The Rise Of Unchecked Power: A Warning

The phrase a law unto themselves has been used to describe a person who is individualistic and independent, making their own rules without considering the laws and boundaries set by a higher authority. This idea of being a law unto oneself is not a new concept and has been explored in various religious texts, including the Bible. While individualism can be beneficial, taken to an extreme, it can lead to a disregard for community and a belief that one is above the law. This mentality can have negative consequences, as it did for the Israelites, who, after being freed from slavery, rebelled against God's commandments and became slaves to their passions.

The Scriptures teach that life and freedom are dependent on law, structure, and order. God's laws and commandments provide a plan and set of instructions for humans to follow, which, if obeyed, will bring joy and eternal life. Those who seek to be a law unto themselves are not following the God of Christian Scripture but are instead giving in to impulses of the flesh and the devil.

The pursuit of individualism can lead to others being seen as subhuman

Individualism is a moral, political, and social ideology that emphasises the worth of the individual. It promotes the realisation of personal goals and desires, values independence and self-reliance, and advocates that individual interests should take precedence over those of the state or society. Individualism is often defined in contrast to communitarianism, collectivism, and corporatism.

In contrast, collectivist cultures stress the importance of the group and social cooperation. People in collectivist cultures are more likely to seek support from family and friends during difficult times, and may be more willing to sacrifice their own comfort for the greater good. They tend to emphasise characteristics such as self-sacrifice, dependability, generosity, and helpfulness.

While individualism can promote self-confidence and ambition, it can also lead to a sense of isolation and division. The emphasis on personal achievement and independence can result in a lack of social support and prosocial behaviour. People in individualistic cultures may be less likely to help others and may struggle to ask for help when needed. This can create a sense of otherness, where those who do not conform to the independent and self-reliant ideal are seen as inferior or subhuman.

The potential consequences of individualism, such as increased stress and lack of social support, highlight the importance of balancing individual needs with the needs of the group. By recognising the value of both individualism and collectivism, we can foster a sense of community and cooperation while still allowing for personal growth and autonomy.

Anarchy and dictatorship are related

Anarchy and dictatorship are two distinct political concepts that are seemingly at odds with each other. However, upon closer inspection, they do share some similarities and are related in certain ways.

Anarchy refers to a state of society without any formal authorities or governing bodies. It is often associated with the idea of voluntary cooperation among individuals, who organize themselves without the need for a coercive government. On the other hand, a dictatorship is a form of government characterized by absolute power being vested in an individual or a small group, often referred to as a clique. This individual or clique exercises autocratic rule, with no checks on their power.

Both anarchy and dictatorship represent a rejection of traditional democratic governance, where power is distributed among elected representatives. In an anarchy, there is no centralized power structure, and individuals are free to make their own decisions and govern themselves. Similarly, in a dictatorship, power is highly centralized, but in the hands of a single ruler or a select few. This concentration of power can lead to the dictator or clique becoming a law unto themselves, unbound by the usual constraints of democratic accountability.

While anarchy and dictatorship differ significantly in terms of their underlying philosophies and the distribution of power, they can both result in a society where those in control are not subject to the same rules as everyone else. In an anarchy, with no governing body, individuals or groups may act with impunity, as there is no authority to enforce rules. In a dictatorship, the ruler or clique is often above the law and can make and break rules as they see fit, without any checks on their power.

Both anarchy and dictatorship can lead to a state of lawlessness, albeit through different mechanisms. In an anarchy, lawlessness may arise from the absence of any governing body to create and enforce rules, resulting in a chaotic and confusing situation. In a dictatorship, lawlessness can occur when the ruler or clique uses their absolute power to bypass or manipulate the law to serve their own interests, effectively becoming a law unto themselves.

Self-elevation can lead to a corrosion of shared values

Self-elevation can be defined as the act of raising oneself to a position of power, status, or influence, often without regard for established rules or structures. This can manifest in various ways, such as seeking personal gain at the expense of others, abusing one's position or authority, or failing to uphold shared values and goals. While individuals may have their unique motivations for self-elevation, the consequences can often lead to a corrosion of shared values within a group or organization.

Shared values and goals are essential for fostering teamwork, improving performance, and enhancing collaboration. They provide a sense of unity, direction, and clarity, enabling teams to work together effectively towards a common goal. However, when individuals pursue self-elevation, they may prioritize their interests and ambitions over the shared values of the group. This misalignment can lead to a breakdown in trust, communication, and collaboration, hindering the team's ability to function cohesively.

Additionally, self-elevation can create a sense of inequality and unfairness within the group. As individuals focus on their elevation, they may neglect the contributions and well-being of their teammates, leading to feelings of resentment and disengagement. This can further exacerbate the corrosion of shared values as team members may no longer feel invested in upholding the group's values and goals.

Moreover, self-elevation can foster a competitive and individualistic mindset that undermines the collaborative nature of teamwork. Instead of working together, team members may view each other as obstacles or competitors, hindering open communication and mutual support. This can create an environment where individuals are driven by personal gain rather than shared success, further corroding the values that once united them.

To prevent the corrosion of shared values, it is crucial to establish a culture of collaboration, mutual respect, and accountability. Leaders and team members must recognize the importance of shared values and actively work towards aligning their actions and decisions with these values. Open communication, feedback, and conflict resolution mechanisms are also essential for addressing any discrepancies or conflicts that may arise.

In conclusion, self-elevation can have detrimental effects on shared values within a group or organization. By prioritizing personal gain and ambition, individuals engaging in self-elevation can undermine collaboration, trust, and unity, leading to a breakdown of the very values that promote teamwork and success. Therefore, it is essential to foster a culture that values collaboration, mutual respect, and shared success to prevent the corrosion of shared values and maintain a cohesive and productive team.

Unchecked self-interest can lead to the destruction of the commons

"Unchecked self-interest can lead to the destruction of the commons" is a concept that has been widely discussed and critiqued in economics, ecology, and other sciences. The concept, also known as the "tragedy of the commons", states that if many people enjoy unrestricted access to a finite, valuable resource, they will tend to overuse it and may end up destroying its value altogether. This idea was popularised by ecologist Garrett Hardin in a 1968 essay, but the concept itself extends back to classical antiquity, having been discussed by Aristotle.

Hardin's principal concern was overpopulation and the inevitable tragedy that would occur unless the principle that every family has a right to choose the number of its offspring was rejected and replaced by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon". Hardin argued that if individuals relied on themselves alone, people will treat other people as resources, which would lead to the world population growing and for the process to continue.

Hardin's model posits that the tragedy of the commons may emerge if individuals prioritise self-interest. However, this is not always the case, and there are examples of community-level resource management that have effectively overseen common resources independently of government intervention.

The tragedy of the commons can be considered in relation to environmental issues such as sustainability. The commons dilemma stands as a model for a great variety of resource problems in society today, such as water, forests, fish, and non-renewable energy sources such as oil, gas, and coal.

Situations exemplifying the tragedy of the commons include the overfishing and destruction of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, the devastation of the sturgeon fishery, and the limited water available in arid regions.

To prevent the tragedy of the commons, governmental solutions are sometimes required, such as population control, privatisation, regulation, and internalising the externalities. However, there are also non-governmental solutions, such as cooperation rather than regulation, and the implementation of co-shared communities with partial ownership from both the government and community.

The desire to be a law unto oneself is a sign a society is nearing its end

The desire to be a law unto oneself is a dangerous path, and a sign that a society is nearing its end. This is a warning given by the Apostle Paul, who foresaw a time when people would become "lovers of their own selves", proud, disobedient, and lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.

In such a society, people become subhuman, serving as either obstacles or tools to those who see themselves as above the law. This is a rejection of God, who spoke and brought order to the chaos of the universe. God's laws and commandments are an act of love, a plan to bring joy and eternal life.

Those who seek to be a law unto themselves are not following the God of the Christian Scriptures. They are following the impulses of the flesh and the devil, seeking freedom from any authority outside of themselves. This is a denial of God's perfect love and the gift of His Son, Jesus Christ.

The people of God seek accountability, community discernment, and laws and authority outside of themselves. They seek to make it easy to govern, so long as it does not lead to disobedience against Jesus. They are slaves of Jesus, servants of each other, and respect others without seeking respect for themselves. They live within structures and boundaries, recognising that life and freedom depend on law and order.

Those who become a law unto themselves dilute the pure doctrine of Christ, mingling it with the philosophies of men. They justify sin, first by tolerating, then accepting, and finally celebrating it. They become like the traveller in Lehi's dream, who lets their fingers slip from the iron rod, and are led into the mist of darkness and forbidden paths.

Frequently asked questions