Multitudes of reasons to abandon faith in government long version

 

This is a draft to practice writing for a shorter version and is incomplete, might never be complete and in some sections is not consistently the best style of writing because it might not be revised later

I am going to explain why it is dangerous to blindly do everything goverment officials tell you in as few words as I comfortably feel possible without creating too many problems from lack of detail

Unethical or undue influence can be classified as brainwashing when violence or the threat of violence is used to simultaneously force someone to receive false information and prevent them from accessing true information that would refute it.  Undue influence can be classified as mind control when false information is presented to someone while they are simultaneously presented with additional information to create a fear that something bad will happen if they access information that refutes the false information they have been presented with.  In mind control additional information is often added to make someone fear bad things will happen if they discontinue receiving information from a source of false information.  Mind control can be done accidentally when someone is presenting information they do not know is false or intentionally when someone deliberately presents false information to influence someone to behave differently.  When mind control is done intentionally a common tactic is to say that certain true information is false to make people fear accessing it.  The solution to undue influence is not to avoid information you think might be false but to try to accessing information other people told you was false since you can not know if it is false until you access and evaluate it.

In English mental can mean mind and govern can mean control.  Unquestioning obedience to government officials is accomplished through both brainwashing and mind control.  Mind control in public schools spreads even to people who have never been to public schools because people who went to public schools repeat false information they received in public schools to other people.  In public schools violence and the threat of violence are used to present children with false information that if the majority of people no longer obeyed certain otherwise unsafe things government officials told them to do bad things would happen as a result.  If a minority of people disobeyed government officials bad things would indeed happen to them through physical punishment but if the majority decided to disobey government officials if the officials told them to do something that was more dangerous or unethical than the alternative of not doing what they are told then something bad would actually be avoided.

The physical consequences of an action are always the same regardless of if someone believes the action is unethical or dangerous or not.  In the context of this article all violence is coercion but not all coercion is violence.  Violence shall refer to non defensive coercion.

Even if you do not claim to believe in objective morality it is in your best interest not to do violence against people if you have a goal of people not using coercion on you.  If you live in a society where people do not retaliate with coercion against people who use violence then you will fail at your goal to live in a society where people do not use coercion on you because there will be no means in the society to deter other people from using violence against you.  If you love in a society where people do retaliate with coercion against people who use violence then you can only achieve your goal of people not using coercion on you by choosing not to use violence.

The physical consequences of an action are the same regardless of the thinking process an individual used to decide if they should do an action.  However, the thinking process does matter because if they have the wrong thinking process they will not consistently do the correct behavior for the physical consequences they desire to achieve.

Following the request of an individual to do an action is not always violent but following the request of an individual to do an action without evaluating if that action is violent is always dangerous one hundred percent of the time.  If someone shoots someone to death they will still die whether or not the person who killed them was following orders because the thinking process does not change the physical result of an action.  But if someone commanded by a government official to shoot someone first contemplated whether shooting them would be violence or a defensive use of coercion they might decide not to shoot a non violent person and prevent the physical result of death that would have occured if they followed orders without first contemplating if the orders were to commit a act of violence or defense.  If the person they were ordered to shoot was actually going to murder someone they could contemplate that shooting them would not be an act of violence but defense and make a willful decision to shoot the attempted murderer not because they were given an order to but to prevent that person from murdering someone.

The only pragmatic means to live in a society where people do not use coercion against you is to ensure the majority of people do not want to do violence and also ensure the majority contemplate whether or not actions are violent before deciding if they do them and to additionally choose not to do violence yourself.

I am going to define a moral code as a set of principles someone tries to behave according to in order to achieve certain results in their life.  For example someone could have a moral code of not using violence in order to try to achieve the result of receiving as little coercion as possible from other people.  Someone also could have a much more narrowly specific moral code of not using violence to murder people in order to achieve the result of having less people try to kill them in order to try to achieve the goal of not being killed.  Moral codes are both objective and relative.  Not all people share the same moral code, if all people shared the moral code of not killing there would be no suicide.  Some people seem to value having pleasure and avoiding pain in the present moment more than living a long life and these people might not have any moral objection to doing violence against other people if it gives them material possessions to enjoy now even if it might shorten their life or cause suffering or poverty later in the distant future.  

What moral code someone has does not change the physical consequences of any actions they take but what moral code someone chooses to live by may change what actions they take and in doing so physically effect reality.  What moral code someone else lives by has real physical effects on your life therefore it is in your best interest to persuade other people to live by a non violent moral code if you do not want them to do violence against you.  In this article I am trying to reach an audience that objectively shares with me the goal of not being killed and hoping to persuade them to agree ( if they do not agree already ) with practicing a moral code of not using violence in order to achieve that goal and hoping they will likewise persuade others to live according to that moral code.

Some people claim that the best moral code for everyone to adopt is to obey government officials in order to prevent bad things from happening.  When I say this I am not talking about people who say bad things will happen to you if you disobey government officials because people will initiate violence against you.  I am talking about people who say society will collapse into a state of violence and or mass starvation and or disease from collapsing infrastructure such as water treatment plants and or be invaded in war by other societies that are more obedient to their own governments, etc. if at least a large enough percentage of people in a geographical region, country or jurisdiction do not obey the orders of government officials.

Unfinished outline of additional points to revise later.

Some people claim that God has ordained that people should obey the government and or that government has been ordained by God to do a specific set of tasks.

Divide into four categories instead of those 7 points

Category 1 Does the name of Government allow people to break their own religious rules even if they can avoid breaking the religious rules and still follow Government rules?  For example if stealing is forbidden but there is no government mandate to collect taxes only to pay taxes.  Some Christians might say Christians are morally obligated to pay taxes but morally forbidden to choose to take a job to enforce tax collection because the act of collecting taxes is stealing where as paying taxes is only being stolen from.  Other "Christians" might say Christians are morally permitted to become a tax collector and collect taxes even though stealing is forbidden because the government has permitted it and the government permitting something undoes God or the Bible or the deposit of faith forbidding it.

Category 2 If following the Government rules would require Christians to break their religious rules which rules are they obligated to follow?  Are the some strong religious rules that are stronger than Government rules that Government rules can not over ride and other weak relogious rules that Government rules can over ride?  If so how does a Christian know which is which?

Category 3 If God ordained Government what is it's rule in punishment or enforcement?  

A Is the Government permitted to punish people for violating any rule they make up even if it is not a religious rule 

B Is the Government only permitted by God to punish people for violating some religious rules and if the Government punishes someone for violating a rule that is not a religious rule are people allowed to physically retaliate? Are there some religious rules that Christians should try to obey but the Government is not allowed by God to punish people for breaking or is not allowed to punish them in excess of a certain amount for breaking?  For example would it be permissible for the Government to shoot someone to death on sight the moment they walk out of a shop with an item they did not pay for without a court trial and without trying to make sure it was not done on accident and without asking the shop keeper if they would be ok with just letting them return the item or pay for the item with a possible additional fine before escalating to instant death penalty with no fine or imprisonment in between or would Christians be permitted to retaliate against a Government that exceeded God's ordained maximum penalty?

Category 4

Anyone can claim to be a Government official, does God keep a list of legitimate Governments?  In an example where two groups of people both claim to be Government over a territory and give conflicting orders which group is the Christian obligated to obey?  Can the Christian believe one group is a legitimate and the other illegitimate?  If so could a Christian conclude that although theoritically there could be a legitimate Government over a territory or the world that curremtly all groups claiming to be a legitimate Government over a territory or world are illegitimate?

7 different versions of claiming God has ordained government authority.  Some of these versions may overlap with each other and some may not

1 You should obey all government orders from government officials and God has permitted you to disobey religious laws if you are doing so in the name of the government

2 You should obey all orders from government officials absolutely with no exceptions in addition to obeying any other religious commands unless those religious commands do not require disobeying government orders

3  You should obey all orders from government officials including those that violate certain weaker moral principles but not those that violate other stronger moral principles

4 You should obey all orders from government officials except those which violate other moral principles

5 You are only morally obligated to obey orders from government officials when the orders align with actions you would be morally obligated to do even if the Government officials never gave the orders

6 The purpose of the government is to enforce compliance to certain moral codes that people should follow even if the government did not exist but is not to enforce compliance to moral codes that people would not be supposed to follow if the government did not exist

7 The purpose of the government is to punish those who violate very specific moral codes but there are some moral codes that people really should not violate that the government should not punish people for violating.

1 - you can not delegate a right you do not have

2 - you can not have a moral obligation to do what you think is wrong

3 - you can not alter morality by means of legislation

Show me the evidence your laws apply, Jurisdictions and duty to protect citizens 

If a government is a instiuition that has a duty to protect it's citizens then any instiuition claiming to be a government that also claims not to have a duty to protect it's citizens can not exist as a government. 

Democide

Governments typically kill more of their own citizens than citizens of other governments.  You might think you need your government to protect you from a foreign government waging war against you but a foreign government waging war against you is less likely to kill you than your own government therefore if removal of your own government does not increase the number of people killed in your geographic region by foreign governments waging war against your government-less region by a number higher than the number of people living in that region your own government would have killed you are actually safer without a government than with one.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2022

I removed this post and copied and pasted the material here then edited it further because the title no longer matched 

https://web.archive.org/web/20220327011525/https://anarchybasics.blogspot.com/2022/03/deny-government-in-words-or-less.html

I also copied and pasted at least one other posts content that I did not archive with titles like 1000 words or less instead of **** then deleted it to change names at least one time.  I would have done that sometime at or after 2022 March 24 and before or after 26 March 2022

I know the minimum start date because wrote a previous thing to brainstorm some concepts about how to write this version first

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://anarchybasics.blogspot.com/2022/03/reasons-against-faith-in-governments.html