The Distortion of Good

The Distortion of Good

We have had some thought provoking posts on freedom illustrating flaws on the left and the right. It sounds like many of you identify with the Libertarian Party. Their philosophy does indeed support the true principle of freedom much more than the two mainstream parties (in the US) and many by their talk seem to believe its principles, but by their walk often betray them.

The trouble with the Libertarian Party is that their principles are too big of a leap for the average freedom lover and that is one reason they often get less than 1% of the vote.

What we are looking for is the principle that should govern freedom for an enlightened people.

The basic problem in seeing the principle was worded well by Lawrence:

“Imagine a line extending off in two directions. Label one side “Left” and the other side “Right”. On the “Left” side we have the people who want to use force to implement their view of fairness, e.g., universal healthcare, economic equity, etc. On the “Right” side we have very similar people who want to use force to ensure morality, e.g., ban abortions, flag burning, and instill family values and democracy, at the point of an assault rifle if necessary.”

Both sides see certain ideals that they consider “right” and “good” and then unfortunately are willing to restrict freedom in others to achieve that goal.

Djwhal Khul made an interesting statement about disease that applies to out social ills.

“Disease, both physical and psychological, has its roots in the good, the beautiful and the true. It is but a distorted refection of divine possibilities. The thwarted soul, seeking full expression of some divine characteristic or inner spiritual reality, produces within the substance of its sheaths a point of friction. Upon this point the eyes of the personality are focussed, and this leads to disease.”

This Fourth Law of Healing not only applied to disease of the physical body, but also to the problems of humanity as a whole.

Let us take a system that did cause pain and suffering to its people such as communism in the Soviet Union before its collapse. Most of us would agree that this was not a very desirable system. Even so, it had its roots in “the good, the beautiful and the true.” And what was that? Its two main ideas were equality and sharing. Is there anything wrong with these two principles? No. Not at all. In fact they are two ideals that the Brotherhood of Light are attempting to steer humanity toward.

If equality and sharing are two great ideals why then was the USSR seen as the “evil empire” and the source of so much pain and suffering imposed upon its own people? They presented the ideal of equality and sharing, yet there was little equality or a sense of true sharing there. The evil capitalists actually shared more value in wealth and the poor among them were in good shape compared to some average Russians.

What then was the root cause of their failure?

The answer is quite simple.

Instead of teaching men to do good and allowing good works to spring forth through free will Communism attempted to implement the “good” by the use of force. This is a negative principle believed in by the Dark Brothers which could be stated thus: “Restrict freedom of others (the decision makers excluded) to whatever degree necessary to create the desired end.”

Even Hitler had many ideals he and others considered good such as family values, sexual purity, a powerful government to prevent injustice, higher education made available to all and of course the evolution of Germans into supermen.

Now let me make an all important point here. The problem with Germany was NOT the belief it had in any of its ideals. Instead the problem was that they took action to impose their value of “good” on others through the use of force.

In an atmosphere of freedom that which is truly good and usable will manifest as a plant growing from a seed, but in an atmosphere of restriction even the most wonderful of all seeds cannot sprout and grow, but will suffocate and die.

Thus the philosophy that has come out of Nazism or Communism poses very little threat in an atmosphere of freedom. It is in the imposition by force of an idea of good that negates the growth of the good and nourishes the exact opposite of the desired end.

Let us suppose that you were an idealistic vegetarian and became supreme dictator of the United States. Now you have all this power you think you finally have a chance to “make a difference” and seek to make people do the right thing. You issue a decree that meat eating is against the law and anyone who kills an animal gets life in prison. You also outlaw all hunting and fishing. There. That ought to do it. Now everyone will live the good life as you do and will live happily ever after. Right?

Not quite. Overnight the value of beef cattle goes down to close to zero and ranchers have no means or desire to take care of them. Within a month millions of cattle are starving to death, breaking out of their fenced areas, and getting hit by cars.

Pigs become an even greater nuisance. At least we can get milk from cows but now pigs have nothing to offer and within 90 days the entire species is threatened.

To solve the problem you start up government subsidy programs to take care of neglected farm animals. This puts a great strain on the economy and soon you see that you are very close to economic collapse.

This problem is amplified by great numbers of the most productive citizens leaving the US to live in other countries where they have the freedom to eat meat. To solve this problem you close the doors to those wanting to leave. Even so, many risk their lives to escape to foreign countries.

You are outraged by this and demand that Europe and England return the fugitives so they can be shot as traitors. They refuse so you go to war for three “good” reasons.

(1) To retrieve and punish the traitors.

(2) To “convert” Europe and England to the vegetarian way of life. The slogan your armies are indoctrinated with is “free Europe!”

(3) War will take everyone’s mind off the bad economy and when the war is won you can tax the defeated nations and thus insure continued prosperity for your country.

After the war begins, France in desperation detonates a nuclear device in Washington hoping to kill you and end the madness. Fortunately for you, you were visiting friends in Hollywood and yet live to promote your cause. You now launch a full scale nuclear attack and destroy half the population in Europe. All the other nations of the world no longer are neutral but combine together as one force to fight against you and defeat you. The saying abroad is that you make Hitler look like Mother Teresa.

This just angers you and increases your determination to prevail.

As the war that may end all life on the planet rages on one thought goes through your mind. You cry as you think this thought because the world so misunderstands you.

“Can’t these people see that I just want to help them and save the animals at the same time? Why don’t they see the love that I have to offer? When I win this war (and I don’t even believe in war) I will make things right and a great era a peace and brotherhood will manifest. Then they will understand that I only mean to do good.”

The trouble is that millions of animals that you hoped to save are dying painful deaths through radiation poisoning even as you think these good thoughts.

Fortunately for the world there are no idealists who have supreme power over a major nation. This may seem like an unrealistic parable to you, but let me assure you that there are many idealists that would indeed unleash great misery on human kind if they had the power to restrict freedom.

I once attended a dinner where the founders of a well known environmentalist group were the speakers. I was horrified at some of their beliefs and even more so at the approval they received from the audience.

They advocated the attainment of political power so they would be able to force people out of their homes in major cities and turn them back to their pristine condition so the wild animals could multiply as they did before Columbus.

I wondered when I heard people clapping for them if they realized that Boise was on their group and that if those they were cheering had power that the audience themselves would become homeless and starving.

If we truly want to see the Aquarian Age evolve along positive lines the people will need to exercise common sense in an atmosphere of freedom.

May 27, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The True Liberal

212

Dec 3, 2016

The True Liberal

Someone posted this definition of a liberal from a Webster’s Dictionary.

  1. Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful.
  2. Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind.
  3. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed.
  4. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action.

I thought I would comment on this since this was evidently posted with the idea of presenting the people of the Left as being represented by this definition.

I have written a number of times about the fact that people are confused about the use of the words liberal and conservative as they often use liberal when speaking of conservatism. For instance, the strongest conservative stance on earth is taken by some environmentalists groups who fight tooth and nail to conserve earth in its natural undistorted state. In spite of this strong desire to conserve, they are called liberals.

On the other hand, religious Christians who are labeled conservatives, have been documented as being the most liberal people in the country as far as donating time and money to charitable causes.

I believe that Libertarians such as myself, who strongly adhere to the Principle of Freedom, are the most liberal of all people. We even have the word “liberal” as the base of the title we claim. Strangely though libertarians are usually grouped with conservatives by the masses rather than the so-called liberal Democrats and when forced to pick between the two major parties we usually vote with the Republicans because they are the most liberal on all things but the social issues which isn’t as big a deal to us as downsizing government control and controlling overspending.

Now let us look at these definitions of a liberal and see how they apply to me.

  1. “Possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful.”

I certainly believe in this approach and try to live up to it.”

  1. “Appropriate and/or fitting for a broad and enlightened mind.”

This quality is difficult to pin down in black and white for neither side thinks the other is enlightened or broad minded. Like most people though I attempt to entertain things from a broad and enlightened point of view.

  1. “Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed.”

I don’t think anyone can accuse me of narrowness. My belief system has changed and evolved throughout my life as I have e looked into many Christian religions, Islam Buddhism (even written a book on it) eastern religions and of course the Ancient Wisdom.

I study both sides on political issues and have read books by Obama and Al Gore as well as Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. Many I communicate with only know of one side and that only in part.

So am I free from bigotry? The online Oxford dictionary defines bigotry as follows:

“Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.”

So far in my life of 71 years no one has pointed out anything I have said or done that is bigoted. I must confess though I am somewhat intolerant of those who murder, rape, steal, etc.

I like the last part of this definition which sees a liberal as one who is free of “bondage to authority or creed.”

This is the essence of a true libertarian. He especially wants maximum freedom from government authorities, regulations, restrictions, as well as most other authorities and creeds.

In my case I do not just blindly accept any statement just because it comes from a supposed authoritarian source. For instance, when I hear an non scientist politician authoritatively tell me I must accept his version of global warming because 97% of scientists agree with him I immediately question and look into it. Then I discover that the statement is a great distortion, that the 97% do not really agree on much except that humans do have some effect on the climate, but how much varies from one scientist to another. Some say humans account for less than 1% of the warming and a few even say 100%. Of course the 100% makes no sense for that would mean there would be no climate change without humans and there was a lot of change before fire was discovered or before humans were on the earth.

The last definition is placed in a second category, meaning that it can stand by itself as an alternative definition. I like this definition best of all which says a liberal is “Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action.”

This goes to the heart of my teachings on the Principle of Freedom which strongly supports these three freedoms.

Unfortunately, many who are called liberals today support restrictions on these three things. Let us examine these three items.

First, thought and speech go together because you do not know what one is thinking until he expresses it.

The main side trying to restrict speech today are the ones labeled as liberals. They tell us what is politically correct and hate speech and in many cases seek to curtail such speech by force of law or enforced rules. In the liberal universities students are demanding “safe places” where they will be insulated from speech with which they disagree and if a conservative speaker comes on campus they will often protest or shout the person down in attempts to limit speech.

As far as action is concerned both those labeled conservatives and liberals seek all kinds of unnecessary restrictions on us. The true libertarian, or liberal will not seek to control any action of others unless a definite harm is created and I certainly support this idea.

So, overall after considering this definition of a liberal I must confess that I must be about as liberal of a person as one can find. This is quite the irony for when I go on a political site and merely mention a belief in Divine Intelligence, articulate doubt that climate change will bring an apocalypse, or express a desire for responsible government spending I am called names and attacked as an extreme conservative.

For more details on what a liberal and conservative is go to this LINK.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE