. Talking about sex is very fun and quite distracting from the sad sight of Western Civilization crumbling while Christendom slides into apostasy. And so we shall return to talking about sex very soon, I’m sure.

    But the thing is this: we have noticed that there are a great many problems with the current state of sex, marriage, and mating at present, have we not? And we have been musing about these problems and how to solve them. That is all well and good, but attempting to solve our modern problems with sex and marriage without dealing with our implicit (and sinful) liberalism is akin to snipping a weed off at ground level and just sort of hoping what we can’t see goes away on its own. But liberalism, like weeds, does not go away on its own. If you leave the root, the weed comes back, and the root of the problem in the current SMP/MMP (sexual market place/marriage market place) lies in our rebellious liberalist beliefs. And that is why I am (perhaps) torturing my readers with my and a number of other people’s thoughts on this matter. Today’s thoughts come from Zippy Catholic, who has been criticized in some corners for saying that what men (and I assume women) really need is not some form of game but rather to repent of their liberalism.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Zippy, is there any sense in which democracy is not liberalism?

  • sunshinemary says:

    In other words, can there be such a thing as a non-liberal democracy?

  • Scott says:

    Agreed. Handing down decrees, making laws, telling people how to live their lives is what governments DO. The libertarian strain of liberalism tries to put a leash on it and say “you may come to this line, and no further.” It puts its faith in the constitution to do this. But I have figured out (and just shy of 4 decades, yeah!) that this is fallacy. Someone will be in charge, one way or another.

    Now, I was involved in local politics in my 20s and I know very personally an elected official. I was at the re-election/victory party for this particular person (which turned out to be a loss) one election night. As my dear friend walked me out to my car that evening, he said, straight faced, “I just don’t know what the people will do without me.”

    It was difficult for me to hold back my consternation, because my friend was truly distraught. But I WANTED to say “what the hell is the matter with you? The people will get up, kiss their families good by and go to work. How narcissistic can you be? You REALLY think you matter THAT much?”

    I have found that MOST politicians are that way. I just wonder what can be done about that part.

  • Norm says:

    To quote Micheal Savage. “Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

  • Larrup321 says:

    > The libertarian strain of liberalism tries to put a leash on it
    > and say “you may come to this line, and no further.”

    Read, “Democracy, the God that Failed” by Hans Herman Hoppe.
    http://www.Amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684

    The conclusions in the book are counter-intuitive, but necessarily true. The logic is impeccable.

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    Democracy is a set of procedures, whereas liberalism is a political doctrine, so they are at least theoretically distinct. Theoretically we could have a liberal monarchy or an illiberal democracy; but as a set of practices democracy tends toward liberalism and monarchy tends away from liberalism. As human beings our practices affect our thoughts and loyalties, and vice versa. Christian ritual fosters Christian belief, for example, and “if we use their words we will think their thoughts”.

    So as lived aspects of reality they are not unrelated: I have suggested in the past that democracy is to liberalism as (say) praying the rosary or going to Mass is to Catholicism.

    But they are distinct. Attending Mass is distinct from professing the Faith – heck, I was at Mass in St Peter’s Square once and people were smoking.

  • Mike T says:

    It puts its faith in the constitution to do this. But I have figured out (and just shy of 4 decades, yeah!) that this is fallacy. Someone will be in charge, one way or another.

    The US Constitution was more or less broken by most of the amendments that came after the 13th amendment. Let’s count the ways:

    The 14th amendment gave the federal government arbitrary oversight of state laws in the name of equality and freedom

    The 16th amendment gave the federal government vast new taxation authority

    The 17th amendment gave the federal government the direct election of senators which broke the Senate and the judicial nomination process

    The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote which brought about a rapid swing toward big and intrusive government

    The 26th amendment gave 18 year olds the right to vote even though they aren’t even old enough to hold public office.

    Prior to those amendments, the US Constitution worked just fine because it gave so little room to maneuver. Were we to have a constitutional convention (Article V) that struck those amendments you’d probably see a much more conservative country within one, two at the most, generations.

    The most pernicious of those is the 14th amendment. Not only did it give the oversight to the feds, but it also abolished state citizenship which meant that states could no longer determine residency and political rights for themselves.

  • Gavrila says:

    Hi Larrup,

    The conclusions in the book are counter-intuitive, but necessarily true. The logic is impeccable.

    Read this one a few years ago and was impressed at the time but not so much on further reflection.

    Hoppe’s argument is that the ownership of the kingdom as property and the king’s hereditary investment in the realm (his son will be heir) motivates the king to rule well.

    In practise though the ruler may have several provinces/countries throughout his empire, rule the one at the seat of the kingdom well and misgovern the others. He may use provinces on the periphery of his empire – or 9/10ths of the whole thing – as a dumping ground of sorts, locating patriotic feeling in the central area.

    And why single out and emphasise property ownership as the main factor in good stewardship? Probably bigger motivators are non-material considerations such as transcendence, honour, duty etc. But liberaltarians don’t want to hear that.

    Nominally publicly-owned but actually privately-owned atheist states, e.g. the Kim dynasty, meet the future time preference criteria that Hoppe outlines for investment in stewardship.

  • jf12 says:

    Authority is bestowed by voluntary submission. Otherwise you engage in the idolatry of Authenticity like you so often do, No True King etc.

  • imnobody00 says:

    The problem is not that liberalism is authoritarian. The problem is that it is totalitarian.

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Authority is bestowed by voluntary submission.

    There is that “consent of the governed” hogwash again.

  • sunshinemary says:

    jf12: Authority is bestowed by voluntary submission.

    I generally try to avoid engaging you in conversation because I distrust you. However, I have a question for you, if you’ll answer it. Do you think a husband’s authority in marriage is bestowed by the voluntary submission of his wife?

  • Zippy says:

    You can see where they get it from: “the just powers of (husband and father) derive from the consent of the (family).”

    They are just following the Holy Words of the Prophet Jefferson.

  • sunshinemary says:

    You can see where they get it from: “the just powers of (husband and father) derive from the consent of the (family).”

    In that case, there is no reason why I must submit to my husband because if I cease to consent to do so, he no longer has legitimate authority, and thus I am not sinning by not submitting. And what is true of husbands is true of governments as well.

    But then, one does wonder…does any authority which is based on the consent of the governed really have authority to begin with? In what way is it then an “authority” and why should I obey it if its authority is based solely on my revocable consent (i.e. my whims)?

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:
    No-fault unilateral divorce is just a particular instance of the concept of no-fault unilateral revolution, otherwise known as the idea that the just powers of an authority derive from the consent of the governed. Where “conservatives” see discontinuity from right-liberalism to left-liberalism, I see continuity.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Prior to those amendments, the US Constitution worked just fine because it gave so little room to maneuver.

    Mike T,

    Couldn’t that have also been the problem? The Constitution was not up to the task of adjudicating important issues of the day ultimately leading to the blood chaos of the Civil War? Right-liberals think clauses on a piece of paper are to be regarded as sovereign.

  • Bill McEnaney says:

    To me, these definitions suggest there may be a non-authoritarian way to use authority.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authoritarian?s=t

  • jf12 says:

    A man’s authority is determined by his having obedience. Luke 7:8 “I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.” If they didn’t obey, then he did not have authority over them. Obviously. Moreover, as Christian we are PROHIBITED from exercising authority upon those we have to bother leading. Mark 10:42-43. Obediance is the key, NOT authorityship. It is a willful, ignornant, and perfidious people who demand kings over them,

  • jf12 says:

    Women being much more iberal than men is not men’s fault, and is certainly not conservative men’s fault.

  • Zippy says:

    Ita:

    Right-liberals think clauses on a piece of paper are to be regarded as sovereign

    Positivism. They don’t understand what text is and is not: that in order to understand a specific text the meanings that it triggers must already be in you, and must have gotten into you from somewhere else. A text can bring us new information and concepts through novel arrangements of what we already know, but most of the meaning of a text must come from something other than that specific text.

    So a specific text (and positive law more generally) can clarify the expectations of authority. But it can never be the source of authority or completely specify limits on authority.

    We could call the right-liberal attitude about the Constitution “constitutional lollardy”, as an accurate double entendre.

  • Zippy says:

    Bill McEnaney:
    Liberals are always assuring us that they can be entrusted with authority because they stand above all substantive questions of good and evil and will treat people equally, leaving them free to do as they please as long as they don’t violate the equal rights of others. There are plenty of posts here and elsewhere showing how this is self-contradictory tommyrot, so I won’t condescend by repeating the arguments here.

    It is certainly true that some regimes are more oppressive and tyrannical than others. It is possibly even true that most regimes are tyrannical, period. So the question for those who hate tyranny becomes which sort of regime is able at least in theory to keep itself in check: a regime that imposes its ideology comprehensively on everyone while blissfully unaware that that is what it is doing, or one that is self aware enough to know that when it (or any regime) governs, it is discriminating authoritatively to impose its substantive understanding of the good?

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Zippy,

    Thanks for the response.

    Slightly off topic but were you going to reply to the recent comment over at the Orthosphere? The one likening Catholicism with Nazism and Communism and being inherently prone to mass murder for not accepting classical liberalism?

  • Zippy says:

    Ita:
    I haven’t seen the comment, but it sounds like a hoot!

  • Mike T says:

    Couldn’t that have also been the problem? The Constitution was not up to the task of adjudicating important issues of the day ultimately leading to the blood chaos of the Civil War?

    The Civil War was not caused by a failure of our political constitution. It was caused by the unwillingness of southerners to pay the tariff and accept a limited role for slavery.

    Right-liberals think clauses on a piece of paper are to be regarded as sovereign.

    They’re to be regarded as a legal contract between the people and the sovereign in the case of a constitution. Whenever the political authority blatantly violates the constitution, it engages in a criminal act. Even if that may be nothing more than a malum prohibitum act by the authorities, it’s still a violation of the law.

    What broke the US Constitution was primarily the push for democracy, equality and all that progressive rubbish. As a limited federation of republics the United States worked just fine.

    Republican government, when matched with the right nation and culture, has proved that it can be more stable than even monarchy. Rome was in many respects a republic well into its “formal imperial stage” as it wasn’t until something like the late 2nd to 3rd century AD when the republican institutions finally lost all power and were destroyed. Prior to that, the Roman republican system was one of the oldest continuous systems of government in history. Even at this point in history, few monarchies can point to that level of continuous rule by a single stable system.

  • The Civil War actually has its roots in contract violations against free blacks and Indians, as far as that goes.

  • jf12 says:

    1 Sam 12:19, among others, finishing the comma.

  • Dean says:

    So the question for those who hate tyranny becomes which sort of regime is able at least in theory to keep itself in check

    Karl Popper wrote a big old long book back in 1945 intended (among other things) to demonstrate that the only effective way to avoid tyranny is to make sure there is a mechanism for the peaceful transition of power when the governed are no longer being governed justly (or at least no longer feel as if they being so governed, I suppose). What you are saying here is almost precisely the opposite.

    I think his argument, at first blush, is intuitively very appealing to most Americans, at least of a certain age and background. I’m assuming that you would disagree with him, and I’m wondering precisely where you would see him going wrong.

    I think this is germane, but if you don’t feel free (obviously) to ignore. I don’t want to derail the conversation.

  • My take on the Civil War: People who say it “Wasn’t about slavery” are fooling themselves. It was absolutely about slavery. While Southerners DID make some very good points it was ultimately an excuse to fight to keep their slaves.

    It is my experience that supporters of the South in the Civil War tend to be especially nasty and dismissive to Northerners. Now, this of course has the disclaimer of NASALT, but at the very least there seem to me to be more nasty Southerners than Northerners. I find that telling…though I’m not sure of what.

    The South’s right to secession is actually a rather interesting dilemma. On one hand, the states DID vote to secede. On the other hand, they voted to secede because they didn’t like the result of an election. What type of country democracy is it when you can leave when the voting doesn’t go your way? How can you even call that a democracy?

    I think the whole thing is more complicated than BOTH sides often make it out to be.

  • Zippy says:

    Dean:

    Karl Popper wrote a big old long book back in 1945 intended (among other things) to demonstrate that the only effective way to avoid tyranny is to make sure there is a mechanism for the peaceful transition of power when the governed are no longer being governed justly (or at least no longer feel as if they being so governed, I suppose). What you are saying here is almost precisely the opposite.

    I’m pretty sure that what I am saying is orthogonal to this point (though Popper’s view does seem to put a lot of perhaps unwarranted faith in the power of mechanism to correct injustice).

    For example, in our current situation there is no viable mechanism in place to peacefully transition from a regime that does legally sanction and protect the murders of millions of unborn every single year to one that does not.

    Liberalism isn’t actually less authoritative and discriminatory than other political philosophies. It is just as authoritative and discriminatory as any other political philosophy. But because it is not self-aware of this fact, and indeed justifies itself based on outright denial of this fact, it is virtually impossible to correct when it governs unjustly.

  • jf12 says:

    @malcolmthecynic, ” It was absolutely about slavery.” yes, it was. The secession statements make it clear it was absolutely about slavery, specifically, and centrally.
    http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
    e.g. “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”

  • Mike T says:

    On the other hand, they voted to secede because they didn’t like the result of an election. What type of country democracy is it when you can leave when the voting doesn’t go your way? How can you even call that a democracy?

    Because you have a false understanding of what the United States was prior to 1860. It was a transnational union, not a single country. The very name federal government refers to a federation, not a unified nation state. The South had the same moral right to secede for any reason that a member of the European Union has. The simple desire to no longer be a member was as sufficient then as it is today if Britain, Italy or another wants to leave the EU.

    As a southerner with extensive ties to the Confederacy, I place the blame entirely on the mouth-breathers in South Carolina. They started the war by firing without provocation. They are the only people who, in my opinion as a staunchly proud southerner, not only deserved what they got from Sherman but probably didn’t get enough of it.

  • Mike T says:

    * ties = I have ancestors that were close to Lee, Pickett and dozens that fought in the Confederate Army in enlisted and officer ranks

  • Mike T says:

    For example, in our current situation there is no viable mechanism in place to peacefully transition from a regime that does legally sanction and protect the murders of millions of unborn every single year to one that does not.

    Not viable or not likely to happen? The President can interfere with Roe v. Wade in all sorts of ways, such as ordering federal law enforcement to stand down and dismissing any US Attorney that brings a case against a state. Since the latter serve at the pleasure of the President, he can fire them at will.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Fantasies about using the mechanisms of liberalism to do away with liberalism are just that: fantasies.

  • Because you have a false understanding of what the United States was prior to 1860. It was a transnational union, not a single country. The very name federal government refers to a federation, not a unified nation state. The South had the same moral right to secede for any reason that a member of the European Union has. The simple desire to no longer be a member was as sufficient then as it is today if Britain, Italy or another wants to leave the EU.

    Hmmm, I don’t think it’s that simple though. From the very beginning the idea of what limits, exactly, the constitution was supposed to set. Everybody (in a general sense, not necessarily you particularly) uses the phrase “the founders meant…” as if they’re one entity that all agreed on exactly what the Constitution entailed. But the big v, small government always existed.

    By the time of the Civil War the country was still in the process of figuring out what, exactly, it meant for them to be a country. Saying the North was blameless for all of this is naive foolishness, but I don’t think it’s as simple as saying, “Well, we were allowed to secede”. At that point, were we? How many people would even have agreed with that after the ratification of the Constitution originally?

    To say you’re “wrong” isn’t accurate. You make a good point. Still, I find it hard to judge the South too sympathetically because of the whole slavery issue (not that the North was that much better, excepting perhaps New England).

  • Ewww, that comment is full of typos. I hope you can get the gist though.

  • Mike T says:

    malcom,

    Around the time of the War of 1812, New England very publicly threatened to secede from the Union. The founders were alive and running the country and never challenged them on that. In fact, the South’s right to secede wasn’t even strongly challenged because it was done in the reverse order of ratifying the US Constitution. The US Constitution is as much a treaty between the states as it is the charter for the federal government. See Texas and its joining the Union as exhibit A here.

    FWIW, I don’t think the North was wrong to wage war on the South. South Carolina declared war on behalf of the Confederacy by firing without provocation on Union forces. Had they done the right thing, they would have sacrificed a large amount of shipping, pleaded with the Union to leave and then fired on them if they refused. In fact, had they done that it’s likely that most of the Union wouldn’t have supported Lincoln and it’d have been a moot point.

    To say you’re “wrong” isn’t accurate.

    Your questions arise from a false understanding of the Union’s purpose. The founders by and large did not intend to create a nation state like France, but a federation of culturally similar republics. On a daily basis, the pre-1860 federal government had virtually no jurisdiction over the average American.

  • Zippy says:

    It is worth considering whether an agreement that can be ended unilaterally at any time for any reason is any kind of agreement at all. There seems to be a basic dissonance involved, much like marriage in the shadow of no-fault divorce: we want the benefits of commitment with the option to secede any time we are no longer haaaaappy. A contract with an arbitrary out at any time for any reason is no contract at all.

  • Mike T says:

    A voluntary union formed based on shared interests could be legitimately dissolved when one party no longer feels its interests are served by the union.

  • Zippy says:

    Hookup culture, 1860’s style.

  • Gian says:

    MikeT
    “South had the same moral right to secede ”
    Morality does not come into play. Sovereignty is best understood as a Mere Assertion by a people. And mere assertions do not require reasons.

    And by the same measure, assertions naturally invite counter-assertions. So even if individual states were sovereign in 1861, they were not in 1865.
    Sovereignty is a matter of fact, not of legality or morality.

  • Gian says:

    Parental authority is evident by the indisputable fact of being born to particular people.

    Husband’s authority is evident by a woman’s free choice to choose a particular man.

    But how is political authority evident?
    By being born in a particular nation. But what defines a nation?. Is Crimea a part of Ukraine or Russia or is a nation by itself?
    By being located in a particular geographical territory. Again what defines the extent of particular territory as belonging to a nation?
    Should occupied Palestinians obey Israeli occupiers? Or are Tibetans morally bound to obey Chinese communists?

  • Zippy says:

    Gian:
    You are very fond of proclaiming that political authority is arbitrary just because ambiguous cases exist.

  • jf12 says:

    Textual authority being arbitrary just because ambiguous cases exist, though, right?

  • Zippy says:

    jf12:
    Frankly it isn’t clear why you comment here. You exhibit zero understanding of what is discussed, and no interest in developing an understanding.

  • Zippy: So what is your opinion on the subject? I’m honestly not sure. Do you think the South had the legal right to secede (leaving aside your distaste for democracy)?

  • Zippy says:

    malcolmthecynic:
    I don’t have a fixed opinion on whether the South had a legal right to secede. It is possible that the positive-law legal regime at the time was too incoherent to provide a definite answer to that question; but I haven’t done the due diligence required in order to have a strong opinion one way or the other (or the other other).

    Beyond the question of whether or not secession was justified in itself lies the question of whether or not going to war in order to do it (or to stop it) passed the just war criteria. I’m pretty sure the answer to both is no, but I’m not unwilling to be convinced otherwise.

  • My background is that I’ve been very interested in the subject for years and I’ve taken a (VERY liberal) college class on the civil war, which nevertheless gave me enough information, when sifted past the liberal filter, to form my own conclusions. My understanding of the matter is similar to this:

    It is possible that the positive-law legal regime at the time was too incoherent to provide a definite answer to that question…

    …But gun to my head I would tend to say that the North probably had a better claim than the South, and as Mike has pointed out the South most definitely fired first (though Lincoln undoubtedly engineered the situation in a masterful political stroke, whatever you might think of it morally).

    I tend to have great sympathy for those on both sides of the war. Lee was a gentleman in every sense of the word and conducted himself throughout with dignity and honor. Grant was as respectful an opponent you could find, and an underrated general whose skill has been reevaluated over the years. Sherman…is interesting. His total war policy probably saved some lives in the long run, but like the atom bomb whether or not the ends were justified by his means is extremely questionable.

    I have great respect for Lincoln. Those who paint him as a Saint and those who paint him as a butcher are both looking at things in a way that is far too black and white. He was an intelligent man and a brilliant politician (POLITICIAN, separate from President) who had an extraordinarily difficult hand dealt to him. He expanded the power and role of the federal government probably too much but did so in a situation as tense and delicate as you’ll ever find, and on the whole there were worse people who could have been in control at such a time.

    Davis always struck me as a bit of a fool, but I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

    If you look at how Lincoln’s opinions changed over the years it really is fascinating. He is far from a static figure in terms of both politics and morality. I find his assassination to be one of the great tragedies and missed opportunities in American history. Johnson meant well and I often feel bad for him but he simply didn’t have the political acumen to handle such a complex political landscape. Lincoln, perhaps, did.

  • Ironically, if preserving slavery was the South’s goal then they’d have been better off staying in the Union. The Fugitive Slave Act ensured that runaways would be returned to their masters unless they made it all the way to Canada. If the South was a separate country, slaves would only have to make it to one of the Northern states instead. Lincoln made it quite clear in the early years of the war that his goal was preserving the Union at any cost, and said that if he could have preserved the Union by allowing slavery to continue unchecked, he would have.

    It’s difficult for us modern Americans to put ourselves in the shoes of our 19th century ancestors. They often thought of their state as being their country. The average Southerner didn’t and couldn’t own even one slave but they fought because “those people [Northerners] are down here.” Nowadays (Texans excepted) most Americans only think of their native state in terms of football teams. If my native California announced that it was seceding from the US, I’d happily move and wish it goodbye and good riddance. I sure wouldn’t take up arms to keep it in the US.

  • Dean says:

    For example, in our current situation there is no viable mechanism in place to peacefully transition from a regime that does legally sanction and protect the murders of millions of unborn every single year to one that does not.

    Yes, that’s a just response.

    I don’t think the point is entirely orthogonal – it seems to me a great part of liberalism’s enduring popular appeal is it’s claim to being our best available protection against tyranny. Your argument, as I understand it, is that the contradictions internal to a liberal political philosophy render it incapable of effectively providing that protection (at the same time rendering its adherents/subjects morally blind to its failures – I think a great many people in the U.S. would be honestly confused by your argument above).

    I find this pretty convincing, but it does leave me a bit “up in the air” inasmuch as I’m having a hard time grasping what sort of alternative is being advocated. Is this something I can just search the archives on, or something you don’t yet have a definite opinion on?

    For example, if the concept of “natural authority” is the proper starting point for understanding how our common life should be organized (with something like fatherhood being a paradigm case), how might that look in practice? How do we “scale up” from fathers of families with clear biological ties to larger social groups? How would we discriminate between legitimate and illegitimate claims to natural authority? Gian’s questions, as posed above, may be only rhetorical, but there is still a real issue to be addressed, isn’t there?

    Again – I’ve read many but by no means all of your old posts and if these issues are already addressed there I would be grateful enough for a pointer to the right place.

  • King Richard says:

    Mike, as far as ‘anti-tyranny authoritarian’ I suppose that depends upon your definitions. Karl of Austria? Pope Pius XII?

  • Zippy says:

    Dean:
    The post you are looking for is here, but be forewarned that my answer probably isn’t very satisfying. It is a big question so there is probably a lot more to say at some point.

  • Talking about the Civil War solely through the lens of the events immediately preceding it is part of the problem with most analysis of American history. One of the reasons, as I already noted that we had anything resembling the Civil War in the first place is because there was an ongoing series of debates and wars regarding the conflicts between honoring contracts to one set of people over another. A lot of people were sick of using federal power to cater to the whims of a few slaveowners. But conversely, a lot of people liked the wealth the slaveowners had as a result of having slave labor and wanted a piece of that themselves. And then there were the Indians, who had various arrangements worked out with the federal and state governments, which were violated by both slaveowners and slave-less whites. And everyone discussing the Civil War ignores the free blacks in border states, who were basically proto-libertarians and wanted to be left alone instead of being raided and expected to be wealth generation for slave catchers. And all these different issues were in play for decades leading up to the Civil War and had direct influence on the Emancipation Proclamation.

    This is typical of American history. A lot of different groups with competing interests, with a powerful micro-minority’s interests dominating and being absorbed into the “America” narrative.

  • Gian says:

    Zippy,
    I have never maintained the political authority to be arbitrary.
    But the hard cases are telling that your definition is incomplete.

  • Very much enjoying the back and forth on slavery and the Civil War.

    I am nearly a functional illiterate when it comes to history, but I’ll weigh in just the same, in the hopes I might learn by someone correcting me.

    The way I currently understand it, the impending statehood of Kansas is what exacerbated tensions over slavery. The south realized that the continued existence of slavery in the US was in jeopardy with the addition of each and every new free (as opposed to slave) state. I believe they had lost their collective memory of the three-fifths compromise that was enshrined in the Constitution, whose sole purpose was to peacefully phase out slavery rather than ban it at the very outset, jeopardizing the very adoption of the Constitution.

    Sidebar: I hate it when ignorant liberals bash the Constitution as less than noble and morally legitimate due to the inclusion of the three-fifths compromise. Slave owners wanted five fifths, because it would yield a higher count in the census and more (pro-slave) representatives in Congress. Anti-slave founding fathers would have been happiest (as should all slaves and slave sympathizers) with zero fifths of a census count for each and every slave. In this way, we can see that four fifths was worse for slaves, while two fifths would have been an improvement. Three fifths was still tilted more in the direction of slaveholders. Liberals are ignorant. Shame on black liberals for joining in. QED.

    (sidebar over)

    So, with Kansas looking to go Free rather than Slave, the balance of representatives in Congress was on the threshold of a tipping point, where, much like Obamacare, a single voting bloc could pass legislation without needing the buy in of the opponents. So, really, the South saw the writing on the wall *that was there all along* and had the nerve to act surprised. And throw a tantrum in S. Carolina.

    Yes, it’s probably an oversimplification, but that’s also probably the best way to draw out somebody to set me straight so I can learn.

  • My slavery comments notwithstanding, I think comparing secession to divorce is not helpful. I believe secession should be an option, just not an easy unilateral one, and certainly not legitimately through instigating a Civil War, or even a threat of one.

    Beyond that, I’m still forming my position on the subject….

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    To be clear, the comparison was to no fault divorce: unilateral dissolution of the agreement at any time for any reason is what they have in common, which reduces them to basically “let’s be friends, until I don’t feel like it anymore.”

  • Zippy, my dispute is with the following:

    “No-fault unilateral divorce is just a particular instance of the concept of no-fault unilateral revolution, otherwise known as *the idea that the just powers of an authority derive from the consent of the governed* ”

    It does not follow. I find the comparison forced. Here’s why: the concept of “no-fault unilateral revolution” or secession is generally supported by non-liberals, while most liberals consider it corrupt. “No-fault unilateral divorce” is generally supported by liberals, while most of the people who are against it are non-liberals. As someone who is staunchly anti-liberal, I would expect you to see that this difference is more than cosmetic, and conclude with me that the extension you are suggesting runs the risk of creating strange, though abstract, bedfellows.

    That’s all I meant to say. It just seems to me that you went to this comparison in your enthusiasm to attack the “consent of the governed” concept. I am merely proposing that there might be better ways to go about it.

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    From my point of view secession is/was supported by one kind of liberal and no-fault divorce by another kind. The conflict is intramural.

  • The Civil War was inevitable from the earliest days of America’s status as a nation. The mistake is in thinking the most immediate events preceding it were the sole or even primary factors. Some of those immediate events aren’t even comprehensible without knowing about political issues from fifty years previous. The Civil War was the culmination of many other wars, skirmishes, congressional arguments/debates and various government actions (some basically legal, others not so much). All of which involved authority being abused or disregarded as valid.

  • Zippy, I guess it’s not liberal to view a state’s participation in the union as indissoluble, even if that amounts to a potential death pact for that state (and it’s citizens)?? We are stretching the comparison to marriage and divorce beyond its capacity.

    The relationship of the state to the union or the states to each other is not a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the Church like marriage is. I am uncomfortable with anything that implies it even slightly.

    Being in favor of secession (especially with requiring it to be difficult, combatting the state-based equivalent of frivorce, if you will) is not intrinsically liberal in my view.

    I will say that the the concept of “consent of the governed” is much more ripe for critique. Here’s how: Pilate, though ostensibly serving at the pleasure of Caesar, knew down deep that if he didn’t have at least a shred of the Jews’ consent, he would be in a precarious position, if not in outright danger. This leads to a refined statesman in a wardrobe of fine toga and olive wreath, representing the pinnacle of human civilization up to that time in history (not some marauding barbarian savage) sealing the fate of the Savior of the world. And all the while asking “Why? What evil has he done?” between ever louder shouts of “Crucify him!”

    (H/T to G. K. Chesterton for my paraphrase of that last bit.)

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    There is a nontrivial difference between an agreement that is dissoluble in some circumstances and an “agreement” that is unilaterally dissoluble at any time and for any reason. As many in the manosphere point out w.r.t. no-fault divorce, that isn’t really even an agreement.

  • To develop the thought a little more:

    “Consent of the governed” is safe only if the governed are not corrupt. We are so used to focusing on the corruption of those who govern us we tend to overlook our own collective corruption. Arguably Pilate, as bad as he was, was less corrupt than the “governed” mob calling for the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus.

    This is how to attack “consent of the governed” in my opinion.

    The reductio ad absurdum application to marriage, where we attempt to show it is ridiculous to run a family that way (i.e., only if consent is present), is still weak and less than effective, unless you compare the corruption of a wife to the corruption of the Jews harassing Pilate.

  • I have zero disagreement with this:

    “There is a nontrivial difference between an agreement that is dissoluble in some circumstances and an “agreement” that is unilaterally dissoluble at any time and for any reason. As many in the manosphere point out w.r.t. no-fault divorce, that isn’t really even an agreement.”

    I’m not sure where I may have led you to that impression.

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    Perhaps you are using a different concept of secession from the one Mike T expressed earlier in the thread. I think he expressed correctly how southerners thought about secession and that is the understanding of secession which I likened to no fault divorce.

  • Agreed, Zippy. I don’t believe that is truly secession, no matter what one labels it. Getting out ought have some resemblance to getting in: the ratification process, etc. ought to have a well-defined inverse. Maybe we are past due in amending our Constitution with a well-defined easily understood process, assuming enough people believe secession is not out of bounds on principle.

    My real discomfort arises when I see comparison of the sacramental vow of a man and wife in marriage to a state’s participation in the union. A wife gives her implicit consent for sex by marrying her husband. Is there–and should there be–an analog at the state-nation level? I say No.

  • Zippy says:

    Well, again, the comparison was to no fault divorce, and as far as I can tell it was perfectly accurate. No-fault divorce just is a legal “right of secession” from marriage, unilaterally and for any reason.

  • Zippy says:

    The point is not that marriage is like statehood. It is that no-fault divorce and secession as understood by confederates are alike — not merely analogous but essentially alike, since they both pretend to be contracts while not actually being contracts. Real contracts are binding in at least some authoritative sense and cannot be discarded just any old time unilaterally and arbitrarily.

  • I grant your very valid points, Zippy. I (somewhat mildly) object in that a no-fault divorce discards *frivolously* (most often) a one flesh union, a lifelong covenant. Secession, while displaying a similar dynamic, is nothing nearly as sacred. Marriage suffers in the proximity this comparison entails, in my own opinion. The state/nation seems to be elevated beyond anything it deserves in this comparison. I guess I am appealing to one of the latest cliches in our socio-political sphere: bad optics. Strictly speaking, you are not wrong. I guess I like my comparisons with less aftertaste. My problem.

  • I should point out that I really like your blog. I usually lurk because I have nothing to add. You cover my thoughts pretty well. This was a slight exception. An aberration actually.

  • Zippy says:

    No sweat, and thanks. I certainly agree that statehood in a republic is not commensurable with marriage (not even with natural marriage among pagans).

    I was showing the equivalence of two incoherent concepts of non-committed commitments, not comparing the real commitments that each pretends to be. “Marriage” presupposing no-fault divorce is no marriage at all; political union presupposing an arbitrary unilateral right of secession is no political union at all. In general a “commitment” that doesn’t involve actually committing to something is no commitment at all.

  • Gian says:

    “political union presupposing an arbitrary unilateral right of secession is no political union at all.”

    Totally false. Political union is non-eternal but exists moment by moment. And it is not immoral to dissolve it at ANY moment whatsoever,.

    Man is not bound by existing political structures. If you were correct, all the current polities would be illegal and immoral since they ALL have origin in acts that are immoral by your interpretation. That alone should suffice one to doubt one’s views.

  • Zippy says:

    Gian:

    Political union is non-eternal but exists moment by moment. And it is not immoral to dissolve it at ANY moment whatsoever.

    Unilaterally, for any reason? That isn’t even a “social contract” theory, as problemmatic as they are.

    all the current polities would be illegal and immoral since they ALL have origin in acts that are immoral

    Your genetic fallacy is showing again, Gian. If ‘origins in sin’ destroys authority then authority is not possible in this world, which appears to be the point. It is an old trick of rebels everywhere.

  • Scott W. says:

    If ‘origins in sin’ destroys authority then authority is not possible in this world

    Romans 13:

    “LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. 5Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.”

  • Mike T says:

    As many in the manosphere point out w.r.t. no-fault divorce, that isn’t really even an agreement.

    I’ve never seen that argument. What I have seen is (presumably the same) commenters pointing out that it is not marriage. It is an agreement. You can form an agreement that can be disposed of at any time.

    BTW, I think you need to check your wording. You are starting to get into “word drift” here in your arguments as you started with contracts and are now using “agreement” which is a superset of which contracts are a member and which is demonstrably capable of doing what you just implied it can’t.

  • Mike T says:

    political union presupposing an arbitrary unilateral right of secession is no political union at all.

    Define arbitrary. The South’s reason was hardly arbitrary. Even though they did believe the union could be arbitrarily left, they did not in fact leave arbitrarily but out of a stated desire to protect the keystone of their national economy. You can also add in the reasonable perception that they were being exploited via the tariff for Northern profit.

    Slavery may be immoral (generally), but it is not a given that a region must risk bankruptcy simply because the rest of the polity wants to impose a policy that has that implication for the disaffected region. In fact I would say that a sharp reduction bordering on wholesale ending of common economic interests resulting in what may be considered antagonistic is one of the least arbitrary reasons for secession one can formulate. When you consider the ramifications for the culture of regional/national bankruptcy being imposed, it’s a no brainer IMO.

  • FWIW, Southern writers spilled a lot of ink arguing that secession was legal under the Tenth Amendment. See, for example, the first two hundred pages or so of Jefferson Davis’s memoirs. As I said earlier, Americans in the 21st century have grown so accustomed to thinking of the United States as a singular that it’s difficult for us to imagine that before 1865 a good proportion of Americans thought of the United States as a plural.

    I’ve always been a fan of that great proto-reactionary Samuel Johnson’s response to the traitorous American colonists: “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

  • Mike T:

    “the ramifications for the culture of regional/national bankruptcy being imposed”

    (along with the earlier part about a region risking bankruptcy)

    While this is no attempt to justify anything, but rather pointing out something so obvious that it tends to get overlooked:

    If the loss of slavery was such an existential threat to the South, then the loss of slavery plus a devastating war should have been even more so. Yet we see the South survived both, and some might even say it is thriving. You cannot sweep that fact aside, even though it comes from hindsight, I would think.

    (I should add that I have found very little from you that I would disagree with until this line of argumentation.)

    While the South didn’t know this outcome was in store for them at the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, we all certainly know it *now*.

    Once again, I’m not trying to justify things that maybe perhaps should have never happened (“war of Northern aggression”) by the fact of a good (or at least not apocalyptic) outcome for the South. Just pointing out a glaring weakness in argumentation from apocalyptic exaggeration, when that apocalyptic condition was exceeded, and still was not decisive vis a vis their economy, as evidenced by its health today.

    That’s not to say another argument based on another objection couldn’t be validly made.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    You can form an agreement that can be disposed of at any time.

    You left off “and for any reason”, probably in order to beg the question. Even though you subsequently agreed that that is exactly what the secessionists thought.

    And no, you can’t form that kind of “agreement”. Whatever such a thing is, it isn’t an agreement. You haven’t agreed to anything binding.

    Even though they did believe the union could be arbitrarily left, they did not in fact leave arbitrarily…

    Same with no fault divorce. Nobody ever leaves literally for no reason whatsoever. She really was unhaaaapppy. Or maybe he was beating the children. But that doesn’t change the nature of the non-agreement agreement.

    The issue I’m raising, again, is that the Southern concept of a Union from which one may morally secede at any time and for any reason is literally no union at all, just as the no-fault-divorce concept of marriage is no marriage at all.

    And because the explicit commitments are incoherent, what happens when those commitments encounter reality is that events proceed sociopathically.

  • Mike T says:

    You left off “and for any reason”, probably in order to beg the question. Even though you subsequently agreed that that is exactly what the secessionists thought.

    It was an oversight, but not relevant to my point. It is logically possible to make an agreement that can be disposed of for any reason at any time. The simple act of two people making that understanding between them and abiding by it is proof that you are wrong about the impossibility of such an agreement.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    It is logically possible to make an agreement that can be disposed of for any reason at any time.

    No it isn’t. The morally binding content of an agreement may be implicit. But if “it” explicitly has literally no morally binding content whatsoever, then whatever “it” is, it isn’t an agreement. Just like a “marriage” premised on no-fault divorce.

    And that has always been the strategy of liberalism: to replace the content of morality with an active, malevolent, explicit Nothingness in the name of freedom and equal rights.

  • Mike T says:

    Zippy, you’re applying a layer of philosophy that is obscuring the definition of an agreement. An agreement is literally nothing more than an understanding between two or more parties. Its very definition means that it is a state where two or more parties agree to a particular set of terms.

    This is why I warned you about word drift. You are applying a rule to a concept that is simply too abstract to be bound to that concept. Your point is valid for particular classes of agreements as they have different essential traits more specific to them than the broad concept of an agreement.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    I’m not the one with a word drift problem here. In one sentence you admit that agreements have morally binding terms and a sentence later you contend that agreements with no morally binding terms are possible.

    Equivocating between “agreement” as in “we agree that 2+2=4” and “we agree to form a confederacy” doesn’t even help you, because even the former also implies morally binding content — that is, cannot morally be rescinded at any time for just any arbitrary reason.

    Agreement always has moral implications, period. The non-agreement-agreement envisioned by secessionists and no-fault-divorce liberals is self contradictory; and from their POV that is a feature not a bug, since the destruction of moral obligation is the point.

  • Mike T says:

    The problem I have with your word choice is due to the fact that you are applying a set of criteria to the superset (agreement) that only implies implicitly and consistently with certain subsets (ex. marriage and contracts in most cases). Agreement is conceptually abstract such that its essential nature is almost contentless as it expresses nothing more than two people agreeing on something or to do something. For example, every criminal conspiracy is both an agreement and lacking morally binding content as you cannot by definition bind someone to do evil. Nevertheless, the existence of effective criminal conspiracies shows you can have effective agreements devoid of morally binding content.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Even an agreement to do evil proposes binding content. It fails to actually bind morally precisely because it is impossible to be morally bound to do evil; but I’ve always been willing to grant that the secessionist position is merely irrational, not necessarily evil.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Zippy,
    Your attribution of genetic fallacy is itself fallacious. You needed to argue that in this case, appeal to origin is wrong.
    Can a thief when caught appeal to genetic fallacy?

    A theft is never erased and can never be legitimized. You offer absolutely no resolution to the central conundrum of the entire notion around which the idea of political authority has been debated, theoretically and practically, the question of legitimacy.

    You can not handwave it away by calling it ‘genetic fallacy’.

  • Zippy says:

    vishmehr24:

    You can not handwave it away by calling it ‘genetic fallacy’.

    Yes I can, because (as has been pointed out to you many times) the fact that your argument makes government authority impossible is a reductio ad absurdam. The premise that in order to be morally binding there must be no sin in the leadership or its history is neo-Wycliffian nonsense.

    Similarly, ‘edge case’ casuistry does nothing, not a single thing, to undermine our moral obligation to obey traffic laws.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    My good friend the mafia henchman would like to know which obligations are not binding in your agreements with him. An agreement with faulty obligations (and thus not *morally* binding) is a faulty agreement, but the principle remains the same–no obligations, faulty or not, means no agreement.

  • @Zippy “The issue I’m raising, again, is that the Southern concept of a Union from which one may morally secede at any time and for any reason is literally no union at all, just as the no-fault-divorce concept of marriage is no marriage at all.”

    To my understanding, the states viewed themselves as retaining their sovereignty (much like the European Union example given earlier). This is, in my opinion, where the forced comparison with marriage breaks down. Granted, my understanding could be inaccurate.

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:

    To my understanding, the states viewed themselves as retaining their sovereignty …

    I am sure that is true, but the phrase “retaining their sovereignty” is more than a little ambiguous and is completely unhelpful, since it doubtless has self-contradictory senses too. Heck, literally every human being (even slaves) “retains his sovereignty” over his own life, since he always makes his own choices. On the other end of the spectrum, if “sovereignty” means “may morally change his mind about any agreement at any time and for any reason” then a “sovereign” is literally incapable of making commitments: sovereignty becomes not merely the triumph of the will but the triumph of the will right now and only right now.

    I find it easy to believe that incoherent concepts of authority — and sovereignty is a kind of authority – lie at the root of the confederate concepts of statehood, secession, etc. That’s because those concepts are fundamentally and essentially liberal.

    Proposing an “agreement” which can be morally broken literally at any time and literally for any reason is to propose something self-contradictory: an “agreement” which lacks any actual commitment to anything at all. “I am committed to X but can change my mind at any time and for any reason” is self-contradictory: the second clause contradicts the first.

  • Zippy, a strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment tells me that since the Constitution is silent on secession, it is allowed. Yes, it’s a technical loophole. And it could be fixed with a new amendment, but until then, secession is not covered negatively or positively by the Constitution under which this country has operated for 225 years. So maybe it *is* a non-agreement agreement, whether by design or default or defect. It could be fixed. Marriage, properly understood (“as long as we both shall live”) needs no such fix, other that the problem added after the fact by no-fault divorce. Different cases.

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    You are begging the question again, because — yet again — I drew the comparison between secessionism and pseudo-marriage with no fault divorce, not marriage properly understood.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Zippy.
    How do we judge a person who claims to have political authority over us?
    What is the test, the criterion to judge the validity of political authority.
    This is the CRUX of the political theory and you resolutely refuse to entertain this question.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    unwobblingpivot:

    “To my understanding, the states viewed themselves as retaining their sovereignty …”

    Sovereignty is usefully viewed as an assertion by a person or a body of persons . . An assertion of independence. Then it invites either affirmation or counter-assertions by other interested parties.

    Thus, for instance China affirms the sovereignty of America (over American territory) but does not affirm Tibetan sovereignty and counter-asserts Indian sovereignty over some disputed pieces of territory.

    Thus,a American state may view itself sovereign but that by itself says nothing about it actually being sovereign.

  • Zippy says:

    vishmehr24:
    It is trivial in most cases to identify the government of a particular people and place. Tell me where you live (you personally, not someone else or some hypothetical person), and I’ll tell you who is the public authority.

  • Zippy: “You are begging the question again, because — yet again — I drew the comparison between secessionism and pseudo-marriage with no fault divorce, not marriage properly understood.”

    Fine, but I think I have made it clear that pseudo-marriage is a corruption of marriage properly understood, while secession is not a corruption, a faulty implementation of joining the union. Secession is a prerogative not surrendered rather than a corruption. No-fault divorce-governed marriage *could* be called “a prerogative not surrendered”, but it is much more self-contradictory in nature than joining the union with the prerogative of secession is. Why? Tenth amendment. I guess you could call no-fault divorce a post facto 10th amendment equivalent in marriage. The weirdness comes in when you see that a state has an essentially polygamous and asymmetrical relationship to the union, while a wife is dealing symmetrically with only one other state: her husband — but much like the union never evicts a state, husbands rarely avail themselves of no-fault divorce. So I guess that ends up being a similarity of sorts.

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    Secessionism is a corruption, as already explained.

  • Zippy, I have enjoyed our robust discussion and debate, regardless of who may be ahead or behind on points.

    Let me try to redirect this a little in an attempt to try to better understand your views.

    Consider schism. Would you say it is similar to both secession and no-fault divorce, or to only one, or to neither?

  • Zippy says:

    unwobblingpivot:
    Schism is just breaking an obligation. No-fault divorce and secessionism postulate something self-contradictory: an agreement with no binding content.

  • […] equal rights: other kinds of “authority” 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 […]

  • […] choice is between politics that is self aware enough to know that it is opinionated and politics lacking that self awareness. This is true at all scopes and levels of […]

  • […] One is that authority is not a single monolithic thing. Whenever one authority acts to prevent a particular vice, libertarianism implicitly requires another authority to step in and stop it. So libertarianism presupposes and requires the kind of centralized all-powerful bureaucratically micromanaging government that it is ostensibly against. […]

  • […] by particular men is inherently more resistant to tyranny than more abstracted or formalized systems of government for a whole variety of reasons. One of […]

  • […] old tyrannies could at least be seen out in the open. A man knew where he stood. Now the tyranny comes cloaked as the seductress “freedom”. Liberal tyranny boils up […]

  • […] a way of expressing the speaker’s approval of that society’s rules and customs, while tyranny has become a way of expressing […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Only discriminating authoritarians can resist tyranny at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: