Post a response to this discussion thread
The Constitution and my rejection of moral authority are not incongruent. The Constitution is more about rejecting authority than it is about imposing authority. I consider it, along with _The Fountainhead_ and Martin Luther's protest, to be extremely important documents which have led me to my current political philosophy.
Cultural Relativism as a secular ethic did not exist until the 1960's, but it is not difficult to extrapolate religious freedom as expressed in the First Amendment into cultural freedom, the highest ideal of Cultural Relativism. It may not be a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but it is certainly not hypocracy to believe that if the authors of the Constitution had a modern understanding of culture they would have included it along with religious freedom. It is more likely the Founding Fathers thought that religion and culture were the same thing than that they specifically meant to exclude cultural expression from First Amendment protection. Does it matter whether a person's values or virtues come from religion or culture? Or does it matter that, so long as those values or virtues do not interfere in the free expression of the religion and culture of others, the government has no authority to regulate or establish either a religion or a culture?
Does freedom of the press include artistic freedom? It is just as valid to interpret religious freedom to include cultural freedom.
Therefore I am perfectly consistent in my support of the Constitution, which rejects moral authority just as I do. If you have a problem with this, it should be based on my interpretation of the Constitution rather than a perceived contradiction in my beliefs.
Modern Liberal politicians, the direct philosophical descendants of the creators of Cultural Relativism, have lost sight of the Constitution's proscription on excessive government. They impose their cultural values based on arbitrary definitions of charity and appeals to emotions such as "compassion". While they claim to stand for freedom (calling themselves things like "pro-choice"), every action they take costs money which they forcibly take from their victims. They are therefore violating the highest principle of Cultural Relativism.
Modern Conservative politicians invoke a moral authority based on God to interfere with things like gay marraige and to impose things like compulsory school prayer. By the time my daughter is old enough to enter public school they might well have succeeded. As much as I appreciate economic freedom, I do not relish the thought of having to protect my children from religious zealots using MY money to turn public schools into religious indoctrination camps.
All of these onerous intrusions into individuals' personal lives are based on other people claiming to have superior moral authority. Moral superiority allows others to tell me with a straight face that if I surrender control to them I am "compassionate" while if I insist on retaining that control for myself I am "mean-spirited". I do not recognize the moral authority of those people to control my actions. The only authority I recognize as justified is that authority required to ensure my ability to reject authority.
If this sounds hypocritical, it isn't -- anarchy is not freedom any more than statism is. Individuals can interfere with peoples' lives just as government can. The moral purpose for government, then, must be to prevent this interference, while not itself causing it. Accepting the Constitution and rejecting authority both correlate to this objective. I am therefore consistent in my views when I cite the Constitution as a source of authority ... on rejecting authority!
Governments can and must do things that individuals are not allowed to do. In the name of freedom, government must deny criminals freedom. Individuals cannot put people on trial and imprison them. Governments can. Does anyone who believes in government justice but opposes vigilante justice a hypocrite? Of course not. Similarly, "Reject Authority" as a system of government must invoke authority in the enforcement of laws designed to allow people the freedom to reject authority. This is no more ideologically inconsistent than government reserving for itself the right to punish criminals, even while making those punishments illegal for individual citizens to mete out.
Post a response to this discussion thread