Solneman
(Kurt H. Zube)

An Anarchist Manifesto
The Manifesto of Peace and Freedom
The Alternative to the Communist Manifesto

(1977)

 



6. THE NEW FIRST PRINCIPLE

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY : A FIRM FOUNDATION

 

The Fundamental Difference Between "Is" and "Ought"

The Answer to Pilate's Question

The New Question and the Inescapable Alternative

Too Much Asserted - Too Much Demanded?

 


 

With a single sword stroke Alexander the Great cut the Gordian Knot and solved in a somewhat rough and stunning, but nevertheless effective and final way, a problem which had until then been considered insoluble. The problem which is actually the most important of all human problems could also be solved at one stroke - though in a less martial way. Even Napoleon I pleaded for this method, with a single sentence:

"There are only two powers in the world, the sword and ideas. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by ideas."

However, since this problem has neither been recognized as the most important in practice, nor indeed as a problem at all, the simple solution by itself has not been correctly understood. Therefore a closer examination is necessary.

The most important practical problem for everyone is a generally recognized guideline (i.e. a standard) for relations between human beings. Why? Because all human institutions, especially States and all institutions inside and outside of States, intrude in many ways and deeply into the living conditions of every individual and into the relationships between all individuals and groups. Consequently, such a guideline is required if everything is to proceed peacefully.

All social conflicts, and nearly all private ones also, are rooted in the fact that until now a generally recognized guideline has been lacking: a criterion for behaviour among human beings. Indeed, people have not even looked for such a standard. Naturally, a condition where there are no conflicts at all cannot be attained, but it does make sense to reduce conflicts to a minimum and, wherever they are unavoidable, to settle them by peaceful means. This must be done, even if for no better reason than that the development of arms technology has made a forceful "solution" a deadly risk for both sides, internally as well as externally. Above all, it must be done because a forceful solution is not a true solution of conflicts, but only provokes a never-ending chain of force and counterforce.

Indeed, there has never been a shortage of offered guidelines and standards (religious, moral or ideological) and each of these has claimed to be generally applicable. This is the reason why no one has ever looked for really generally valid ones. But none of them has actually been able to achieve general recognition; none of them has been able to convince all the dissenters. For we have especially lacked a criterion by which we could judge which of those various standards offered is the "right one" or at least the one to be preferred above all others.

The results of this condition are the unceasing wars and oppressions in all parts of the world, even if the latter are not always carried out with brute force but, merely, with the threat of it. Another result is the widespread - and, unfortunately, all too well-founded - dissatisfaction with existing conditions: the latent danger of rebellion and war everywhere.

Characteristic for the whole previous history of mankind is the fact that, apart from the openly aggressive use of force, people have supported their claims against others or their own justification of existing institutions by a variety of religious, moral, ideological (i.e. not provable by criteria of our experienced reality) assertions, as if these were absolute and had a generally recognized validity, although the latter is not the case because of the disagreements and contradictions between them.

What is striking in this is an evidently schizophrenic attitude: Almost all people assume an attitude in a certain practice of daily life which is in sharp contrast to their opinions and behaviour in other aspects of their everyday behaviour - and this without consciousness of this contradiction.

Two examples may clarify this:

If at court one person asserts a right against another, then the burden of proof is said to lie on the first. He may even be actually right - but his claim will nevertheless be rejected if he is not able to deliver evidence for the actual existence of his claim. And to be reasonable, this cannot be otherwise. Even his assurance that by his most sacred conviction he could claim this asserted right does not release him from the burden of having to supply proof. Should he attempt to realize his alleged or real right by force, without such a proof, then he is treated as an aggressor. And every impartial third person must approve of this, even when he himself is convinced that the other one really has the alleged right.

Or this case: somebody holds someone else up on the street and demands his wallet, asserting that God had given him the right to it, or had imposed the corresponding duty upon the other. As "reason" he might also quote one or the other ideological "argument." If the person concerned then tries to realize his "right" by aggressive force, then, as in the first case, all reasonable persons would agree that it is a question of nothing but aggressive force.

On the other hand, however, especially in the most important matters of life, dealing with things much more important than money, one evaluates and behaves quite differently. This is evidently schizophrenic behaviour of which we are so far not conscious. There are "rights" and "duties" claimed which are not based on any agreements and for whose real existence no proofs are offered or even attempted, indeed in cases where, as things stand, proof is altogether impossible.

Upon thus "founded" demands - in the name of the "State," the "people," the "nation," "society," "God" or "morality" - "rights" are claimed against the life, liberty, property of others, and countless interventions are made into other people's way of life. And yet, curiously, one does not object to the fundamental madness of such actions but considers them quite normal. Then one either submits to the claim involved or one opposes it with a similarly unfounded and unprovable claim of one's own, i.e. one based only on asserted and not on provable "rights."

The result then, in every case, when soberly viewed, is nothing other than the use of force veiled by phrases.

Naturally, the person defeated resents his defeat and plots to improve his situation. Thus, there is constant fighting, underground or open, with changing allies, wasting energies and destroying values or hindering their creation. Particular encroachments aim at a great variety of spheres of life, dependent on the creeds and the moral and political or ideological convictions involved.

For an observer from another star, who has not grown, by education or habit, into this confusion of concepts and fixed ideas, all this must appear even more incomprehensible than those natives appear to the eyes of educated Europeans who will live on the level of the Stone Age in New Guinea, or in other jungles in South America. And yet, even in the most civilized parts of Europe, there are masses of people - not only the uneducated but often highly intelligent specialists - who, outside of their specialty and sometimes even within it, do not differ from the so-called savages of the jungle in their deepest and most important convictions. Ortega y Gasset already expressly referred to this. A wealth of material on this was also contributed by the already-mentioned authors Gustaf F. Steffen and Prof. James Harvey Robinson.

Finally, one has to realize that the mass of human convictions of the religious, moral, social and political kind - especially the most "sacred" ones and those most fanatically defended - have little to do with the precepts of reason or at least with careful consideration of the pros and cons, but are nothing other than habits, prejudices, suggestions and wishful dreams to which the persons concerned have never applied the probe of critical reasoning and examination.

What results from this and what is often described in beautiful words as serving order and security, the true faith and high ideals, is actually - as far as those claims are concerned that are raised against others and forcefully realized, and for whose actual justification no proof is offered or could be supplied at all - nothing other than - aggression.

 

THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "IS" AND "OUGHT" (^)

When searching for criteria to measure the correctness of our own convictions, as well as those of others, we first encounter the difference between "is" and "ought," i.e. what exists, and what - allegedly - shall be: as a religious, moral or other "commandment," as a "right," as a "duty" which is, supposedly, given in advance - without our approval - and allegedly must be respected by us.

Upon that which is, one can always agree relatively quickly, if one does not lose oneself in arbitrary speculation but confines oneself to provable facts.

These are, first of all, whatever is given in space and time and can be perceived with our senses, directly or indirectly (e.g. with technical aids like microscopes), that is to say, all visual, audible and touchable phenomena which, through appearance and logic, can be demonstrated as either real or unreal.

Besides this reality there may indeed exist still another "reality" which can be grasped neither by our senses nor by our intellect, one consisting of ideas, experiences and the transcendental, and this "reality" may even be the "true" and the "genuine" one. But in contrast to the former (experienced reality), these alleged other "realities" are, unfortunately, unprovable; they are basically not subject to any proof either for or against and, therefore, one can assert exactly the opposite concerning this second kind of "reality." We shall soon see the tremendous practical importance of the clear distinction between the provable and the non-provable.

For that which, allegedly, ought to be, there is and can be no criterion at all, contrary to that which is (for which our criteria are the senses and logic). For it does not fall into the sphere of experienced reality but - as far as it is not just purely mental speculation, i.e. imagination - at most into the sphere of that other "reality" which is beyond any provability.

Those mental concepts which confront us with claims, which evaluate behaviour (dividing it into "good" and "bad") and which insist that we ought to do or not do something (as "just" or "unjust"), find no support in experienced reality; for this has no attributes like "good" or "bad," "just" or "unjust." Wherever these are talked about, they are always subjective values (no matter how many others share them), nothing but designations that we give to things and persons, but not of objectively measurable characteristics which are part of the things or persons themselves.

Above all, one cannot derive "ought" out of a "being," as has been tried, for example, with the "natural right" of the stronger - the big fishes eating the smaller ones. It is illogical to conclude from facts on the level of "being" as to circumstances on the totally different level of "ought," on which there neither are nor can be any facts that can be ascertained and proven by our cognitive faculty. Furthermore, Prince Peter Kropotkin proved with numerous examples of mutual aid in the animal world and among men that this alleged "law of nature" of either eating or being eaten, is, at least, not without exceptions, and that as many facts speak for a completely opposite "law" of being. From neither law, however, can any conclusion be drawn on what ought to happen according to "natural law" or "divine will" or according to any other "superior commandment."

Instead, all rules of "ought" which an individual submits to, rely on his personal evaluation and his own decision (even when he is not at all conscious of this). This applies regardless of whether he has established them himself or has accepted them from others. For even when he believes that he must accept them because something "higher" and superior to him demands it, it is, lastly, his creed or refusal, his will to believe or not to believe (which, of course, may be influenced by outside suggestions) that affects his decision. In any case, they are not provable facts, as in experienced reality, which must be respected by him (or others) whether he likes it or not.

 

THE ANSWER TO PILATE'S QUESTION (^)

All the philosophers striving for "truth," i.e. for recognition of the final reality, for the "thing in itself," which in the end led to replacing "truth" with "probability" at best, ended finally with the realization - which urges us to be modest - that man is under the compulsion to observe and think. He can only grasp a small section of a reality which goes far beyond what can be understood by human senses and human logic. His equipment to enlarge this horizon always reaches limits. We know that there are sounds which are not perceived by us but by different animals, and things which not we but various animals are able to see. Similar things happen with smell, taste and touch. Probably every knowledge that we have craftily acquired from total reality, by extending our senses through technical aids, is comparatively of no greater importance than that which e.g. an ant may perceive as a part of its reality by means of its senses and its instincts - while our human reality is absolutely sealed against it.

Imperfect and relative as our recognition of the reality of being is, however-it is the only firm support that we have and it enabled us at least to free ourselves largely from total dependence upon nature and to change the world in which we have to live, even if not always to our advantage.

While we thus possess criteria - even if only limited ones - for the recognition of the realities of being or, more correctly, for our experienced reality, we are totally without them for the recognition of the supposed commands of ought. And this is true regarding their actual existence, as well as for testing the authority and reliability of those who proclaim ought-rules as allegedly having been revealed to them, as well as for the real contents of their teachings as opposed to mere fancies and simple assertions.

For even the most fanatical conviction of the persons concerned regarding the "truth" of their statements can only impress those unable to judge. It cannot, however, serve as proof for people for whom only personal revelation would serve as proof. Even personal revelation would always have to be critically considered because psychology and psychopathology show us how large a role self-deception may play in this. Moreover, even personal revelations apply always only to us personally, and we can never use them as references for others.

The fundamental possibility, even the probability, of a transcendental true "reality" (which has to be put in quotation marks to distinguish it from experienced reality), one reaching far beyond our cognitive apparatus, i.e. our experienced reality, is thus not contested. There may be "revelations" and "inner experiences" which may not only be imagined (no matter how often they really are!) but give access to a comprehensive and, as one says, " higher reality."

There may even be a way which is open to everybody, to this reality - through meditation or other exercises - although, as a rule, such exercises end in self- suggestions.

In any case, one must clarify with sledgehammer methods: Whosoever forcefully realizes claims over others or assumes "rights" whose existence he cannot prove, regardless of how honest his conviction is, thereby proclaims the law of the jungle!

This is so far still a quite unusual thought. Indeed, its very opposite is practiced generally. It is considered highly meritorious and "moral" to live according to one's "sacred belief," no matter upon what it is based, and even without respect for any limits. Whatever "God," the "people," the "nation," the "State" and "society" demand (i.e. whatever those demand who usually appoint themselves representatives of these abstractions and collective concepts or who feel themselves legitimized in a most questionable way as their mouth pieces), that is practiced - not only concerning one's own person and without affecting others (against which nothing can be said) but especially against others, regardless of their reluctance. It is even said to be especially meritorious and moral, also faithful and patriotic, indicative of good citizenship or class-consciousness, to compel others to act accordingly, i.e. to lead them "on the right path," to "make their duties clear" to them, to teach them the "proper view," to do the "will of God." The person concerned - according to the still prevailing opinion - has simply "the right" (to act in such a way) -one of those numerous "rights" not based on any contract but simply existing as "superior rights" in the opinions of the people concerned - without any need being seen to deliver a proof.

Whether such "rights" exist and whether they exist in reality and not as the mere concepts, images and wishes of those believing in them, is beyond all proof, whether pro or con. When today anyone forcefully realizes a claim which he cannot prove, against another person who resists this attempt, how is this behaviour called in the general practice of our daily lives? - An aggressive act representing only the law of the jungle!

Of course, it is not true that with each of those alleged "rights" and "duties" one openly and consciously affirms the law of the jungle in their realization. As a rule, those "rights" and "duties" are not even put forward in order consciously to veil the actually practiced law of the jungle. Instead, the law of the big fist, as such, is mostly rejected quite decisively and quite honestly by the persons concerned. For they believe, indeed, so firmly in the "rights" which have become a lifelong habit to them, that they do not doubt them at all. Here it has not become conscious or it has been driven out of their consciousness, that the forceful realization of an ostensible "right" without any proof for its actual existence is nothing other than the veiled law of the jungle!

Thus we have two rules of conduct side by side, in sharp contrast to each other, without this fact having been noticed so far:

On the one hand there is the practice of all civilized courts, which demand proof for asserted rights and duties, while without such proof the mere assertion is rejected and anyone who tries to realize by force an alleged right which he cannot prove is treated as a lunatic or violator. This point of view is, as a rule, shared by all reasonable persons.

On the other hand, there are claims based on religious, moral and ideological convictions which are totally unprovable by their very nature, as they do not rely on facts one may find in experienced reality but on beliefs which cannot be differentiated from mere fancies and illusions (even if they are not such at all). In support of such claims one usually points to a unanimous or majority agreement, but such an agreement upon something which may only be believed but cannot be proven, cannot, naturally, guarantee the correctness of the thing believed in. Often, an agreement is also limited to a certain region or time, while the opposite belief prevails in other countries and nations, or even in the same ones at different times. In many cases the same wide-spread belief is based purely on a habit which was either suggested by one's surroundings in childhood or was imprinted by education. This applies all the more when religious and moral concepts as well as ideologies have already solidified into rigid public and social institutions which - as accustomed phenomena of experienced reality - are hardly questioned any longer, since one is no longer conscious of their origins in religious, moral and ideological creeds.

Thus today the most absurd claims are asserted and forcefully practiced against individuals, groups and whole peoples. All are due to religious, moral and ideological convictions, and the aggressors do not find it necessary to supply any proof for their alleged "right" or for the alleged "duties" of those others. But the victims of these attacks, too, even when they are vehemently defending themselves, do not, as a rule, grasp the idea of rejecting all the alleged claims of the aggressor by stating that there is no evidence for them. Instead, they only uphold their own alleged "rights" against them, which they, in their turn, have scooped up from the depth of their feelings or also from religious or ideological convictions and which are, therefore, as impossible to prove as those of the aggressors.

This absurd situation of a fight between fixed ideas on both sides - which, of course, can never end unless the rules are changed - has persisted through the whole history of mankind and represents an inexcusable waste of energy, especially seeing the crippling misery among two thirds of mankind and the numerous urgent and unsolved problems. And this occurs while the solution of nearly all problems in human relationships becomes very easy once one makes the simple distinction between provable matters (for only upon these can and must one agree) and upon unprovable matters, and once one makes the simple observation that forcefully realized claims, which are unprovable, are nothing other than a commitment to the law of the jungle - hidden behind a religious, moral or ideological veil, but nevertheless a law of the jungle.

Critics of cognition and sociologists have, indeed, long been unmasking particular religious, moral, and ideological convictions as untenable opinions, delusions and barbaric customs, but this has not hindered the continued flourishing of the remaining ones - as it did not affect their roots. Of course, the religious, moral and ideological convictions themselves need not be eradicated. This could only be a utopian attempt. But their limits must be realized as lying where interference begins from the sphere of personal freedom into the sphere of others, through aggressive actions. One has to draw the consequences from the fact that, without exception, all religiously, morally or ideologically founded claims are insofar illusory as proof for their justification is impossible. Thus their realization, that force is nothing more than the practice of jungle law.

Whatever exists only in minds, as an image of thought and fancy, as a concept of faith and desire, has a different kind of "existence" from what is conceivable and provable in the reality of experience - by our senses and our mental apparatus. We can, indeed, believe (i.e. we can imagine, fancy, wish, we can even be firmly convinced ourselves) that behind that which we believe in, behind our mental concepts (even though we know that we can also imagine and fancy non- existing things), there is a real existence - but alas, we have no proof at our disposal that is sufficient to convince others of this transcendental reality.

Even most theologians have finally recognized that there is a difference between faith and knowledge, that what can be known need not be believed in, and that what is merely believed in cannot be known, i.e. is unprovable. In the religious sphere one has thus already renounced the aggressive use of force to a great extent. Today's ideological struggles have taken the place of the previous religious wars. With both, it is only a question of unprovable articles of faith, at least insofar as they are a mixture of facts with unprovable (i.e. ideological) assertions and claims.

It is with ideologies exactly as it once was, and to some extent still is, with religions: one is convinced that one knows and not only believes. Most people recognize in the ideologies of others their false conclusions and character as mere mental and imaginary concepts. But they fail to see this in their own ideologies. Nevertheless, the fate of all ideologies - as well as of all religions - is already settled in advance, to the extent that they, like the religions once, try to trespass beyond the limits of the equal freedom of all and claim total domination. However immortal they may always be as religions and ideologies, their power of domination has been shaken since Stirner, and it is a question of this claim for domination.

One could say to this what Anzengruber - a philosopher who delved deeply in his aphorisms -expressed as follows: "With much dead and already buried nonsense it is as with the legendary vampire: it still walks around, bothers people while they are asleep, and sucks their blood. There is only one end possible for this spook: when finally a brave man arrives to unearth the cadaver and push a stake through its heart."

This stake is the recognition that all religiously, morally and ideologically based claims and demands against others have merely the characteristics of faiths and that their "justifications" are absolutely unprovable. And above all, the final conclusion from this recognition is that all violent attempts to realize unproven claims are nothing other than jungle law decisions.

As in Andersen's wise tale of the emperor's new clothes, there now is aggressive force, naked and bare before the unprejudiced eye, after the splendid veils have fallen with which mere imagination, suggestion and manipulation have dressed it.

We can now also answer Pilate's old question: He was, of course, absolutely right in being skeptical towards all religiously, morally and ideologically based articles of faith. Their truth, i.e. the actual reality behind it, is even today, as in Pilate's time, unprovable. But from this, nihilism in no way follows as a practical solution, and even less so does that kind of "legal positivism" which simply wants a ruling force to decide whatever ought to be "true" and "right," since this is just nihilism in practice!

It must not be overlooked that precisely the statement of the illusionary character and the unprovability of all previous ought-rules is the statement of a fact in the sphere of our experienced reality and thus a truth in the sense of Pilate's question, although only a relative truth, seeing the limitations of our cognitive abilities.

Max Weber already expressed this idea distinctly, but without drawing the necessary conclusions: "The recognition of what, why and whereupon one cannot agree is the recognition of a truth."

 

THE NEW QUESTION AND THE INESCAPABLE ALTERNATIVE (^)

In science it is often a new form of questioning that leads to an advance in understanding. As yet one has only asked: What is our destination? What should we do? - Such a question already began with the assumption of a "higher" destiny, a given "ought" in a commanding position above man. Therefore, the answer had to remain within the vicious circle of this arbitrary (because unprovable) assumption and thus could only be fanciful hypotheses derived from hypothetical conditions - faith instead of knowledge. What results, however, when one forcefully realizes demands against others that are based on faith instead of provable knowledge, we have already seen: aggressive force, the law of the jungle.

This hypocritical or credulous justification of aggressive force in the name of the loftiest ideals must finally come to an end! Where knowledge is available or obtainable, faith must give way to knowledge. For to base demands and claims against others on mere articles of faith must lead to insoluble conflicts. Such behaviour means at the same time a denied or at least an unconsciously practiced nihilism. For he who knows or must know that the "justification" for his actions is not valid, as it rests merely upon believed assumptions or on an assumed creed instead of upon provable knowledge, denies that there is such provable knowledge as a firm foundation for forming relationships from man to man.

It is a scientifically proven fact that all so-far asserted "divine," "ethical," "customary," "moral," "natural" and other "higher" commands and all ideological claims, cannot be proven to be objectively valid - as we have only criteria for that which is but not for that which allegedly "ought" to be. Of course, countless such commands were brought to bear, varying according to time and place, as long as they were faithfully accepted or backed up by force. Decisive is not that they "prevailed" in this way, but whether they had an existence independent of the faith placed in them and of their forceful realization. By the way, a major part of the "moral" commands respected in practice is not a "higher" command but a genuine right, namely, a silently contracted right resulting from concurring interests. In the absence of a standard for the objective existence of allegedly "higher" commands (behind which are always hiding subjective wishes, arbitrary claims, agitation and propaganda only), there are only men against men, at first without rights and duties (although, as already mentioned, being "without rights" does not mean that one should or could treat someone arbitrarily). This realization greatly simplifies the decision on practical behaviour.

A new form of questioning avoids those dead ends of thinking which result from confounding subjective values with absolute values and with those other values arising from the quite logical further development of mental concepts or articles of faith, if these have no "reality" other than that they arise in one mind or in several.

This new questioning sounds quite easy: You come to me with this or that claim or even with several at the same time - and here it does not matter whether you are alone or a member of a group claiming a "higher right." I assume that you are quite honestly convinced of the "right" you assert against me. However, since I can respect only such rights and duties as derive from voluntarily concluded contracts (and are provable as such), and since it only leads to a confusion of concepts when one speaks apart from these also of "rights" and "duties" of another kind, please explain to me what you understand by them, how you want to prove that they exist, and, supposing that they do exist, where your authorization is for interpreting them properly? Especially the burden of proof is upon you. You have to demonstrate upon what authority you claim more freedom for you or your group than you want to grant me.

Since that is the decisive point, since there neither are nor can be any provable rights and duties other than those derived from voluntarily agreed upon contracts, there are only two ways of conduct possible towards other human beings: One can either try to come to an understanding with them through arrangements, or one may confront them with aggressive force, i.e. with the law of the jungle. A decision between these two options is inescapable.

If one decides in favour of understanding, one must, just as unavoidably, come to recognize the principle of the equal freedom of all. For, in the long run, nobody will be content with a situation in which other individuals or groups claim greater freedom for themselves against his will and at his expense. The condition of the equal freedom of all (the consequences will be explained in detail later) is, therefore, the only lasting social order that is possible.

What is meant by this condition includes on the one hand, all inequalities due to inborn abilities, acquired characteristics and personal achievements, but, on the other hand, includes also voluntary limitations upon one's own freedom of action in favour of others. The equal freedom of all is identical with freedom from domination, i.e. with a taboo on aggressive force and the law of the jungle.

Wherever any infringement of the equal freedom of individuals or groups takes place against their will and in favour of others, we have therefore, aggression: an act of jungle law.

This leads, self-evidently, to counter-actions which are either limited to pure defence (i.e. defence of the limits of equal freedom) or may change into a counter- aggression. (Enforcing restitution for the damage done by the aggressor is, naturally, not to be considered an aggressive act by the person who was attacked.)

Here the advantage and necessity of a clarification of concepts becomes evident - as John Henry Mackay realized regarding the concepts of freedom and force. While by freedom one understood in most cases only "liberties" which, as a rule, were taken at the expense of the equal freedom of others, Mackay made clear that there is no state of freedom as long as someone has a greater degree of freedom at the expense of the equal freedom of anybody else and against that person's will. Real freedom can, therefore, be nothing other than the equal freedom of all. And as aggression belongs to the essence of force (violence) it is concept-confusing nonsense when one calls the defence against violence (i.e. defensive actions that also use physical means) also "force" or "violence." Aggression and defence must be clearly distinguished.

Compared with the previous difficulty of determining a case of aggression precisely, this now becomes quite simple. Aggression occurs whenever the limit of the equal freedom of all is crossed for the purpose of enlarging one person's freedom (or that of a group) at the expense of the equal freedom of another without his consent.

No evasion is possible any longer, no fraudulent cover-up and no self-deception. Whoever uses aggressive force for his own purposes must know, from now on, that he does so, even if up to now he had been a master of veiling his aggressive force by means of alleged "rights" and "higher" commandments or was himself a victim of such deception. Any infringement of the equal freedom of all, however idealistically "established" or justified by something allegedly "higher" it may be, any attempt to provide oneself with and to maintain the privilege of a greater degree of freedom for oneself, at the expense of the freedom of others, every aggressive use of force for this purpose, has to be titled, from now on, without any veil or excuse, nothing other than aggressive force!

Instead of the previous numerous arbitrary criteria of subjective evaluations and imagined, or at least unprovable "rights," there is only one, and this an objective criterion, one resulting from the choice between the law of the jungle, aggressive force, on one side, and respect for the limit of the equal freedom of all, on the other side.

It is not necessary to turn the latter into a new morality in the sense of ascribing to it the character of a "higher" commandment. The decision for the observance of the limit set by the equal freedom of all results from the clear and concurrent interest, even need, of the vast majority for objective criteria of conduct which alone can secure peace.

Both the tiny minority which dares openly to declare itself in favour of aggressive force and the law of the jungle and the large minority which has so far veiled the actually practiced law of the jungle, partly consciously, partly unconsciously, with rationalizing phrases, and which would now have to proclaim aggressive force and jungle law openly or renounce it - these two groups will no longer be able to harm the defensive league formed by the overwhelming majority. This league will have agreed, by tacit or expressed contract, upon mutual respect for the equal freedom of all (which is identical with the prohibition of aggressive force). (This, of course, does not exclude the defence of the equal freedom of all by defensive means).

The overwhelming majority, which is always unified in its desire for peace and non-aggression, has so far been confused, divided and thus unable to act, precisely because of the lack of an objective standard which has to be recognized by every sane human mind.

In the future, one need not have to relinquish subjective values and religious or ideological articles of faith. One will only have to remain conscious of the fact that it is a question of subjective values which are confronted by other equally subjective values, or a question of creeds (not provable knowledge) which are opposed by other creeds which have equal rights and are likewise unprovable. This conclusion is a provable fact from the sphere of experienced reality and thus has objective value.

Naturally, the conclusion from this fact (i.e. the decision either for or against the law of the jungle and aggressive force) is free for everyone.

Among those who decide against the latter and for the equal freedom of all, there can only very rarely happen arguments on its limits. For it can always be stated objectively and clearly, as if weighed on a set of scales, whether in a particular case someone's freedom is greater than that of another and whether this excess is, at the same time, enjoyed at the expense of the other. Likewise, one can concretely determine in every particular case whether the limit of the equal freedom of all is infringed by aggressive force or whether the person concerned has given his approval.

Since the equal freedom of all is a standard in the sphere of "being" and not of "ought " (that is, a standard of experienced reality), an objective decision is also possible in each concrete and particular case.

He who decides for aggressive force and the law of the jungle need not be morally reproached for this. He only has to bear the consequences resulting from defensive actions and claims for indemnification. The latter will include the costs of a preventive and defensive organization too. And in no way is any injustice done to anyone who proclaims the law of the jungle - so that he cannot complain if he is paid back in the same coin, it being the only one that he recognizes.

Here it also becomes clear how much more comprehensive and exact the concept of the equal freedom of all is - in comparison with that of "equal rights for all." Among those who agree upon mutual respect for equal freedom, this is at the same time a true contractual right. It is, indeed, possible to formulate human rights on this basis by the concrete expression of particular conditions within the framework of the equal freedom of all. These human rights would then be valid as a contract offer for all who want to accept them, and, of course, they can and will be defended also against those who choose the law of the jungle for themselves.

"Rights," however, which were not established by voluntary contracts but created as "oughts" from subjective values and wishful dreams, have always remained unclear, paradoxical and contradictory - a source of constant dispute making any agreement impossible.

Even where an "equal right" is demanded or conceded with respect to a certain thing or a certain action, as is done, for example, for individual citizens vis-à-vis the law, (in this context one may remember the above quoted remark by Anatole France) - the citizens have no equal right and no equal freedom compared with those who represent the ideology of Statism. (The State is, of course, primarily an organization of aggressive force, hiding, however, behind a cover-up ideology). Instead, apart from very limited particular rights, they are subjected to domination by the statists. The self-appointed representatives of other ideologies and abstractions, like e.g. that of "society," demand the same subordination from others too. Among allegedly "equal rights" there appear again and again "superior" rights whose alleged precedence can be endlessly argued about because all this is just shadow boxing between figments of the imagination.

In the French Constitution of 1791, which started from "natural, inalienable and sacred human rights," freedom was defined as "the ability to do anything that does not harm others." This was still only a definition of little practical use, for whether something is good or harmful can be a matter of widely different opinions, since it depends upon subjective and very varied valuations. Above all, there are people who wish to tell others what is best for them, according to their opinion. But whether somebody, as an individual or as a member of a group, claims more freedom in a specific case than other individuals or groups do and this at their expense, e.g. by daring to demand a privilege of monopoly for himself, can be decided, mostly at first sight and, in any case, unmistakably.

The concept of the equal freedom of all may, at first, appear a little too abstract. It is identical with the renunciation of aggressive force over others (not with the renunciation of defence against such force!) and with the renunciation of domination over others (not with the renunciation of the compulsion to preserve the limit of the equal freedom of all!). It proves to be an unexpected solution to a problem that so far has seemed to be insoluble. Up to now the mutually contradicting concepts of right and "ought" doctrines (religious and ideological ones) have led to permanent confrontation and chaotic conditions in which, in the end, only the law of the jungle has remained victorious for a time. However, the law of the jungle has not been openly declared but, rather, shamefully hidden behind the veil of a "command" or "right." By now it has become evident that all these "commands," "rights" and other claims are unprovable in their allegedly obligatory character and can, thus, not be distinguished from pure fancies and mere subjective wishes.

At the same time, it has become obvious that this recognition means no deficiency or loss but, on the contrary, an acquisition - of the criteria which have long been sought in the completely wrong place (in the sphere of "ought," instead of that of "being" or experienced reality - which must be respected by everybody).

What is meant here is not that the decision to respect the limit of the equal freedom of all is now a "command" or reason in the sense of formulating, as has previously been done, alleged "commands of reason" and that thus everyone must bow before this superior reason. This would merely be a justification of the kind that has so far been customary. No, one can confidently leave it to every individual's own reason which of the two options he will choose for himself; either aggressive force and the law of the jungle, or the principle of the equal freedom of all. In both cases, there is a clear criterion for attributing the action concerned to either the one or the other of these two decisions, an objective standard that can no longer be disputed.

For it is always obvious whether someone in his relationship to other human beings can refer to a provable right or - insofar as there is no contractual regulation - shows himself willing to come to an agreement without claiming any privileges or monopolies, or, alternatively, whether he wants to call upon the law of the jungle and resort to aggressive force. Since, on the other hand, the prohibition of aggressive force and of jungle law and the decision in favour of understanding, do logically lead to the principle of the equal freedom of all, one can thus determine, in every particular case, whether a condition exists in which the equal freedom of all is guaranteed or whether someone has enlarged his own sphere of freedom at the expense of the freedom sphere of others and against their will, or whether he wants to do so.

Stated now in a single sentence: Since the unprovability of the existence of religious or ideological, i.e. of all asserted, rules of ought is a fact, and since the alternatives which follow inescapably from this - between the law of the jungle and understanding - lead in practice, with the overwhelming majority of all people (at least of the civilized ones) to a decision for the latter, and since this decision then leads logically to the recognition of the principle of the equal freedom of all, this means that this principle is the basis and, at the same time, the reliable standard which can count on general, nearly total recognition and will thus lead out of our previous chaos and senseless permanent fighting.

This is all the more true, since the principle of equal freedom of all does not require from any religious, ideological or other group of believers any renunciation of their convictions (which are unprovable regarding their correctness) but allows them their most extensive practice - up to the limit where such a practice would claim an increase of one's freedom at the expense of others (and against their will). For they obtain for their own views and the practical application of their views the security and inviolability which result from the fact that all others also practice their views only up to the objective limit of the equal freedom of all and thus renounce aggressive intervention. Those few people openly following the law of the jungle scarcely matter at all here, since they are opposed by the unified interests of all others.

While so far positively benevolent and decent people have been split, due to the absence of a generally recognized standard, into numerous groups that have fought each other bitterly as well as senselessly, and while each person has tried, in good faith, to raise his own rule of ought (which is unprovable in its objective validity) to a generally recognized law, all detent people that are of good will can now - indeed must now - associate, in their own interest, for the mutual defence of the principle of the equal freedom of all. Corresponding organizations based on voluntarism will replace the previous States, which were based on compulsory membership and on unequal freedom.

The condition of equal freedom for all is synonymous with non-domination, and such a condition is described by the word "anarchy" in its proper sense. Goethe, too, said on this:

"Warum mir aber in neuester Welt

Anarchie gar so wohl gefaellt ?

Ein jeder lebt nach seinem Sinn

- das ist nun also auch mein Gewinn!

Ich lass einem jeden sein Bestreben,

um auch nach meinem Sinn zu leben."

"Why, in the new world,

do I like anarchy so much?

Everybody lives according to his views.

- That is also to my advantage.

I leave everyone to his pursuits,

in order to live undisturbed myself."

(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, "Zahmen Xenien" 1827)

One should add here: In each case within the sphere of the equal freedom of all.

 

TOO MUCH ASSERTED - TOO MUCH DEMANDED? (^)

It would certainly be demanding too much to expect everybody, after reading the above or when hearing this presentation for the first time, immediately to see in this the "philosopher's stone" or at least a statement that can fundamentally change his life and all our lives and all our circumstances.

One obstacle to this already lies in the inertia of our habitual way of thinking, which has not even seen any problem in this matter, far less what is probably the most important problem in the whole history of mankind and especially of our times. Accordingly, interest in a solution to this problem has so far been almost nil.

People have made a habit of establishing and justifying their actions without paying much attention to their fundamental and lasting validity.

Thus, when they encounter someone who makes an equally ambitious statement, they suspect at first that they are dealing with someone who craves admiration and who is vastly exaggerating his case or, at least, is subject to self-delusion - the same kind of self-delusion that has captivated all previous authors of ought rules and of ethical and moral systems, as well as of ideologies and religions.

By their own fascination they were seduced into assuming that all others - all those human beings who think and feel in such endless variations - must share their enthusiasm, whereas daily experience teaches that, even disregarding racial, climatic, and evolutionally conditioned cultural and civil differences in mentality, there are enormous differences in thinking, feeling and subjective values even within the most homogeneous ethnic groups.

Added to this there is also a psychological fact which hinders the acceptance of what was elaborated here.

The already-mentioned Prof. James Harvey Robinson elaborates roughly as follows:

We change our opinions many times without any resistance or great excitement, but when someone tells us that we are wrong we resent this accusation and harden our hearts. We are unspeakably superficial in the formation of our articles of faith, but we defend them passionately when someone attempts to take them away from us. It is obvious that not ideas as such are so precious to us, but rather our vanity, which is threatened. By our very natures, Robinson asserts, we are concerned with tenaciously defending whatever is our own, be it our personality, our family, our property or our views ... Only few people take the trouble to investigate the origins of those of our convictions which have become our favourites. Actually, by our natures, we have an aversion against doing so. We prefer to continue to hold as true whatever we are accustomed to. The aversion arising when the correctness of any of our convictions is questioned leads us to look for any kind of justification which would permit us to continue in our beliefs. The consequence is that our so-called reflections consist mostly in finding arguments to justify us in continuing to hold our previous beliefs.

Robinson elaborates further with his analogy of the Baptist Missionary. Such a person is gladly willing to understand that the Buddhist is a Buddhist not because his doctrines can withstand careful examination but because he was born into a Buddhist family in Tokyo. But it would be a betrayal of his faith if this missionary admitted that his own preference for certain teachings is due to the fact that his mother was a member of the Oak Ridge Baptist Church. ... The "real" reasons for our convictions are kept secret by us as well as by others. As we grow up, we simply take over the ideas that are offered to us concerning religion, family life, property, business, fatherland and State. Without being conscious of it, we accept them from our surroundings. They are constantly whispered into our ears by the environment in which our life happens to take place. In addition, as Trotter has explained, these judgments have - as products of influence and not of contemplation - the character of absolute certainty, so that questioning them means the same for the believer as a dangerously exaggerated skepticism. Such behaviour will generally encounter scorn, disapproval or condemnation, depending upon the nature of the questioned articles of faith ... This immediately and faithful defence of our prejudiced opinions - this procedure of inventing "good" reasons in order to defend our habitual convictions - is known to the modern psychologists as "rationalization" - evidently only a new name for an older matter. Usually our "good" reasons are of no value at all for the promotion of honest enlightenment, as - no matter how solemnly they are advanced - they are, basically, just the result of personal preferences or prejudices and not the result of an honest attempt either to search for or to accept new knowledge. This is the first of Robinson's arguments concerning received ideas.

Against the attempt here made (to base a principle for conduct between human beings, for the first time, not upon articles of faith and subjective values, but upon provable facts which must be recognized by everyone and offer, at the same time, an objective criterion for behaviour), the objection has first of all been raised that we have here just another axiom whose validity would also be contested.

Now, an axiom is defined as an incontestable principle that requires no proof, and those religious, moral, ideological articles of faith upon which conduct between human beings today predominantly rests, were usually upheld as if they were such axioms.

Just because of this, i.e. because of the obvious consequences of such conduct, which has led to endless bloodshed, destruction of enormous values, waste of time and energy, oppression and distress, as well as dissatisfaction with the existing world, one has had to look for provable, generally recognized facts as starting points for a new basic principle.

One such fact is the observation that civilized courts - for good reasons - dismiss all claims and demands for whose justification no evidence can be submitted. Consequently, they treat those as aggressors and violators who nevertheless try to realize such claims -no matter how convinced they may be of their presumed "right" or even whether they might possibly have a real right which however, happens not to be provable. That such a procedure is appropriate not only in so-called civil law cases but in all disputes in which unprovable demands and claims are raised, should not be subject to doubt among reasonable beings. From this follows, first of all, the identification of anyone as an aggressor who realizes an unprovable "right" by force.

The new way of thinking which Einstein declared to be necessary must, therefore, start with recognizing and identifying the person concerned as an adherent of aggressive force and of the law of the jungle.

A second provable fact is that for all demands and claims based on religious, moral or ideological articles of faith proof of their general validity is fundamentally impossible. For there are no criteria by which the existence or justification of an "ought" can be measured. There are only - limited - criteria of "being" in our experienced reality. And the actual validity - temporary and local - of religious, moral or ideological articles of faith either depends upon agreements (i.e. voluntary recognition) or was imposed by a dominating power. By this nothing is said against those beliefs in themselves, which are obviously necessary for mankind, seeing the limitations of Marx's knowledge, but very much is said against demands and claims that rely on such beliefs and so exceed the limit of the equal freedom of all, against the will of the persons concerned.

Thus the two above-mentioned facts are not axioms but provable facts. And this applies also to the third observation: In the absence of any pre-given rules that are clearly provable as obligatory for behaviour between humans, there is only the inescapable choice between two possibilities: either one can attempt to force one's own will, as far as possible, upon the other person and one decides, thereby, for aggressive force and the law of the jungle; or, alternatively, one decides against aggressive force and the law of the jungle and, thereby, fundamentally for an understanding - whether tacit or explicit - with all other persons.

Whoever chooses aggressive force and the law of the jungle can certainly not complain when those attacked defend the limits of the equal freedom of all against him. He could not even complain if they not only defended these limits but also proceeded offensively and aggressively against him - for this would be precisely the kind of behaviour that he himself considers to be right.

Those, however, who decide for agreement and against aggressive force and the law of the jungle, must reach with inescapable logic the principle and standard of the equal freedom of all. Since nobody will, in the long run, consent to a condition where, at his expense and against his will, another person claims a greater degree of freedom for himself, general agreement is only possible on the basis of the equal freedom of all.

To be sure, somebody may temporarily limit his own freedom, voluntarily, in favour of another person. But - as already mentioned - such a voluntary action does not affect the principle which is to serve as a criterion, especially where the persons concerned already agree on the mutual limitation of their freedom spheres.

The principle of the equal freedom of all is thus not an axiom but the result of a choice between two possibilities based on the three above-mentioned provable facts. The decision for equal freedom does not need to be praised to the heavens as a new "moral" (that is quite superfluous), nor does one have to damn the decision for the law of the jungle and aggressive force as "immoral." (It is enough that all people concerned are treated according to their decision and according to the threat they pose, and this all the more consistently the more they rely on the sacred "conviction" of their "right").

That the principle of the equal freedom of all is an objective standard has been denied with the argument that there are no "objective" standards at all, since every standard is created by human beings and is therefore basically subjective. Here we evidently have a mix-up between "objective" and "absolute." Naturally, all human standards are not absolute but only relative. But this has nothing to do with their objectivity. In the same way it is natural that, in case of a dispute on the limit of equal freedom, both parties to the dispute will see the matter one-sidedly (i.e. from their subjective point of view) and thus need a neutral institution for an objective decision. That not even a neutral court could make an objective decision according to the principle of the equal freedom of all is an untenable assertion. When two people argue, for example, whether a piece of cloth measures more or less than one meter or exactly one meter, then the objective decision is delivered by a metric measure. And whenever a weight is contested, a functioning pair of scales can objectively decide the matter. When two contestants have an equal claim to certain goods, then their equal division is the objective solution, and if the neutral decision maker wants to proceed with extra care, he will say: "You divide - but the other chooses!"

The standard of the equal freedom of all - and this is its great advantage - functions like a sensitive pair of scales. In 99% of all cases it shows at a glance whether one of two contestants claims a greater degree of freedom for himself at the expense and against the will of the other, whether he claims, for instance, a privilege or monopoly, and whether he asserts: "I may do what you may not do!" For the remaining 1% of all cases, which perhaps need a closer examination, an objective decision is already possible in principle - because the decision here is not in the sphere of "ought" but of "being." It is a question of whether the freedom of one person has been increased at the expense and against the will of the other - or not!

The standard of the equal freedom of all is thus actually an objective standard, and there is none that is superior or even comparable to it for relations between human beings. If, however, there were such a superior standard, then it would naturally be readily accepted. For what is discussed here is based as far as possible upon purely objective considerations and not at all upon personal ambitions. Thus it should not be misunderstood when this new foundation offered here, the principle and standard of the equal freedom of all (or rather the arguments for it), is called a Copernican turning-point. Up to now all standards of behaviour have rested on articles of faith whose compelling power is unprovable and whose endless number and variety completely preclude agreement on one of them. This has made the peaceful solution of problems impossible and justified aggressive force and the law of the jungle. But now there is offered, for the first time, a criterion to distinguish between aggression and defence, to reveal all previous cover-ups of aggressive force and the law of the jungle, and to compel their adherents openly to proclaim themselves as such.

Above all, however, the stated provable facts offer to those people who renounce aggressive force and the law of the jungle, a secure beginning for agreement between them and for common actions in accordance with a reliable standard.

This has never happened before during all of human history, and stupendous consequences will, indeed must, result from this.

This is all the more true since the conceptions presented here are so simple and evident that even an average mind may examine them and must confirm their consequences.

The time is ripe, indeed overripe, for these conceptions.

"The norms of moral law apply automatically. Their strong obligatory force rests on a pre-given order of values that must be accepted and upon 'ought' rules which govern humans living together. They apply regardless of whether those at whom they are directed with a demand for observance actually observe and recognize them or not."

This dogmatic statement from the commanding heights of natural law means, in plain English, that the values and decisions laid down by the rulers are absolute "higher" values, and orders based on them have to be accepted without contradiction. That was a "conception" of the Federal German Supreme Court in its early days, while a later decision of the Federal Constitutional Court at least admitted:

"The mere existence of threatening penalties already influences the value concepts and behaviour of the population," i.e. those allegedly absolute, higher values. And nowadays? - A member of the Federal Government (Hans Schueler: "Die Sittenwaechter der Nation" - "The Moral Guardians of the Nation" - Die Zeit, 28th February 1975) ironically designated that sentence of the Supreme Court as a mere curiosity that has become part of the history of law.

By contrast, the Catholic Church, which in its time has demonstrated a maximum of intolerance with the persecution of heretics and with the Inquisition, showed itself tolerant and progressive - after the Second Vatican Council. The German Conference of Bishops declared (Badische Zeitung, 24th September 1976): "It would be untenable to assert that the declaration of the Council on religious freedom contradicts the absolute and unchangeable truth of faith. These statements have nothing to do with a relativization of truth." In other words: one may believe that what is believed in corresponds to the absolute truth and nevertheless respect the freedom of dissenters, in the same way as one wishes one's own equal freedom to be respected by them.

Everybody is now called upon to see to it that this is applied not only in the sphere of religion but in all relations between human beings and to bring this about in his own interest.

 


[Home] [Top]