"Freedomvrights.com
Writings and Publications by Joseph B. H. McMillan
The Ten Principles of Freedom: Specific
Obligations under Principle 7, and Principles 8 to 10.
(An extract from The Ten Principles of Freedom: A Presentation of the Ten
Principles to the Founding Fathers …)
by
Joseph BH McMillan
Joseph BH McMillan (JBH): Gentlemen, I’d like to take up where I left off – the obligations in respect of Principle 7. I shall then briefly outline the remaining Principles.
Principle 7 & the Obligation against
Betrayal
Betrayal, of course, comes in
many forms, but the most reprehensible of all is sexual betrayal. Sexual
betrayal goes to the very core of the union, because it is the way that a new
life is created. It is the most intimate act any two human beings can engage
in. It is an act that creates a unique and exclusive human being in the image
of those who create it. It must, therefore, be a unique and exclusive act. And
each party thus has a strict obligation to ensure that it remains a unique and
exclusive act. No other human betrayal can give rise to the same levels of passion,
hurt, and rage.
That, Gentlemen, is why
Proverbs says that ‘jealousy is the rage
of a man, therefore he will not spare
in the day of vengeance’ [Proverbs 6:34]. And, I would say, it is no less
the rage of a woman.
Now one would imagine that a
betrayal of the most fundamental human obligations should attract some sort of
penalty; at the very least, the kind of penalties that would attach to a breach
of some fiduciary duty. Yet, in the modern Liberal Fundamentalist state, that
is not the case. In reality, a betrayal can have the exact opposite effect. The
party who caused the betrayal can end up being rewarded, while the innocent party
can end up being penalized. Let me give an example. A woman who betrays her
husband, and thus her own children, will invariably be awarded custody of the
very children she betrayed, often with the other party to the betrayal; she
will be awarded the home; she will be awarded financial compensation; and she
will be awarded maintenance for the children she betrayed, from the husband she
betrayed. The innocent party, in this example the husband, has to stand by and
see his children being brought up by the very man who was involved in their
betrayal; he is at the mercy of the woman who betrayed him to simply have the
‘privilege’ of seeing his own children; he has to watch as the two people who
betrayed him and his children live in the home he worked to provide for his
family; and he is usually reduced to penury to support the children who are now
living with those who betrayed him.
A betrayed woman suffers
similar indignities, but not of the same magnitude, because generally, she is
awarded the children, home, and financial support. But still, the husband and
other party who betrayed her suffer no other penalties. Therefore, the woman is
in pretty much the same position she would have been in had she done the
betraying, and the man is in pretty much the same position as if he had been
betrayed.
This, Gentleman, is what passes
for ‘justice’ in the Liberal Fundamentalist state. And it passes for ‘justice’
because our ‘lawmakers’ have decreed that this is all in the best interests of
the children. But how it can be in the best interests of children to be in the
custody of the person who so callously betrayed them, together with the other
party to the betrayal, is a total mystery.
Founding Fathers (FFs): It is for
us too! That is why, no doubt, the seventh Commandment is ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’. And why Christ said “that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
JBH: “Quite! But this has very
profound consequences. If our children see that the most fundamental human
obligations can be ignored at will, without any consequences, how can any other
human obligations have any meaning? If there are no penalties for a betrayal of
the most fundamental human obligations, respect for all other obligations is
undermined. It conveys an impression that human beings can pick and choose
which obligations they will honor, and which they will ignore.
That, Gentlemen, is why we see
fraud and deceit at every level of society on a daily basis. That is why we see
children displaying total contempt for others, often including their own parents.
That is why we see drug abuse, juvenile crime, soaring divorce rates, teenage
pregnancies, and so many other social ills. No longer do we focus on our
obligations; everyone is too busy asserting their ‘rights’. But, as I have
said, I’ll get to these things we call ‘rights’ later.
So the obligation not to betray
the other party to the union, and thus not to betray the obligations we have
towards the human life created by that union, forms the basis of the general concept
that we must honor those obligations we do assume, whether expressly, or as a
result of our actions.
And, as I have already said,
these obligations towards the life we create are the first obligations any
human being encounters in life. When we see them betrayed, we develop contempt
for the entire notion of obligations, or the notion that we should honor our
obligations; when we see them honored, we ourselves learn to honor those
obligations we do assume.
Before I get onto the next
obligation that arises out of a combination of Principles 5 and 7, let me do a
bit of ‘house-keeping’ in respect of the Ten Principles. Although the
obligation to honor the obligations we do assume by creating a human life gives
rise to the general obligation to honor our obligations, betrayal of the most
fundamental and important obligations we assume by creating a new human being
are so much more fundamental than the general obligation, that I shall limit
Principle 7 to just those obligations. I have included the general obligation
under Principle 3.
So Principle 7 will provide
that we do not betray the obligations we assume by joining in a union to create
new life, and also that we do not entice others to betray their obligations, or
be party to such a betrayal by another.
Principle 7 & the Obligation of Abstinence
FFs: You said that Principle 5
also gives rise to obligations even before the union to create life. Can you
explain that?
JBH: Well, since the new life
created is unique and exclusive to those who create it, each party has an obligation
to ensure that the act which creates that life is also exclusive and unique.
And that imposes obligations on the parties which predate their union. I know
that many will throw their hands up in horror at the prospect of such
obligations, because it requires sexual abstinence before marriage, or should I
say before the union to create human life. "What I do before I get married is my business!" will be the
shrill voices of dissent. To which I reply - our behavior throughout life is
taken into account in respect of each and every obligation we enter into where
that behavior is pertinent. Those seeking a job must demonstrate that they have
not been dishonest in the past. Someone seeking to qualify as an attorney must
show good character. Politicians seeking the favor of the electorate must not
be susceptible to attacks on their 'morality'. To thus claim that sex, being
the cornerstone of the union to create a new life that is unique and exclusive,
should have no bearing on that union, is simply a dereliction of logic. We
cannot create a unique and exclusive human being in an act that is neither
unique nor exclusive. And this obligation extends not only to the person with
whom we will one day create that new life, but also the new life itself that we
will one day create. I suggest that those who preemptively oppose such an
obligation ruminate on the logic of their opposition, because that logic
demands that previous behavior can never have a bearing on future commitments,
however fundamental they are to the commitment envisaged. It is, as honest
reflection will show, an unsustainable logic. Unappealing, perhaps, to those
attracted to the idea of actions without obligations, but unsustainable.
Yet, what is interesting is that those who do not bring exclusivity and uniqueness to a union, and I am here referring to both men and women, are those who insist most strongly on all the trappings of the union being exclusive and unique. Hence, they demand that special and exclusive wedding ring, not something from the pawnshop. They demand an exclusive and unique hand-made white wedding dress, not some second-hand dress from the charity shop. And they demand a unique reception at an exclusive venue, even if it virtually breaks the bank. Why then, if they consider it so important that the trappings of a union be unique and exclusive, do they not consider that the substance of the union, and the purpose of the union itself, need not be unique and exclusive? It's like wrapping a rotten apple in toffee to give the illusion of a shiny, pristine apple hidden beneath. Men, of course, endorse this illusion of purity. They want others to think they have bought a spanking new car, not some second-hand jalopy with thousands of miles on the clock - that would dent their pride.
Gentlemen, let me rub some salt in that wound. Think about those fabulous nurseries so beloved by parents about to have a baby.
Women who have displayed little respect for the cradle of life, their own wombs, are usually the most vociferous in demanding that baby’s first station in life be special. No second-hand cradle, no used and stained sheets, no ‘hand-me-down’ baby clothes. Everything must be special – except, it seems, where the baby is conceived, and spends its first formative nine months, the most important nine months of its life.
What peculiar logic, I ask myself, can demand that the basic essentials of a reasonably comfortable existence be so unique, special, and exclusive for baby, while the place it is conceived, and develops from nothing into a fully formed human being, can be of so little consequence? How can a ‘second-hand’ womb be good enough, but not a ‘second-hand’ sheet, or cradle?
The answer, of course, is that the special, unique, and exclusive nursery is for mummy and daddy, not baby. It is to relieve a conscience. It is to give the outward appearance of something special, because the real thing is lost – lost in the carnal indulgence of pleasure, and crude vanity.
People should not deceive themselves into believing that they can make good their obligations towards the life they create by shifting their obligations from the creation of life onto the trappings of life.
A consideration of the Scriptures would be apt at this point, Gentleman. When the Scriptures tell us that God decided to make His son flesh so that He could offer Him up as a sacrifice for our sins, He chose a virgin. With all His undoubted power to render clean, that which is unclean, he still chose a virgin. Yet, once His son was born of the flesh, God did not require a pristine new cradle, or sheets, or even nursery. No! They “wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger.” A manger, a place to feed animals! And His nursery was a “stable”. What a contrast to the modern day parent, would you not agree? And a ‘rebuke’, perhaps, of our misplaced priorities?
FFs: That is certainly an interesting contrast!
JBH: Now let me briefly address some of the practical reasons for such an obligation, then look briefly at some of the objections commonly advanced against such an obligation. I deal more fully with these issues in my written presentation.
Promiscuity before the union to create life exposes a person to serious sexual diseases. Some of those diseases can be fatal. Often, the existence of the disease will not become apparent until some time later. That imposes a risk on the life we may one day create. So promiscuity undermines the obligation to protect the life we may one day create.
The principal unique and exclusive sexual act any person can partake in is the loss of virginity. If that unique and exclusive act is shared with someone other than the person with whom we create life, a fundamental element of the uniqueness and exclusivity of the creation of life is absent.
Previous sexual partners also cast a shadow over the union which creates life, especially when one of those previous partners was involved in the loss of virginity (which is usually the case). That shadow loosens the bonds within the union, and that is a threat to the stability of the union, and thus the obligations we have towards the life we create.
Previous sexual encounters in themselves diminish the uniqueness and exclusivity of any union. They reduce a union to just one more ‘relationship’ in a series of sexual relationships. Further, if the ‘pleasure’ derived from the union to create life doesn’t match up to previous sexual relationships, the union is at risk of one of the parties seeking to replicate a previous sexual encounter.
The general obligation here is that anyone contemplating joining in a union to create a new human being has an obligation to ensure that the other party to the union will honor the obligations which will attach to the union, and attach to the creation of human life. That necessarily involves a consideration of that person’s history, especially that person sexual history, because that is the essence of the creation of life.
FF’s: You are not, we presume, suggesting that the mere fact of a woman, or indeed man, being a virgin when they marry, guarantees fidelity during the marriage?
JBH: Of course not! It depends entirely on the reason for it. A woman who has simply not had the opportunity, but who envies other woman for their ‘liberal’ sexual indulgence, will be dangerous. She is likely to be easily tempted. But a woman who has acquainted herself with the obligations and reasons for bringing uniqueness and exclusivity to a union to create life will be much more likely to honor her obligations.
Let me give an analogy. If you employ someone with a criminal record for theft, or worse, repeated thefts, you run a high degree of risk that such a person will do it again – especially if that person has not acknowledged the error of his ways. On the other hand, if you employ someone with no such record, and someone who rationalizes his reason for not doing so, you run a lesser risk of that person stealing from you. Would you not agree?
FF’s: We would agree with that!
JBH: But the mere fact that someone does not have a criminal record for theft is no guarantee that he would not be easily tempted. It may be that the opportunity has just not presented itself; or presented itself in a way that he thought he could steal and get away with it. That is why employers do not simply look at a person’s criminal record in deciding whether to employ someone, especially someone who will have some fiduciary position. Employers evaluate the person’s whole background in order to make a considered judgment of that person’s character. They will want to satisfy themselves that the person in question does not have some lurking, but dormant, propensity for dishonesty. Would you agree with that also?
FF’s: We certainly would! It is a prudent precaution.
JBH: Employers will take such precautions for even positions of minor importance, such as hiring a filing clerk. They will want to be sure that such an employee will not betray his obligations towards the employer, especially, for example, by betraying confidential information to a competitor, or by walking out on his employer and joining a competitor, armed with such confidential information.
Yet, remarkably, when it comes to the person who will be in a position to do us most damage, we are told that their past is irrelevant. How can a filing clerk’s background be relevant, but the background of the person who will have the most intimate knowledge of us, and have obligations in respect of the most important thing we can do in life – create new life – be irrelevant? It is simply a dereliction of logic!
FF’s: We expect that is right!
JBH: So, this obligation gives rise to the general notion that our previous behavior in life is relevant to whatever we may do in the future. That is why parents impress on their children the need for education, the need to avoid criminal activity, the need to prepare their characters for the sake of their futures, and so on. That is why we stress on our children the need to have a ‘clean’ and ‘impressive’ curriculum vitae. Because everything we do in our lives is pertinent to the future; and that must be most true when it comes to creating a new human being.
Let me now turn briefly to the most common objections to such an obligation. Most are based on this notion of a ‘right’ to the pursuit of pleasure, or at least a distorted notion of that ‘right’.
I have already addressed the first objection – that is, the assertion that what we do before we get married is our own business; that we have some sort of ‘right’ to do as we please, then insist that others ‘accept us for what we are.’ Well, tell that to some employer when we fail to meet the expectations they require for a job. As I have shown, everything we do in life is pertinent to what we do in the future, and that must be particularly true when it comes to the creation of life. Sex is at the heart of the creation of life.
Another peculiar objection is that ‘sexual experimentation’ somehow strengthens a union; that ‘sowing our wild oats’ before we settle down reduces the ‘risk’ of being tempted to ‘experiment’ once we enter a union. Apart from the fact that this ridiculous notion demolishes any semblance of uniqueness and exclusivity in a union, it is also predicated on the ‘right’ to pleasure. It is an assertion that the essence of a union to create life is the pleasure to be derived from the union, not the obligations that attach to the creation of life.
Let me put that another way. When we are considering joining in a union with another person in order to create new life, we should not be asking ourselves whether that person will sufficiently satisfy our lust for physical pleasure, but whether that person is able to meet the obligations that attach to the creation of human life, including the obligation to bring to the creation of a unique and exclusive human being, a unique and exclusive act in a unique and exclusive union.
Further, this silly assertion that ‘sexual experimentation’ for the purpose of seeking maximum pleasure, somehow reduces the risk to any future union, is based on a fallacy. It assumes that the reckless indulgence in ‘pleasure’ eventually ‘burns itself out’; that someone will eventually say, enough of pleasure, now I will assume my obligations. Philo warns against this unthinking pursuit of pleasure. "And those who have previously become the slaves of pleasure immediately receive the wages of this miserable and incurable passion."
And this leads to the ultimate assault on
the union to create new life – an assault on the union itself, and on the new
life supposedly created by that union. No father can ever be sure that the
child of the union is his, and that is especially the case when he marries a
woman who is not a virgin.
No man can know whether a child
conceived, for example, at about the time of marriage is his if the woman he
marries has been promiscuous. Today, many men and women consider it some sort
or ‘right of passage’ to have a sexual ‘fling’ before they get married. The
groom is frequently treated to a prostitute by his ‘friends’ on his stag-night;
the bride more often than not ‘picks-up’ some man at a bar or nightclub on her
hen-night, egged on by her ‘friends’.
Apart from the danger of one or both
being infected with a serious sexual disease, the woman could get pregnant by a
man she hardly knows. A child will then grow up in an environment of deception,
not knowing that the man she believes to be her father is not; and the ‘father’
is subjected to a lifelong deceit of bringing up the child of another man.
This does not only apply before marriage.
Those who regard sex primarily as a mechanism to satisfy their lust for
pleasure don’t, as I have said, suddenly ‘renounce’ pleasure once they are
married, or have children. As Philo said, once we have “become the slaves of pleasure [we] immediately receive the wages of
this miserable and incurable passion."
It is an “incurable passion”
which will always be tempting those who have previously become its slave. So
the risk is much higher of a woman becoming pregnant by someone who is not her
husband when she has been promiscuous before she marries.
In such cases the entire union, and the
new life that is part of that union, are all living a grotesque and despicable
deceit.
But we should not deceive ourselves; this is not an uncommon phenomenon. It is in fact very common, and becoming ever more common. Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal, in December 2005, ordered a man to continue paying child support even after a DNA test had proved that the child was not his. The child had been conceived and born during the marriage. The Court used the excuse that the 'father' had brought the challenge of paternity too late because the divorce decree had said he was the father, and it could only be challenged within a year. This is called a legal fiction. I call it a legal travesty! But most interestingly, the Court acknowledged that with the advent of DNA tests "the instant case presents a question which can be expected to recur with increasing frequency." And this was, according to the Court, "fraught with difficult social issues." So now the way has been paved to compel men to pay even for their wives' infidelity. Not surprisingly, the women activists were on TV hailing the 'justice' of this decision. Even some men, of the limp-wristed professional wimp variety, piously pronounced that bringing up children was based on love, not biology!!! What perverted nonsense!
The only way men are going to be sure that any child of a union is their’s will be by insisting on a DNA test once the child is born, or even before it is born. What a way to begin a union that should be based on uniqueness and exclusivity.
Woman, of course, will vehemently protest such an ‘invasion’ of their ‘privacy’. They will mobilize their ‘right’ to be ‘trusted’. They will demand that they have a ‘right’ to ‘love’ - to a ‘love’ that “suffereth long, and is kind”, that “envieth not,” and that “beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” And they will then, as they already do now, invoke this ‘right to love’ not just against their spouses, but against their children. 'If you really love me’, their reasoning goes, ‘you would “suffereth long” my irresponsible behavior and smutty life, and be “kind” to me; you would “beareth all” my vanity and carnal indulgences; you would “believeth all” my lies and “hopeth” they are true; and you would "endureth all” my utter selfishness.’ And many people actually believe it is some kind of a 'virtue’ to “beareth all” this nonsense, “believeth all” the lies, and to “endureth all” this self-indulgence. But it is no way to build a unique and exclusive union in order to create a unique and exclusive human being. Invoking such ‘rights’ is simply another mechanism to avoid our obligations; and worse, it is used as a device to conceal betrayal and deceit.
Let me now deal with one final silly objection to an obligation of abstinence. It is that children themselves make a union unique and exclusive. The argument claims that the creation of life itself transforms what is simply one sexual relationship, in a series of sexual relationships, into a special relationship. The onus of making the relationship unique and special is thus transferred to the new life created, not the people who create that life. Baby assumes a sort of sacrificial role for the ‘remission of sins’ of its parents. The ‘obligation’ to create a unique and exclusive relationship is shifted from the parents to the new life they create. This derives from what many people perceive as some sort of ‘right’ to children. It is simply obscene to claim that the human life we bring into this world should itself be responsible for creating the unique and exclusive relationship which should make that new life so special to those who create it.
Principles 8 to 10
I now come to outline the final three obligations that arise out of the creation of life, and the general obligations that emerge from them.
Principle 8 and the Source of Obligations
JBH: Principle 8 flows from the
prohibition against any person compelling another to surrender his property, or
the fruits of his labor, for the benefit of someone else, without his consent.
It also reinforces the Principle that the obligations that attach to those who
create life belong exclusively to them. Those who create life cannot compel
someone else to meet their obligations.
But Principle 8 takes these
prohibitions a step further. It provides that we cannot steal someone else’s
property in order to better meet our obligations to the life we create; and
likewise, each of us agree that we will not steal someone else’s property in
order to meet our obligations towards the life we create. And that gives rise
to the general Principle that we do not appropriate the property of another
without that person’s consent. This principle is distinguishable from Principle
4. Principle 4 provides that no one has any authority, natural or otherwise, to
appropriate the labor or property of another without that person’s consent,
while Principle 8 provides that in the absence of such authority or consent, we
cannot use force or stealth to appropriate such property. This is effectively
the same as the eighth Commandment - ‘Thou
shalt not steal’. Yet, again, we see that it has its origin in the creation
of life, and the obligations that attach to it.
Principle 9 & the Source of Obligations
Principle 9 relates to the
obligations in Principle 7. Principle 7 dealt primarily with sexual betrayal.
But it is fundamental that the parties to the creation of life be honest with
each other. They should not deceive one another, whether prior to their union,
or during it. That gives rise to the general principle of honesty that is
fundamental to harmonious human interaction. And again, we see this Principle
echoed in the Ten Commandments – ‘Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’
Principle 10 & the Source of
Obligations
And finally, we come to the
last principle, Principle 10. Once we enter into a relationship to create new
life, we take on obligations which restrict our freedoms. We take on those
obligations of our own free will – by consent. But once we have done so, we
cannot reassert our freedom in order to avoid the obligations which have
attached to us. The reason for that is simple; someone else has relied on our
agreement to take on those obligations, and no doubt sacrificed in order to do
so. Further, the obligations relate to a human being who had no say in whether
or not it wanted to be created in the first place. That human being has no
choice but to rely on each party who created it to fulfill their obligations.
Reasserting a freedom which we have voluntarily modified by assuming those
obligations which attach to the creation of a human life, is not only a breach
of our obligations, but a use of our freedom with the sole or predominant
purpose of interfering with the freedom of another, and the freedom of the life
we create. At the very least, it is an assertion of freedom without regard to
the effect it may have on the freedom of others – the person we create life
with, and the life we create.
That specific prohibition
against reasserting a freedom we have voluntarily modified, forms the basis of
the general principle that we should not use our freedom for the sole or
predominant purpose of interfering with the freedom of others, or without
regard to the effect an exercise of our freedom may have on others. Now,
usually the exercise of our freedom in this way arises from envy, lust, or
simple greed. For example, a man who has joined in a union to create life may
become envious of the ‘freedom’ of his unmarried peers, and seek to reassert
his freedom, thus neglecting his obligations towards his wife and children. Or
some woman, who has subjected herself to those same obligations by creating
human life, may become lustful of a neighbor, and disregard those obligations
in order to satisfy her lust. So this Principle provides that the parties to a
union to create life should not put themselves in a position which may tempt
them into a betrayal of their obligations. Envy, lust, and greed are powerful
tempters. Thus, those who join in a union to create new life have an obligation
to avoid them at all costs. And that obligation also predates the actual union
to create life, because it is these tempters, and the lure of pleasure without
obligation, which betrays the obligations we have to the new life we may one
day create; the obligation to create that life in a unique and exclusive act,
in a unique and exclusive union. A unique and exclusive human being deserves
nothing less; and it is the obligation of its parents to ensure it gets nothing
less.
In the final part of my
presentation, I shall list the Ten Principles of Freedom in their final form. I
shall then consider the principal objection to them, draw some conclusions from
them in respect of ‘morality’, and consider briefly the effect they have on
government.
NEXT: The Ten Principles of Freedom: Conclusions, and a Consideration of their effect on Government.
Copyright © Joseph BH McMillan 2007 All Rights Reserved
Joseph BH McMillan is the author of Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights. This article is an abridged extract of his forthcoming book The Ten Principles of Freedom.
Click here to purchase Freedom v. A Tyranny of Rights from Amazon.com.
Home | Articles | Books | Biography | Contact
Copyright©Escaping Books, S.L. and Joseph B.H. McMillan,2007