Parental Relationship

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
—-
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor

Political Philosopher & Author

—
Consultant, Speaker, Author

Naturopathic Medical Consultations

Marriage & Personal Counseling

—

(503) 255-9500
drthomas@naturedox.com

The Christian Constitutional Republic
One Nation Under God

Government of, by, and for the People

Liberty and Justice for All
by: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Nation to Nation Parental Relationship
By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
2/11/2011

Tom, I read your latest essay and haven’t had a chance to digest and write a reply. But I will say that I see a gigantic distinction between one’s own children (and the power and moral right over one’s own children) and other people in society – the distinction being that we undertook to create these people and bring them into the world, so we have an obvious obligation to love and train them. I disagree that any such obligation exists to the same degree to the public at large.
- John
‹(•¿•)›

John, I am pleased to hear that you are considering the concepts that I offered in my latest essay.

Your comment is important, and the distinction between countries and parents deserves more elaboration. Obviously there is a distinction between the literal parent, and the parental role one must take at times with those who are not our children. There is a difference, but there is a similarity also. As always, life is a continuum, and it is necessary to recognize the differences, similarities, and mix as we move through the gradient between the poles.

Embedded within this distinction is the moral stand that justifies Libertarianism. The primary standard held by the Libertarian is freedom to act according to one’s own conscience. Thus, the right of homosexuals, consenting adults, drug users, or revolutionaries to follow the path they consider right. I do not call myself a Libertarian (holding liberty as the superior/highest organizing principle of the individual and group) because I believe we are all constrained by the Law. God’s standard for Right relationship is the highest principle, but having established and identified that, I totally support the individual having all the degrees of freedom that the divine Law allows.

The question then is how much moral obligation do we each have in correcting another person? (as an aside: When we correct another person (or nation) we place ourselves at risk of being confronted with correction. When we play the parent role, we risk being put in the child role in response.)

When we are in the corrective/counseling role it is a parent-type role, and the parent has the moral obligation to exert the appropriate amount of force to influence the child to move rightly.

We cannot divorce ourselves completely from the well being, and actions of all other nation-states and live in isolation. In other words, we are in relationship with people as individuals and groups, and we should adopt any polarity that the interaction properly requires. But, the question is always, “What is the appropriate role, polarity, or response to the action of another person/nation?”

(This question introduces the question of whether the situation falls into the category of being governed by an Absolute Standard. The answer to that question naturally dictates the proper course of action. If there is an absolute standard, then we are certainly justified in acting according to that standard. Likewise, if there is no absolute standard, then we have no obligation to act any particular way, and we are free to act according to taste, habit, or personal theory of proper life flow.)

This is in essence the substance of the discussion. Is there a Right way for a person or nation to act in response to another? – The Libertarian response would often be, “Each person and nation is sovereign, and each sovereign should behave as he wishes.” But, I contend that no man or nation is completely sovereign, instead, we each

In the case of a badly behaving nation, treating them like a child (age appropriate for their level of development in the path to maturity) is appropriate. The influence, and the moral obligation, is progressively stronger when there is a close client/dependent relationship as was present with Egypt. Obviously the child/nation must be treated with respect, and given freedom ot the extent that their behavior is good, and use discipline of various sorts (withdrawal of approval on the world stage, teaching in hte form of media commentary, supporting good decisions and leaders...) when behavior is bad. Letting them simply make decisions that will destroy themselves or others, will produce poor results, for them and for us. It is easier to let people just be themselves and not apply corrective influence, but the degeneration will later prove that course was unwise as evidenced by the various forms of pain that arise from bad behavior. Every interaction has a little bit of parent, peer, teacher, student, child, elder... in it. There is seldom the monovalent relationship experience. Rather, we must simply flow into the proper valence and relate as best we can, applying pressure, yielding ground, taking position, influencing, and being influenced. Nation to Nation is just another one of the relationship dyads, and it can assume any of the possible combinations of relationship pairs.
T.

----- Original Message -----

From: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
To: John
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 1:42 AM
Subject: Campaign for liberty

John, hopefully the following will move our discussion forward. I had some new revelations about choice and freedom as I confronted the issues of this essay, and I am interested in your feedback. This article was in reference to the von Mises article on Egypt.

Sadly the most likely outcome of the Egypt drama is that the tyranny of the fascist dictatorship will be replaced by the tyranny of Sharia Law. Giving children democracy, i.e. the freedom to choose, is harmful when the child has no maturity in moral discrimination.

Releasing children (a culture) to "choose" Sharia is akin to allowing a child to choose to smoke dope, have sex, drive fast, and join cults. Yes, freeing people from tyranny is good, but it is not good, inspiring, or a wonderful example of “freedom” to allow them to choose another tyranny. The outcome of the freedom will be poor when people choose badly. The consequences of some choices are not easily reversible, and it is best not to give choice to the child, imbecile, madman, or rebel.

As the de facto puppet masters of Egypt, America has squandered its time of hegemonic influence -- a time when we could have used our overbearing parental position to strongly influence the culture, dictatorship, corruptocracy, and economy. Of course the distance between their present cultural/economic reality and true prosperity and righteous rule of law is of epic proportions, but we could have applied pressure slowly, in the right direction, and the hearts, minds, and actions of the people would have followed. A paradigm shift is needed, and we could and should have used our time of influence to move the culture incrementally toward the form of a Christian Constitutional Republic.

(I know this was not the purpose of the various administrations or power structures. They got what they wanted and paid for. And, this is exactly the reason why you oppose governments, espouse Libertarianism, and want to form a society free of such top down tyranny.)

What I am proposing is not politically correct. I know we are supposed to respect all religions, let everyone believe whatever they believe, never say that one religion more true or correct, and above all we are never to say that there is only one way to the Father. But, we are operating under a double standard that actually reveals an agenda. The Godless Left wants to separate Christianity completely from State, despite the blessings that it has brought America. But, they loudly advocate for the right of the Islamists to rule themselves under authoritarian rule of Sharia.

Moving a culture involves progressing gradually upward through steps such as: food, water, sanitation, housing, power, transportation, communication, righteous rule of law, and finally a Right standard of Law. But, starting with the Right Standard (i.e. Godliness) speeds up the process, which is what we saw with the rise of America. The fact that we were largely a Christian nation at our founding may have been the major factor in her meteoric rise to dominance of the world stage.

As nation builders, as shapers of the cultures of the world, we could have applied gentle pressure along multiple axi in the direction of Righteousness. People long for freedom within the limits of righteousness. But freedom and a righteous society come slowly when under the weight of a totalitarian theocracy. The change comes faster in an environment of free exchange of ideas and prosperity. We did not foster this in Egypt, to our shame. We deserve the coming caliphate and all the horrors it will bring to our economy, world, and freedom. No one can use the devil for his own benefit -- it’s only a matter of time until he is used.

We could have used our influence to change hearts and minds by showing them the fruit of Godliness. The problem is we are hypocrites, claiming to embrace freedom and democracy, while propping up dictators and enabling their suppression for our benefit. We must first live and be the ideals before we can export them. My real critique is of ourselves; we are not the change we advocate.

The major consideration for the Libertarian could be phrased as, "What right do we have to exert an influence or lifestyle upon another people?" And the answer is, "We have the same right that a righteous parent has to mold a child." As parents we have the right and obligation to teach children to love, distinguish good from evil, give honor to whom honor is due, treat others as you want to be treated."

But, the more important question is, “Do people have the right to do what is wrong?” The answer is context dependent. From God’s frame of reference, He gave men free will. So, one could argue that God intended that men have the right to do anything they please.

But, this opinion is brought under question when we consider the same question relative to the perspective of man. “Do men have the right to do anything they want?”

The answer is “No.” Men have no right to do anything that makes the world worse, because doing wrong hurts other people. There are no victimless crimes. No sin that affects only self. There is only disagreement about whether an action is right or wrong. If it is right, no one is hurt, self or other. If it is wrong, both self and other are hurt. No one has the right to hurt anyone else.

Men only have the right to do the Right and Godly thing. Every action, to self or others, makes the world better or worse, and we have no right to make the world worse for another person. Good and evil are not equivalent. Pleasure and pain are not equivalent. Poverty and wealth are not equivalent. Love and hatred are not equivalent. There are choices that make the world a worse place to live for our fellow man, and we have no right to inflict that polarity of pain, evil, hatred... upon him.

As fellow travelers on planet Earth, we all make wrong choices. And, we each give each other the grace to make mistakes, learn and change. I do not have a right to make your world a worse place. But, I do have a right to make the world a better place, whether you like it or not. I may have to suffer through opposition to make my world better. I may have to exert the hard force of persuasion and alienation to change/enroll hearts and minds in embracing a new standard. It takes effort to oppose a man’s world, to convince him that he should not do x/y/z. Opposing another’s wrong action should be done in the same respectful way in which I want to be corrected for my errors of thought, speech, and action. We are all proud, insecure, fragile, and a gentle, kind rebuke, with faith in the other’s innate desire for goodness is always appreciated. In other words, “Speak the Truth with love.”

Of course, men can (are able to) do what is wrong, but they will suffer for it. They may prosper for a while, and the party may be quite exciting for a season, but in the end the piper will be paid, the hangover will be felt, and the bill for violations of space will come due. The world will be degraded just a little because of every imperfection of thought, speech, and action.

Yes, God gave us the freedom to rebel, to choose other gods and self-destructive lifestyles, but none of those choices will optimize our happiness. If chosen, the value is only in experiencing the pain, and rejecting the temptation for future repetition. The man who wishes to make a habit of sin should be shunned from the community and given refuge only by a hard teacher or others of like mind. There is no kindness extended in consolation and codependent enabling of the addict to evil/sin. Communities of reprobates should be isolated, and made a public example so as to serve as a warning to the wise. As a parent, it is imperative to have and teach a right perspective/pattern of life; otherwise, the child will follow the ways of his scoundrel parents.

Of course, who can know for certain that he is truly embracing Godly principles? Which, is why we choose to live in community and be subject to its standards, rules, and culture. Likewise, we should be able to choose our community, since we will either be brought up, down, or fight the environment.

We each make choices about right and wrong, and we all support, choose, and teach by example our concept of righteousness. The parent has no right to train the child in the ways of crime and self/other abuse. The child will lead a life of suffering at the hands of a parent who trains him in the ways of evil. What right does the parent have to abuse the child by training him in ways which will inevitably produce suffering? A parent has the God-authorized right to direct a child's mind, using all the tools of teaching, training, and discipline (the soft tools of force). As a nation, we have the same right, and obligation, if we love our brother nations.