english version

Values ​​substituting order; the unnatural face of values ​​and human rights

  In a society controlled by natural principles values ​​of freedom and equality are not discussed much; and these expressions are used like other terms for of descrition of a status quo. It is clear that freedom may not be perceived in a family where obvious mutual commitment and interdependence are present. In a democratic mechanism it is natural that there must be freedom of speech. In a market economy, freedom of creation and advertising is essential. Once, however, there is an unnatural state of oppression, dictatorship, or undeserved inequalities, these concepts become meaningful. Also, these values ​​represent order in a society which lost it, and which overcame these natural mechanisms. Values ​​were materialized (see 79) and idolized. Through substitution of values ​​with order, these values which would otherwise be conformist get unnatural character in a position that is not their own; not even mentioning usually discontinuous character in the derived products. Freedom can not create order but must be limited to regulations; unconditional equality as presented as an artificial order. Both values ​​can rightly only be part of order. The right order is the result of harmony of values. Without order values expand and become extreme, foolish, and destructive; and have discontinuous effect.

  Freedom cannot be talked about without attributes as a value on its own; without an idea what it means. Such an expression is vague; one can imagine anything. In the works of many philosophers the word freedom has very vague meaning. Freedom is a concept that can be used for anything. Separation from family is declared as a human right and freedom; separation from ones homeland and nation is declares by ideas and multiculturalist projects, ethnic self-flogging, self-defeating pacifism, etc. On the other hand, freedom of enterprise supports the natural market mechanism and it is natural just like the freedom of creative expression. Freedom of speech can be significant but not infinite. Freedom can not be connected with one trend and given some reified universal character. Freedom as Liberation (release) of individuals if applied as reified ideal implicitely means disjunction; it’s severing of ties with other people and detachment into space.

  It is similar with equality: natural equality only occurs in societies based on natural principles. In the structure of society inequality is natural; equality is only applicable where the natural mechanism requires it: for example, in a democracy (equality of citizens) and a market (equality of opportunities). Reified equality as an ideal is not derived directly from disjunction, and for this reason it sometimes used as a substitute for general order. Reified equality arises from separation from the natural principles, i.e. fro the naturalness itself. Rigorous equality between men and women, equality of sexual orientations, and equality of minors with adults – are manifestations of disjunction from natural principles, and demonstrate a high degree of artificiality. Reified equality leads to all forms of relativism: multiculturalism, self-defeating pacifism, equality of sexual orientations, non-recognition of merit, neither parental, nor those of society (ridiculing of heroes and so on). Physical environment is usually ready for uprooting, which makes it difficult to establish closer ties between people (environment without permanent links, frequent moving; lack of formation of firm permanent work teams) and relativism are both response to this environment; and it prevents people from settling down in this environment where it would be at all possible.
  Equality accompanies freedom and in its original meaning it specifies that free people must be equal, otherwise freedom loses its meaning; it degenerates into chaos. Everyone will promote his freedom at the expense of others. Equality brings order in this and this is also where civic equality developed as a natural, actually, as a rule of general order. Substantial part of order in free society always ensured that civic equality was respected and individual freedoms did not endanger freedom of others. In the era of disjunction general order becomes distorted, and this rule is therefore lost.

  The feeling of disjunction thus manifests in the quest for equality: equality shall substitute belonging; it is the last relationship between people who are separated, in the era before discontinuation of continuity, when the last natural mechanism still works – economic competition, as a reaction to it.

  In a society which alienated itself from natural principles and traditional order, freedom and equality remained from the past as the only values ​​one can rely on. This, however, only makes one of the poles more extreme and the harmony is lost. Both of these reified values ​​were spread into many “human rights”; usually unbalanced with obligations, stretched to the extreme. These became the “substitute characteristics”; that are there to substitute general order. Thus we can see how they became idols; how they happened to become directives for to solving all probles; how they are deformed; because they are not directed by natural principles and other standards that ensure balance of values. How completely unnecessary things such as gay marriage based on unnatural equality, are accepted with a straight face as very important; how murder of unborn fetuses is explained as the right of women to free decision; how criminals have rights over victims under false humanity, backed up by equality and unnatural law. Other values ​​showing compositionality, such as loyalty and unity, go along with the traditional rules of general order, because they are in conflict with distorted liberty and equality. Yet some conservative rules and practices still allow society to function. But we see how many of them no longer seem to belong to society (worshiping of heroes; army for defense of the country, occasional request to defend national interests).

  Values ​​block operational activity, because they limit the freedom of political authorities. If the general order allows freedom within certain limits, the values ​​that excluded it (human rights in the Constitution were replaced by laws), block life that is the harmony between good and evil. It is limited by foolish effort to do only good. The Constitutional Court has a tendency to block solutions based on harmony, and chaos and nothingness arises. Democracy does not work in a society that is purely value-oriented and eliminates systemic rules (natural mechanisms forming a system). Citizens have “values” imposed on them that replace the general order: positive discrimination, unisex, anti-harassment, detachment from from patriotism, universalistic campaigns etc. There is a concern that people who still have in their memories the traditional order could reject these “values” with the help of democracy. Forcing “values” from outside is a method of external control and deconstruction of democratic principles. Rules superior to market economy are missing this stops being an instrument of correctly oriented wealth but becomes a purpose of its own.

  Patocka’s quest for universal human rights (proclaimed by V. Havel) as firm normative constants that supposedly somehow inalienably exist throughout humanity, and therefore must be respected regardless of the traditional order is a matter of policy for the global normative consensus, and only in this sense they can be positively evaluated. Just as Marx purposefully sought a theory in order to improve the fate of the proletariat, but found only utopia, also dissidents Patocka and Havel were purposefully looking for philosophy that could resist the all-powerful communist state. This theory, however, now works against any state and order. Marx’s theory, however, has been superseded by democracies in a liberal welfare state. Although the communist state fell and new regimes are now democratic, people may or may not share Patocka and Havel’s set of values in their own orders. Protagonists of these “rights” are somewhat elated over it and democratic consensus does not apply to them because they are the only bearers of the “only truth”. They supposedly know best which standards are really “natural” and universal to all mankind. This creates exploitable idea of “enforcing the good” which is similar to Marxism. The worst of it all is not just a subjectivity of this activity, but also independence on experience that considers the traditional order bad. This theory has become a tool for the destruction of law and democracy, promoting globalization, governance of world monopolies, and general openness and cosmopolitanism.

  Family is no longer a value. It does not meet modernist idols and requires order to protect it and create environment for it. Complete family with children in reproduction nuber should be a value itself; or alternatively some models derived from it such as i.e. single mother living with wider family where male role odels (grandfather or uncle) or educators replace the role of a father. Anything that does not support this model is discontinuous. These are, of course, modernist ideas which prioritize different “values” to family.

  Values (often called rights) can be in conformal or timeless project controlled by order, i.e. variously authorized, and adjusted in their limits. Religious tolerance can not be infinite; there are the churches, which incite people to violence and require standards which make their members superior to others. These can not be approved in their full scope, or have to be prohibited because they would interfere with civic freedoms. However, without order, the sole ideal of unrestricted tolerance may not be enough, as it will necessarily result in anarchy. The right to freedom can not apply to the imprisoned; the right to life to a killer sentenced for murder; or for an enemy who came in armed to take liberty or property. Simply values must be subject to a general order, and are not universal. Yet this does not happen. Aaggressive religion gets its way not only due to cowardice, but also because there is no base from which fight could be led after the traditional rules had been abandoned.

  No one has ever determined identical norms for all peoples. Who determines the extent of these values beyond which there is foreign interference? Practically it is possible to send armies into any country that has a functional traditional order, in which however, there are some doubts about ​​freedom (in its vague interpretation) and human rights, whose understanding may be different in different cultures. Is it possible to impose freedom and equality on a Muslim woman when she does not want it? This way any conflict can arise. 

  The European Union, the set of states with traditional standards of different nations, which has no uniform European identity, needs to build its unity on something. Therefore, it based it on universal values, which however are not consensual, but somehow pre-established and given. That’s why it also conducts campaigns to elevate these “values” to domestic laws and regulations. Polish schools can not display crosses and all nations have to allow abortions; vague anti-discrimination laws have to be adopted; and gender feminism has to be introduced in schools. This is just the beginning.

  Real rights of ethnic minorities can only exist in independent municipalities, where their civilization can be comprehensively tested, including economic success at least at the level of subsistence. In fact, in modernist “democracies” ethnic groups are scattered that are naturally discriminated against because of their differences; because they cannot well participate in life because of their differences (some ethnic groups are not able to function well in the market economy; their capabilities are in areas that does not include modernity). But because of international pressures and various undemocratic actions they are defended and economically subsidized. This, however, does not solve anything, because the society only has yet another burden and divides citizens even more.

  Democracy is absent mainly due to lack of belonging based on the phenomenon of disjunction. This already begun to manifest in the West in the sixties and seventies due to enforcement of interests of various organized interest groups, especially trade unions, to whose interests the governments had to respond to achieve re-election. General ideals of common interests of the state as whole became absent. People hardly associate (except for some shared interests) to fight for unity, and therefore for someone else than just for themselves and their corporation. Due to this absence of belonging it is possible to promote values from the outside as an order.

  The courts have difficulties relying on laws, because of lack of moral order; it is possible to issue an immoral sentence because there is no natural justice and laws do not contain it. Lawyers do not need justice and clear laws because they would lose their jobs and profits. People no longer think about justice being based on continuity and balance (continuity of the original state and punishment as balance in suffered harm); they detached themselves from justice just like from majority of natural principles.  The area of ​​justice can not be profitable. It is not possible for a citizen to lose house for an unpaid fare, and to be robbed for his money by lawyers in court and by bailiffs. This is one of the methods of liquidation of middle class. Again, it is lack of order: the freedom to legally rob someone is precisely the type of freedom not limited by order. Unfortunately, it is also based on anarchy, which was supported by Patocka in his theory of “universal human rights” allegedly determined (supposedly natural) norm independent on human will.

  Precedent in judicial proceedings disappeared because it gradually formed an order. Judges want to have the freedom to be able to do what they want, each of them decideds differently. Citizens can guess how the dispute will be resolved based on experience with previous rulings. They can not be guided by rulings in similar cases in the past. No value can help them in this because value is not a rule.

  The promotion of distorted values ​​is a prevision of chaos, into which modernity is heading as the real existence uncontrolled by ideal principles. Embarrassment over the freedom of expression is obvious. Everyone understands that not everything can be said. First, it is necessary to defend the rights of personality; secondly, there is the need of society to defend itself against immoral promotion. It is clear that at the beginning there was a necessary vision what is harmful to society. Where this vision is absent, it is difficult to determine what is moral and what is not. Freedom of speech is limited by fear of problems arising from attack of some interest group. The ban pornography barely holds, circumvented in many ways. Freedom of speech will soon be limited only by fear of retaliation from powerful individuals and groups. Those who are not strong enough can be freely attacked and vilified. That is the freedom without order. Order guarantees freedom; freedom can not defend itself. It is sometimes said that the law protects the weak to make sure the strong can not do everything. This, however, requires law and institutions that enforce it. Values ​​themselves are not law. Distorted thinking of a crowd then defends the weak emotionally and impulsively and asks only for further decomposition of the remaining order which actually is the only one that protects the people and makes their freedom possible.