To want anarchy is to want actions without consequence, to want what never was nor can ever be. It is chaos without the hope derived of order and law. Scientifically we know that actions and reactions (consequences) are inseparable. Anarchy then, may never know freedom.

There has been much call for anarchy lately in the alternative economic media. The call is often mislabeled as a desire for “free” markets. “Free” meaning absent any intervention, direction, or compulsion whatsoever. The retort from socialists is always that no truly free market can ever escape the fate of plutocracy, monopoly etc. hence economies must be managed. But that assertion confuses “free” with anarchy and seeks to forever destine man to living under the nanny state.

Anarchy never was, and never will be freedom. It wants what can never be, consequence-less choices.

Freedom is the realm of law and order.

What then is freedom? Is control just incremental as the political scales illustrate as a fade from far right anarchy to far left despotism?

NO!

Natural order and law defines a straight and narrow path of choice. It is the path of beneficial consequences as a result of correct choices. Freedom is the complete enabling of those choices. All blessings (beneficial consequences) are predicated upon obedience to that law unto which that blessing is affixed.

Given that choice and consequence are inextricably linked, freedom then cannot be viewed as escape from consequence, but rather adherence to the laws that maximize benefit.

Freedom has to be obedience to natural law.

Ah! Kill joy! That is so limiting! Surely no fun can come of that! Surely freedom comes in right and wrong choices!

Ah contraire! Think of flight. Flight does not come by flaunting gravity, but rather by adherence to the principles of drag and lift which may or may not over power gravity. This is the natural order and law. Herein is the freedom of flight. Without right choices here, things deteriorate quickly.

Miracles are simply a (possibly not understood) higher law over powering a lower law. Such is the miracle of flight. Miracles by nature tend to overcome limitations and thus contribute to freedom.

Natural law is the domain of freedom as is the natural order. What is this natural order?

The natural order is seen in the patterns around us. It is the illustration of purpose, the why of natural law.

Life is progression and order dictates progression in the same way order is required in a factory. Our factory is the life factory, the exaltation factory. Without order, the natural law becomes the pointless tyranny of a fish bowl god that spurs anarchists to defy it. With order the natural law embodies exalting freedom.

Anarchy is a random stabbing around in the dark without an end in mind,. It is the nuts and bolts of scientology wherein the mind dictates action and then chooses a consequence to link to it. It is delusion and mental incompetence.

Governments and economies likewise cannot be exalted by anarchy (attempting to assert consequence to action) but only by adhering to the true exalting path of freedom.

“A time and a place for everything” No space where there is no law.

All of this begs the questions of application. Is enforcement a principle of freedom in natural law and/or order? The short answer is yes, all things have their consequences. But the long answer illustrates that God is the head of all and an integral part to the natural law and order and He dictates enforcement of His law, the natural law, of His order, the natural order, to man. He is inseparable from it. That may sound like the “God is in everything” environmentalist dribble that has people worshiping the mother earth, but in reality it is much different because it is factual and specific.

The question then becomes, what does the natural law and natural order teach us? What is it’s proper enforcement? What are the limits to agency?

If we could see the order imposed by God (and we can and do) then we would know to attribute all order to God.

Truly then the “natural” law is better labeled God’s law, and the “natural” order, God’s order.

It is fundamental to the creation that God organized chaotic matter by law into the beauty we now see in the law and order we see.

Of course men have muddied that up!

“The First Thing You Know” as sung by Lee Marvin in the movie musical “Paint You Wagon.”

“God made the mountains
God made the sky
God made the people
God knows why

“He fixed up the planet
As best as He could
Then in come the people
And gum it up good

“The first thing you know

“They civilized the foothills
And everywhere ‘E put hills
The mountains and valleys below

“They come along and take 'em
And civilize and make 'em
A place where no civilized
Person would go

“The first thing you know
The first thing you know

“They civilize what's pretty
By puttin' up a city
Where nothin' that's
Pretty can grow

“They muddy up the winter
And civilize it, into a place
Too uncivilized
Even for snow

“The first thing you know


“They civilize left
They civilize right
Till nothing is left
Till nothing is right

“They civilize freedom
Till no one is free
No one except
By coincidence, me

“The first thing you know

“The boozer's in prison
And the criminally isn't
And only the rascals have dough

“When I see a parson
I gotta put my arse’in
A wagon that follows the tail of a crow

“The first thing you know
I pick up and blow
The first thing you know”

Man in asserting the childish principles of Anarchy or a chaotic (satanic) order has really made a wreck of things.

Thus the Adamic command to “subdue it” We are instructed to restore the natural law and order and to restore “all as at first.” Unto Adam was given the law, “you broke it, you fix it.” Through mercy of the atonement we are forgiven, but we must do all that we can to bring about restitution. Adam still has a work to do receiving the keys to the repaired vehicle and turning them back over to their rightful owner.

Enoch did his bit! We must do ours in like manner. We must do so in the true freedom found in strict adherence to the true natural laws in the natural order derived from God. It is the only way.

- - -

Jeremy is a husband and father first and foremost. He has devoted his life to not getting his priorities out of line. He has made himself and his family the Jacks of all trades. Jeremy invites you to take the good and leave the bad; better yet to move the ball forward and fix any deficiencies there might be in his work. Truth should stand on it\'s own merits and not on his. 

Comments (19)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Mormon Paleo said:

	Thanks for your article. You bring up some interesting and (to the masses) counter-intuitive points. Maybe this is a little redundant for you and many others, but for me, it would be helpful if anarchy and natural law were more clearly defined, so that I know what specifically you are referring to.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 01, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

	God is an Anarchist! Don't you understand the Greek meaning of the word anarchy? Without RULERS, not without rules. Anarchy is good - it is what we must eventually become (or IMO we can not become Gods). The modern statists have brainwashed to believe that Anarchy = bad. I'm sorry that you repeat such nonsense.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 01, 2008
Votes: -1

Jeremy Parker said:

We as LDS know that a Constitutional Representative Republic such as ours was and is the God given ideal. Such a government is not without rulers despite the intention and affirmation that the individual therein is sovereign. We herein appoint our wise men and sages as leaders (in theory, though we have failed to do so in practice) to exalt the people to their level lest we become a democracy and forever chain ourselves to the average, or become a socialistic abasement to the bottom, or a cesspool of self centered rule in the chaos of what is commonly referred to as anarchy, or the tyranny of plutocracy/aristocracy/despotism as we see today. All law, to have effect must be enforced. Natural (God's) law is naturally enforced (enforced by God). If by His word the worlds and order thereof were formed, then by His word they may be reformed or dissolved etc... thus it is by His blessing that we enjoy all order and by His blessing we may continue to enjoy such by obedience to His law. By anarchy I mean the ideal that men can be effectively governed by any passive law or by singly asserting their own. Passive law is no law. Unenforced law is no law. Law enforced by every man according to his dictates is chaos and by nature cannot exalt any people.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 01, 2008
Votes: +1

Brian R. Mecham said:

	Without RULERS, not without rules. Okay, so under that definition there are rules but no rulers... but who is going to enforce the rules? It's definitely wrong for a tyrant to dictate & regulate everything we do... but how can rules be enforced without at least someone in a position of enforcement, such as a sheriff? And when someone breaks the rules we'll need a judge and a jury and so on...
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 02, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

Jeremy: "Law enforced by every man according to his dictates is chaos and by nature cannot exalt any people." You have it EXACTLY wrong!!! Besides saving ordinances the only law is "Love God, Love others". If one depends on others to enforce this law then one can not be exalted. Brian: A long as that sheriff extracts is wages from unwilling participants, or he enforces rules that are not based on protecting rights he plays the role of the tyrant. Do we agree that I have the right to defend my property? Do we agree that you and I can form a mutual defense pact to defend our properties (even to the point of hiring a sheriff)? Does this sheriff have any more rights (or moral authority) than we have? Do you have a right (or moral authority) to prevent your neighbor from growing/consuming herbs? (as long as this neighbor is not violating your rights?) Do all the people in the world (democracy) have the combined right (moral authority) to stop this neighbor from using herbs? So where does the Sheriff get the right/authority to do so?

report abuse vote down vote up

April 02, 2008
Votes: +0

Jeremy Parker said:

Do you have a right (or moral authority) to prevent your neighbor from growing/consuming herbs? (as long as this neighbor is not violating your rights?) Do all the people in the world (democracy) have the combined right (moral authority) to stop this neighbor from using herbs? So where does the Sheriff get the right/authority to do so? In short, yes, because he is violating your rights! We have the right to virtue. No one has a right to offend. That is why the church supports laws that prohibit such things as gambling and the prohibition of liquor. Society has a right to be free from the ills thereof, even if people can keep it to themselves so to speak. The truth is that they cannot keep it to themselves because it is and will be seen or known about, as will it's effects which are a complete affront and offense to decency and virtue (which are violated thereby). I won't address the rest of your post as it is clear that on a base level we fundamentally disagree and thus cannot go any farther.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 02, 2008
Votes: +1

Jeremy Parker said:

but how can rules be enforced without at least someone in a position of enforcement, such as a sheriff? And when someone breaks the rules we'll need a judge and a jury and so on... Brian, I believe that enforcement can and should be in like manner to juries and militias. Like the old west movies, even in a town with a sheriff the sheriff is seldom able to go it alone and gets up a posse of regular citizens (who posses all the rights available to anyone) to enforce the agreed upon standard that constitutes government as a binding covenant. I believe that a sheriff should be a process server and facilitator. I do believe that there should be a sheriff and judge, but I do not believe in granting them "police powers" (rights, privileges, or authority) which are any different than that which any other citizen possesses. I do not believe that we can safely delegate charity, military, or police powers (possibly other functions as well), as they are I believe individual duties that cannot easily be discharged through delegation. The arms must remain in the hands of the people and they alone must use them or submit to inevitable tyranny. Police forces were historically unarmed (with firearms) until the 1840's (if I remember correctly) despite the widespread use of firearms by every other class of people. The reason being a fear of a standing army. I believe we must return to that model.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 02, 2008
Votes: +1

ed42 said:

Jeremy, Do you understand that you are embracing socialism? That offends me. I have a right to not be offended (according to you) and therefore you MUST stop preaching this nonsense!!! Of course we do NOT have a right to be free of offense. Our rights include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (or some call property). I call on your fellow bloggers to review your work because you obviously do not believe in freedom.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 03, 2008
Votes: -2

Jeremy Parker said:

Bearing false witness is not wise... I have the right to be free from offense by very definition. something that outrages the moral or physical senses 4 a: the act of displeasing or affronting 5 a: a breach of a moral or social code : sin, misdeed b: an infraction of law; especially : misdemeanor You assume that I mean my petty emotionally based feelings and I do not. True offense is judged by true morality as defined by God and not men. It is God's law. It is not subjective!

report abuse vote down vote up

April 07, 2008
Votes: +1

Brian R. Mecham said:

ed42, Your beliefs regarding anarchy are contrary to the teachings of W. Cleon Skousen, Ezra Taft Benson, Adam Smith and others that I consider to be the foremost experts on the Constitution, Freedom and God's Law. Just as God has established a system of government in his Church He also calls for a system of government to enforce the law. Both systems include the ability to punish those who violate anothers rights.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 08, 2008 | url
Votes: +1

Jeremy Parker said:

ed42 in commenting on another post said: "Your socialist notions remind me of the wrong side of the war in heaven. We fought over agency - the "right" to commit wrongs." I most certainly did not fight for the right to commit wrongs. I fought for agency, the ability to choose and suffer the consequences whether good or bad, at the hands of "my servants" or by God himself. Perhaps we should get this straight. Rights exercised properly are unequivocally never punishable by God. Sure we have the ability to murder, but we do not have the right. The church has repeatedly acknowledged that Utahn's have no right to gamble even in private establishments. I know why, but your stand leaves absolutely no room for such a stand. This in itself should be enough for you, and yet you continue to kick against the pricks, fighting against the brethren trying to assert your learning of Von Mises Lew Rockwellian thought above the revealed word.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 08, 2008
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

Jeremy Parker claims "The church has repeatedly acknowledged that Utahn's have no right to gamble even in private establishments. I know why, but your stand leaves absolutely no room for such a stand." Do you have God's authority to physically prevent me from Gambling or punish me (via taking my life, liberty, and/or property) if I am got gambling? If you don't have this authority then from whence does the state get this authority? [Of course one always maintains the right to punish via disassociation]. Apparently it is offensive to God for a woman to have more than one piercing in each ear? Do maintain God's approval to punish those who offend God in this manner?

report abuse vote down vote up

April 10, 2008
Votes: -1

Jeremy Parker said:

Do you have God's authority to physically prevent me from Gambling or punish me (via taking my life, liberty, and/or property) if I am got gambling? Absolutely within the rule of law which trumps the anarchy of self enforcement of necessity. Are you asserting that I do not have the right to enforce what the state can? Surely that would be new doctrine! Of course I can not go on a witch hunt and invade your privacy to uphold my suspicions or to establish them, but if it become known that a game of chance were held in the back of a tractor trailer on a given day, yes, you can rest assured that the Utah cops would show up and raid it, I submit no exception to what is already occurring. http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3054883 Or is this different because it was a private business and not home and the people weren't just friends and the stakes were high? If so I would submit that you are guilty of moral relativism.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 11, 2008
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

What bullcr*p reasoning you assert "Are you asserting that I do not have the right to enforce what the state can?" WHERE DOES THE STATE GET THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE ANYTHING? WHERE DO THE COPS GET THEIR AUTHORITY? (From the people, duh!) And where do the people get the right be punish others for gambling? You are a statist Jeremy Parker, and are and embarrasement to cause of freedom with this line of thinking.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 11, 2008
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

	Respect for another's rights and property is fundamental in good government. It is a mark of refinement in any individual, it is a fundamental Christian virtue. - President David O. McKay General Conference, April 1964
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 11, 2008
Votes: +0

Jeremy Parker said:

	That's really the best supporting quote you can come up with? Of course that doesn't surprise me a bit. Your claims are without merit and you accusations account to a false witness. I respect rights and property, you show no respect for rights as your definition guarantees a violation of rights and property. You have tipped your impotent hand too far.
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Jeremy Parker said:

You have no respect for man's right to be free from foul emanations of vile smoke, foul cursing, images which are evil to behold or rather beholding evil (same either way), you have no respect for man's rights to virtue, good health, good society etc... as spoken by the brethren and as reinforced by the church. You have no respect for property rights to be free from foul emanations, pollutions, projections and the like. Can you not see that it is you who have no respect for rights? Can you not see that you are kicking against the pricks? Can you not see that you are setting yourself up in opposition to the church and brethren? Your cards are on the table, we can all see them now, can you not walk away before you lose yet more? Thought someone would get a kick out of a gambling analogy, maybe accuse me of supporting gambling hence hypocrisy... There is nothing more to accomplish here.

report abuse vote down vote up

April 12, 2008
Votes: +0

ed42 said:

	Again, a losing socialist refuses to answer simple freedom questions... WHERE DOES THE STATE GET THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE ANYTHING?
	report abuse vote down vote up

April 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Jeremy Parker said:

The state never has rights, it never can. Rights come from God to individuals period. Rights cannot be pooled, transferred, changed etc... they are inalienable. The state's power & authority comes by God and the consent of the governed (as per the Declaration of Independence) if done according to God's law of which the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are a part. Both of those documents uphold the rule of law so long as man can not claim that his rights are being usurped by despots within that government, hence man may not cherry pick which laws he is willing to live by because he has agreed to be a part of that nation whether by implied consent by reason of birth and inaction, or actual consent as in the oath of citizenship. A socialist that adheres to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution more closely than the critic who calls him one,...how rich

report abuse vote down vote up

April 13, 2008
Votes: +0

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment