2006-10-12 04:15:00
Larry writes:
The primary deficiency on this subject is not what you have said, but what you have not said. On the one hand, you have on several occasions stated that your political position is close to that of the Libertarians (and presumably then you are truly familiar with their ideas), yet I have never seen you even mention what is probably their most important political principle - the principle that the cornerstone of rational civilization is that neither individuals nor governments should _initiate_ the use of force against others.
First, thank you for your more considerate and respectful response.
Let me say that a good percentage of what I have written is not found in any book, nor was it a reiteration or a regurgitation of something that I have taken from other writings. Most of my best writings have come through the soul and not because I have carefully studied the writings of others. In fact, I have been so busy the last 20 years that about all the books I have read have been through listening to audio while I am working.
A part of me wishes I could have had lots of time to study and contemplate in my life, for I have had much less free time than the average person and much of what has come has been through contemplation while I have been doing other things. Maybe this was as it was supposed to be.
As I have said, Libertarian best describes me even though I have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. I have done a casual study of their materials which is enough to give me the general idea of their thinking process. I do not see much advantage doing an in depth study of the party when I have other things I believe to be more important to pursue. Besides, the individual libertarians often do not agree on how to apply the principles of freedom. A friend visited me today who used to be active in the Libertarian Party and he became so frustrated with it that he joined the Republican Party. I asked him if the Libertarians were in agreement on a number of issues and according to him there is not much consensus on most of them. Even though most of them are familiar with a lot of the writings you have read they still cannot agree because they do not see the principles through the soul. I'm sure this is one reason they have never become a major party.
I do not need to read anything further to understand what my soul says about the principle of freedom. It is crystal clear in my head. I have written quite a bit on it and could write much more. If I do write more I will not write from the point of view of the Libertarian Party or any others but from the language of principles, the language of the soul.
The mind only goes so far and without the soul it will slay the real. The mind can memorize details and embrace ideas and ideals, but for two minds to see with unity how to apply the principle behind freedom or any other idea demands a degree of soul contact.
Larry:
True hard core Libertarians would even deny the right of government to initiate the use of force even if for the greater good (they would deny the right of government to force an individual to sell land to build a public freeway, for example).
Not all Libertarians think this way even though this may be the ideal. I do not think this way because it does not always bring the maximum freedom.
A black and white declaration never gets at the core principle. The key is to seek maximum freedom and this often requires the second key of judgment.
Larry:
So again, it is not really what you've said, but what you have not said, the distinctions you have not stated, and the well known principles you have not acknowledged as being important.
I'm sure there is much I have not written on a number of subjects I have covered. I have enunciated what I see to be the basic principles behind freedom in a number of posts and have covered different aspects of it.
If you see others and want my views on you are welcome to present them and I'll tell you what I think. In the interest of time please present one or two at a time. Sometimes members give me more than I have time to cover.
Larry:
I believe you are truly for freedom, but I don't think you have studied some of the details to anywhere the degree you have studied other subjects (and who can study everything in detail?).
You are correct.
Larry:
Looking back in the Keys of Knowledge I found that I first mentioned this principle to you as far back as the year 2000. I have never seen you to be particularly receptive of these distinctions as being very important.
What distinctions?
Larry:
You talk repeatedly about the importance of principles, yet in my view seem uninterested in one of the most important subjects in regards to human rights, the use of force, and the proper role of government.
I think the principle behind anything I would express about force is covered in the principle I recently gave out which is:
The correct use of authority and force is to restrict those forces which limit life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I believe the principle here, as seen through the eyes of the soul, will be apparent in any detail that can be elucidated.
For instance you write:
Government may in certain circumstances use retaliatory force and even initiate force in a few instances. The use of retaliatory force, e.g. against criminals, is not difficult to justify, or understand. It is a primary purpose of government.
Dangerous criminals limit life, liberty and pursuit of happiness so according to the core principle I have given we are justified in using force to restrain them.
Larry:
To me that is a deficiency which often doesn't bother me, except when you start to expound on these subjects and ignore some of the most important principles, and at the same time talk of the importance of principles. I find that somewhat irksome.
Like I say, give me one or two things at a time you think I have ignored. I may or may not agree that these are important to pursue but I'll give you some kind of clarification.
On the mental plane, a great and deep-seated cleavage is going on and the occult significance of certain words, enunciated by the Christ when in Palestine, is being worked out. He gave them as the keynote for the particular subjective happening which is taking place at this time. He said: "He that is not with Me is against Me." This refers to the after-effects of the conflict between the Forces of Light and the Forces of Evil. Great decisions have to be made all over the world, as to whether humanity moves forward into a New Age of cooperation and of right human relations or whether the materialistic groups will reassert their control and succeed in winning the day. This great cleavage is now in process of settlement.
Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 59
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved