Mandates, Mandatory, and Consent

Let’s examine the meaning of “mandates”, and the “mandatory” label that gets used after the passing of so-called mandates. Mandate comes from the roots “man-” meaning “hand” and implies “authority over”, and “do-” which means “to give”, and together they literally mean “to give an authoritative command or order”. “Mandatory” contains the same proto-Indian-European roots, and means “containing a command”. Nowhere in either word is the concept of truth implied, or even that of right or wrong, but only that an authority issued a command over somebody else that they may have jurisdiction over. Additionally, nowhere within “mandate” or “mandatory” is there an implication of the use of force should one not consent to the mandate or so-called authority; force should not be conflated with mandatory, as that would be to the detriment of the individual, and could cause them to obey otherwise detrimental and/or unlawful commands from a fear of the use of force—might does not make right.

For an individual to obey such an authoritative command, whether enthusiastically or begrudgingly, is considered implied consent of the mandator’s authority over that individual, but to disregard such a command, or better yet to negotiate a conditional acceptance of the terms of the mandate, through saying “yes, but” to it, is to show that the individual is not under the mandator’s authority, and is in fact either under the jurisdiction of another authority, or better yet is an authority unto themselves (having instead subjected themselves to the Logos, aka the Law of Nature/Reason), authorities who are negotiating as peers with equal jurisdictional status. A peer cannot issue a mandate to another of equal status, nor can they mandate to one who is above their jurisdictional level, therefore those who self-govern their own thoughts, attitudes, emotional states, and behaviors based on what is reasonable, right, and true, also known as natural law, cannot be lawfully governed by an external authority.

As previously mentioned, since mandates are commands made by an authority over their subordinates, to obey the command overtly or begrudgingly is considered implied consent to their authority, and the power structure issuing the mandates. Just like in the military, those who do not consent to an order or power structure, they are either not within the military organization, or they are expelled from it for failing to obey the command. At least in the US Military, it is one’s duty to disobey unlawful and unconstitutional mandates, as those who obey them are subject to criminal consequences, and cannot rightfully rebut “I was just following orders”; the Nuremberg trials backed this up by executing many Nazi’s as war criminals for obeying unjust orders and commands. Just as is the case for those in the military, each individual has the duty to discern whether or not it is lawful to obey a mandate passed down from any so-called authorities, if it is in their own self-interests for their personal welfare and autonomy, and/or if the mandates themselves are lawful; those who disobey may be expelled from the hierarchy of society, but that is a small price to pay for saving one’s own soul, and to avoid sinning against nature and its core principles.

From a causal level, the “why”, children are manipulated in their formative years by those who seemingly have good intentions, into self-abandoning their own needs for the needs of others. They are also shown that the feelings, attitudes, and experiences of others are their responsibility, otherwise they’re told that “they’re not sweet”, they’re “unkind”, and maybe even “mean” for prioritizing their own needs above that of a friend, teacher, or parent. Adults may say things like “you disobeyed me, and made me feel angry”, “sad”, or “upset”, which is implying that the child is responsible for the adult’s emotional states and “made” them have the feelings in question, rather than the adult owning up to their emotional states and taking responsibility for them. Additionally, physical punishments, especially those motivated by anger and upset, are abusive, as they project onto the child what should have been the parent’s responsibility to own, which is called scapegoating. To break the macrocosmic belief patterns of obedience, the “why” of our experience, it is easier to first work through and break the microcosmic lessons we learned as children, and to then let our new microcosmic belief patterns filter into our macrocosmic experience.

Here are some personal boundaries you can set for altering these particular belief patterns:

  1. I’m more than happy to obey any commands issued by an authority when they are based in the truth, and what is right.
  2. I’m more than happy to obey any commands issued by an authority when they are lawful and constitutional.
  3. I’m more than happy to obey any commands issued by an authority when I am consensually within their jurisdiction.
  4. I’m more than happy to listen to a person’s anger or upsets when they are taking personal responsibility for them.
  5. I’m more than happy to conform to a familial or societal standard or norm when it is reasonable and in my own karmic self-interests to do so (self interests based in the laws of reason/nature, of course).
  6. I’m more than happy to conform to a familial or societal standard when it is psychologically healthy to do so.
  7. I’m more than happy to conform to a familial or societal standard when it is supporting the rights, liberties, and personal growth of the individuals within society.

Here are some personal affirmations you can repeat for altering the above belief patterns:

  1. I can take personal responsibility for my feelings.
  2. I can interact and co-create with people who take responsibility for their thoughts, attitudes, emotional states, behaviors, and outcomes.
  3. I can always do what is true and right.
  4. I can participate within a fair family or society that nurtures individual rights, liberties, and personal growth above the group.
  5. I can be free to govern my own life.
  6. I can take personal responsibility for my own outcomes and experiences.

THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.

[crypto-donation-box type=”tabular” show-coin=”all”]

About Nathan

Leave a Reply