In thinking about the need for obedience, we must be obedient to
the state, to the church, to god, for the Jewish people, they must be
obedient to the religious laws of their forefathers.
If there was a trait to mark the modern age, it would be obedience.
But the question of obedience means we no longer “obey” or understand
the question of the Enlightenment which is basically a call for people to
think for themselves. As Kant said about the entire Enlightenment,
“Sapare aude”
which is a Latin phrase meaning, “Dare to know”. And that phrase did sum up
the entire Enlightenment thought and goals. Dare to know. But the modern
point of view of obedience at all cost, rejects these phrase and the thought
behind it… the modern world is about knowing exactly what the state wants
you to know and no more… if there was a modern phrase to match the entire
agenda of the modern age, it would be this,
“need to know basis”
that is the one phrase that is the modern version of “Sapere aude”…
everyone is on a “need to know” basis and the average citizen
doesn’t need to know anything outside of what the state tells them
and once again the greatest crime anyone can commit is to violate
this “need to know” order and reveal information that was a “need to know”…
This disobedience will get someone years in prison… to violate the State
agenda which is to hold and maintain all relevant and pertinent information
which the state decides is relevant and pertinent. In other words, in regards to
the “need to know” basis, the state is judge, jury and executioner…… the state
lays out the rules, the program and the punishment for any crimes of
“disobedience” of the state mandated by the “need to know” basis.
The enlightenment fight was just another version of the “need to know” fight
we are experiencing today. But their battle in regards to the “need to know”
was a battle against the authority of such institutions like the church, or
authorities like Aristotle or St. Augustine. The Enlightenment was
saying, don’t just accept the authority of church or Aristotle,
dare to know yourself. And the same can be said today, it is not enough
that we accept the authority of the state and simply bow down
to their “need to know” basis. Under the guise of authority of the state,
the state can and has limited our access to information and knowledge that
the state “claims” will somehow damage the state in some fashion…
but if this is a democracy, then as the people who govern, we have a right,
indeed a absolute right to access that information……
let us take an concrete example, the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh that
was done this last week is being held on a “need to know” basis and the American
people apparently don’t need to know……. but, but if information is being held
from the American people, then how are we to make “informed” decisions as
to our choices when we vote. In other words, a world that is a “need to know”
world is anti-democratic for it excludes the very people that are supposed to
be in charge, the people. The vital phrase is simply this,
“government of the people, for the people and by the people”
and if we operate with government done on a “need to know” basis and
the people don’t need to know, then we don’t have a democracy…
we have something else in which we don’t have
“government of the people, for the people, by the people”.
If actions are taken in the name of the people, such as military,
governmental, political and done with a “need to know” basis
then we have a dictatorship. For if the people have no say and no knowledge
of said actions taken in their name, those actions are not done in our name
and without our consent. Those actions are done by
the consent and knowledge of the “leadership” of our country but not the people
and thus are illegal. If the people do not have a say in or even knowledge of
actions taken in their name, then it is not done for the people. It is done
for the benefit of those who are in charge… The ones who “need to know”.
For example after 9/11, we “the people” were forced without our consent,
to have TSA examine our persons and go through our luggage and take off
our shoes, belt, and have all other material go through a screening machine…
if it is done without our consent, it is illegal. Does the safety of the people
override the fact that we still live in a democracy and we must, must, must
consent to actions taken in our name. For if actions are taken in my name,
then I am responsible for those actions because they were done in my name.
This same theory can be established for religion especially Christianity.
for I have not given my consent to god for actions taken in my name.
The concept of consent is suppose to be the basis of our modern world
and yet, what consent have you ever given to either government or the church
or even god? I submit that part of the “modern condition” that afflicts the modern age,
lies in this problem, the fact, that so much of our modern age is done without
consent or permission of the people in whose name the actions are taken.
If I have liability for my actions taken, then I must have some consent, some
say in accepting that liability… I cannot be forced to accept liability for
something I never accepted or consented to and yet, the modern state
and the church and god forces me to accept liability for actions taken
when I never accepted or agreed to or choose or consented to.
and one solution I would advocate is this, at 18 or 21 as the case maybe,
I would stand people in front of a judge or in a written statement,
to publicly give consent to, to voluntarily choose to become
members of our society and state. To allow people the option to
give consent to the actions taken in their name and by this consent,
they earn the right to become one of the “need to know” basis.
If we are a democracy, then we must actually begin to act like it.
We must make participation in society and the state part of being
a member of said society/state. the entire point of democracy is to
have people have a say in matters of concern to their lives, be it
politically or economically or socially. To be a democracy demands
participation by those people in whose name actions are taken.
If I am going to be liable to pay taxes for warships and bombs
and nuclear weapons, then I deserve a voice in the process
and I deserve to make consent to those actions…
Now one might say that that consent will create chaos and
confusion within society? but what is the point of democracy
if we have no voice or consent in actions taken in our name?
Either we have a democracy and we have a voice and give consent
to actions taken in our name or we don’t have a democracy, in
which case we don’t have a voice or give our consent to actions,
certainly not taken in our name, but taken by the leaders in their
name and their consent, for their benefit, not ours.
The bottom line is coming to a head. Do we have a democracy or don’t we?
That is the modern question. Do we have a real, live, operating democracy
that is
“of the people, for the people, by the people”
or don’t we?
Kropotkin