An uncomfortable realization

Ethics or basic moral precepts are a kind of natural law (THE natural law) of social interaction.

Just as we MUST respect other natural laws to survive, we MUST respect basic moral precepts. (If we walk along a narrow path on the face of a cliff, we must respect the law of gravity or we will die.)

Since we have no moral authority to initiate force or coercion against another peaceful person, we cannot delegate such authority to a government entity. Therefore, we MUST NOT, as a matter of moral principle, vote for a politician or support a policy that would do such a thing.

If we disregard this basic moral precept, our civilization will collapse. The time-lag between the error and the consequences may be greater than what we see in the case of other kinds of lapses of due regard for natural law, but the consequences are every bit as real. The consequences for a large-scale society take a longer amount of time to work themselves out. Larger entities in the cosmos generally change according to a longer time-frame, whether they be pendulums, organisms, societies, etc.

Since we have a right to share in deciding what limits to put on amounts of pollution or rates of taking of natural resources, we MUST use our political system to effectively define these limits. To fail to do so would be to relegate the assertion that we have this collective right to the bin of “What we give lip-service to without follow-through with effective action”. If we fail to use our instrument for collectively defining (limiting) our action to do that which we have a collective right (and duty) to do, then we are violating natural law. It is one thing to violate this law out of ignorance, (as has been the case during previous instances of civilization collapse, but it is entirely another to violate this law after we've become aware of its workings in the cosmos.

I see a moral imperative to seek out or create a marriage of libertarian and green. Whether this means voting Libertarian and Green, or it means communicating with candidates who identify as Democrat and Republican to influence their ideas, policies and orientation is, I think, merely incidental.

The moral imperative is baked into the way the cosmos works. Our civilization is well down the path toward collapse. I see no moral alternative for myself. I feel that I must take drastic action to communicate the urgency of the situation. My attempts to communicate in what could be called a normal way have thus far been an utter failure.

I have learned that sharing good ideas is enough to get people to say, “That's a good idea”, but it is not enough to make them want to share them with others. It is still the case that, after six years and more than 30 posts to the blog, it still gets zero or one or maybe two hits in a day, except when I actively share it on the internet somewhere other than here on fb. Then it might get five or ten or 15 hits in a day. That's not sufficient. I happen to think still that it is a profoundly important proposal. (People here may or may not have looked at it, but having seen the link a few times, it looks like nothing new, I suppose.)

In all those years, those 30 or so articles have received a total of about a dozen comments. One every six months or so. So the very few people who have visited, seeing zero or maybe one comment on whatever article they are reading, may easily conclude that this is something that not many people are interested in. This proposal is being allowed to languish. I don't understand why that should be so.

Are you aware of ANY other proposal for how we might end extreme poverty AND limit humans' impact on the environment so that levels of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources could be kept within limits that most people would agree are acceptable?

If this is the ONLY such proposal that you are aware of, is it not also a proposal that merits some kind of response? I just can't get past the question, “Why should this be allowed to languish?”

Well, it shouldn't be allowed to languish, but it is. Now what? Well, I know what, but it will not do to say it. If I want people to sit up and take notice, I have to perform the most drastic symbolic act possible. Words are not enough.

Or tell me where I am wrong.

Natural Law and the Golden Rule