What is your moral position on the following four actions? Alternatively, do you find the following actions consistent with libertarianism or not?
Please indicate "morally acceptable"/"morally unacceptable" or "consistent with libertarianism"/ "inconsistent with libertarianism" (or "not a moral or libertarian issue").
1. In Nazi Germany, you are conscripted for a war you know little about. Before you know it, you're deployed to an unspecified location, which turns out to be a concentration camp. To your horror your first assignment is to force innocent woman and children into gas chambers. You will be killed on the spot if you refuse to comply. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to force the women and children into the gas chambers?
2. A man on the street puts a gun to your head and tells you to strangle several innocent bystanders or else he'll kill you. He says he will leave you alone if you comply. You have seen him make the same demands of several other people, and he has always stayed true to his word. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to strangle the innocent bystanders?
3. Your neighbors comes to your door to collect $100 toward a neighborhood fund to hire a hitman to kill the family down the street, who have angered many by painting their house pink and refusing to change it. He is armed and credibly threatens to kill you on the spot if you don't contribute. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to hand over the money?
4. Armed IRS agents come to collect back taxes or throw you in jail immediately if you don't pay. You know the money will help fund the killing of innocents in the Middle East. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to pay the taxes?
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
1. No. Inconsistent with libertarianism.
2. No. Inconsistent with libertarianism.
3. You are just giving them money, you're not physically initiating violence against anyone. That's the difference between this and the previous examples. Give him the $100 (he has a gun to your head). When he leaves, notify the intended victim. Call the thief (neighbors) insurance company and notify them their client is about to cost them a lot of money. Call yours and say you have just been robbed. Prepare and better equip yourself to defend your property in case their is a next time.
4. Again, money, you don't know how it will be used, you have no choice in the matter. Is the baker who has been extortioned by the mafia the one to blame, if the mafia then torture someone? No and that would be absurd to suggest so.
Conza88:4. Again, money, you don't know how it will be used
If you're aware of US foreign policy, you know the money will go into the government budget, part of which is allocated to the military - which uses part of its allocation to fund actions known to result in the killing of innocents.
Conza88:you have no choice in the matter.
You could choose to go to jail. Not even as bad as in 1 and 2, where you're apparently saying the consistent libertarian thing to do would be to die.
Can I extrapolate that your position is: Aiding violence (under duress) is consistent with libertarianism as long as you take sufficient action later to try to stop it, but actually initiating violence (even under duress) is inconsistent with libertarianism?
do you seriously believe that not rebelling against the state, but grudgingly paying your taxes under threat of force makes one complicit in murder and theft?
seriously?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: do you seriously believe that not rebelling against the state, but grudgingly paying your taxes under threat of force makes one complicit in murder and theft?
No, that's not my position. My questions can be taken as somewhat advocatus diaboli, because I would like to see how exactly others reconcile what I perceive to be the standard libertarian position on the first two questions ("inconsistent with libertarianism") with the act of paying taxes.
1. No, inconsistent.
2. No, inconsistent.
3. No, inconsistent.
4. No, inconsistent.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
AJ: Conza88:4. Again, money, you don't know how it will be used If you're aware of US foreign policy, you know the money will go into the government budget, part of which is allocated to the military - which uses part of its allocation to fund actions known to result in the killing of innocents.
You also know they have a central bank called the Federal Reserve and they can just print money to do so. Your point is completely moot. They'll do it regardless. In case you haven't noticed, going into debt isn't exactly a deterrence for the political elite.
AJ: Conza88:you have no choice in the matter.You could choose to go to jail. Not even as bad as in 1 and 2, where you're apparently saying the consistent libertarian thing to do would be to die. Can I extrapolate that your position is: Aiding violence (under duress) is consistent with libertarianism as long as you take sufficient action later to try to stop it, but actually initiating violence (even under duress) is inconsistent with libertarianism?
Being robbed, or getting kidnapped isn't exactly much of a choice. Is it? Your free will is being violated.
In the 1 & 2 scenario, the only ethical thing to do is defend yourself against the aggressor. You could follow the criminals orders and go strangle innocent people, but then since you've violated their right to life, you in turn lose your right to life. You better damn well hope the victims next of kin will be lenient.
For some reason I don't think they will be. So you'll probably die regardless. You can either go out a hero, refuse to strangle the little girl and instead attack the man with the gun telling you to do so. Or you can be a killer and destroy your reputation, with is pretty important in a libertarian society - and hope to survive the victims family members wishes and avoid punishment (max. death).
AJ:Aiding violence (under duress) is consistent with libertarianism as long as you take sufficient action later to try to stop it, but actually initiating violence (even under duress) is inconsistent with libertarianism?
Actions matter. Does not matter what the thief says they will do with the money. They may dress up as a voluntary charity worker and you voluntarily give them a donation, they then change their mind, or having committed fraud, (theft, initiation of violence) then use the money to harm someone else. Yet again, to go on and blame the victim is absurd.
If you violate the NAP, you should be punished. The victim or next of kind decides if you should be, and possibly - the extent of punishment. (i.e referring to punishment and proportionality - Rothbard)
Conza88:You also know they have a central bank called the Federal Reserve and they can just print money to do so. Your point is completely moot. They'll do it regardless.
Not completely moot, or else we wouldn't have the IRS. Inflation is very high, but still finite (for now). I pay taxes myself, so I'm not faulting anyone for doing so. I'm just saying - in the interest of accuracy - that we do have some knowledge of how the (stolen) tax money will be used.
Thank you for the following explanation. I gather your reasons for your answers in 1 and 2 are based on property rights:
Conza88:You could follow the criminals orders and go strangle innocent people, but then since you've violated their right to life, you in turn lose your right to life.
...and personal consequences:
Conza88:So you'll probably die regardless. You can either go out a hero, refuse to strangle the little girl and instead attack the man with the gun telling you to do so. Or you can be a killer and destroy your reputation, with is pretty important in a libertarian society - and hope to survive the victims family members wishes and avoid punishment (max. death).
Consequences (besides guilt, trauma, etc.) can be partially addressed by assuming you would likely get away with it, since such situations are conceivable.
As for the property rights argument, what about if you paid someone else to do the strangling for you, and the gunman was OK with that? This seems analogous to paying taxes. You're coerced into funding murder in either case. Do the differing details matter? If so, which ones?
Conza88:If you violate the NAP, you should be punished. The victim or next of kind decides if you should be, and possibly - the extent of punishment.
To be clear, do you mean that the victim or next of kin has sole discretion irrespective of whether the NAP violation was coerced or voluntary?
AJ:Please indicate "morally acceptable"/"morally unacceptable" or "consistent with libertarianism"/ "inconsistent with libertarianism" (or "not a moral or libertarian issue").
Too confusing.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
I always thought, that liberalism does not touch questions of moral or ethics but questions about rights, property rights that is.
Having said this and using the above defintion my take would be:
1) not acceptable
2) acceptable
3) acceptable
4) acceptable
The only time you initiate aggression is in example (1). All other examples start with someone else aggressing against you.
The ethical framework I have choosen to follow beyond the liberal least common denominator would be:
1) no
2) no
3) no
4) yes
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
It's inconsistent with libertarianism to aggress against anyone, even if under duress; however, being robbed/mugged/extorted is solely being a victim. Regardless of how the money is spent, the money is taken by the criminal and used for his own ends, not yours, and therefore the action cannot be said to reflect upon the victim's morality.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Thank you all who answered.
To those who answered that paying taxes (4) is consistent with libertarianism, would you also say that paying taxes would be consistent with libertarianism even if there were no penalty for not paying taxes? In other words, if there were no threat of coercion for non-payment.
1. morally wrong/ liberty doesn't apply
2. morally wrong/ liberty doesn't apply
3. morally wrong/ liberty doesn't apply
4. morally wrong/ liberty doesn't apply
Whether you participate directly or indirectly you still participate. When you are under the threat of death the violator of morality is the coercer, not the slave. This doesn't mean you can pull a Pontius Pilate and not bear the burden should you choose to kill.
This is a situation where the coward master has put the life/death responsibility upon the slave. The slave now has the choice to obey or die. The slave will either live with his choice, or he will die and that's the end.
These hypotheticals present an individual with a coerced decision. We can use another example. A man broke into your house and pointed a gun at you and told you to rape your sister or die. Is it morally right and/or consistent with libertarian philosophy to rape your sister under the the threat of death?
The answer to the moral question is there is no possiblity of a morally acceptable decision in the scenarios provided. (Suicide is also morally wrong.)
The answer to the philosophically consistent question is this. The coercer rendered all libertarian theory and philosophical application as it relates to the individual decision making process moot when he exercised force against you.
What is unseen is also not presented with these questions. Why can't I turn on the guards? In the example above, why can't I attempt to disarm the man who demanded I rape my sister? Why I can't escort the prisoners to the gas chamber and be cruel and make jokes about them thereby putting the guards at ease, and then turn on the guards when they least expect it, and possibly save some innocent lives. The guards lives are forfeit because they are attempting murder.
Just my thoughts about these types of questions. I don't think they are valid because they limit the possibility of choices. There are so many things that a person can choose to do other than kill or be killed. No doubt these situations are entirely plausible, the question is just flawed. Once aggression has been initiated against you all the rules of power and violence are justified and might makes right. If the aggressor wins, he continues to plunder. if the defender wins, the aggression is over and libertarian philosophy and moral choices are once again present.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
AJ: What is your moral position on the following four actions? Alternatively, do you find the following actions consistent with libertarianism or not? Please indicate "morally acceptable"/"morally unacceptable" or "consistent with libertarianism"/ "inconsistent with libertarianism" (or "not a moral or libertarian issue"). 1. In Nazi Germany, you are conscripted for a war you know little about. Before you know it, you're deployed to an unspecified location, which turns out to be a concentration camp. To your horror your first assignment is to force innocent woman and children into gas chambers. You will be killed on the spot if you refuse to comply. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to force the women and children into the gas chambers? 2. A man on the street puts a gun to your head and tells you to strangle several innocent bystanders or else he'll kill you. He says he will leave you alone if you comply. You have seen him make the same demands of several other people, and he has always stayed true to his word. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to strangle the innocent bystanders? 3. Your neighbors comes to your door to collect $100 toward a neighborhood fund to hire a hitman to kill the family down the street, who have angered many by painting their house pink and refusing to change it. He is armed and credibly threatens to kill you on the spot if you don't contribute. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to hand over the money? 4. Armed IRS agents come to collect back taxes or throw you in jail immediately if you don't pay. You know the money will help fund the killing of innocents in the Middle East. Under the circumstances, do you find it morally acceptable (and/or consistent with libertarianism) to pay the taxes?
1. I would probably kill them rather than be killed.
2. I would try to get the gun away from him. If he is that close to me, it should not be too hard to do. If he is not right next to me, I would try to either charge him or run from him, depending on the distance.
3. (Assuming I do not have my gun on me) I would tell him I do not have it on me and to wait a moment, I would close the door, go and grab my gun, and call 911.
4. I would pay the taxes.
Morality is irrelevant. What is relevant, is what action would you take.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Saan:When you are under the threat of death the violator of morality is the coercer, not the slave.
This is interesting. I'm inclined to agree. I would like to hear someone defend the opposing side.
There is no other side, who would deny that a coercer bears blame?
(this does not excuse the crimes of victims of coercion)
I mean the side that the "slave" (as Saan put it) has committed a violation of morality or libertarian principles as well.
did the slave breach an innocent's property rights? yes or no?
nirgrahamUK: There is no other side, who would deny that a coercer bears blame? (this does not excuse the crimes of victims of coercion)
The coercer bears blame toward the one he coerced, which in the first case is the guard. The guard than bears blame for his criminal acts. Him being coerced, or better being aggressed against in the first place doesn't change a iota on crimes he commits by himself.
A slave by no means can point to his master for crimes he himself commited. He can point to his master for voilation of rights the master commits toward him. In any other case, it would be possible to justify crimes commited under certain circumstances, coercion in this case.
Libertarian rule just means that everyone, in any circumstances is responsible for whatever he does. And, more important, he is responsible toward the one he aggresses against, and no one else, no group of any kind.
I sometimes read in libertarian blogs the idea that punishment has to follow. Not so. What has to follow is not on any group to decide, but what has to follow is what the victim, or his heir, is willing to accept as retention. The whole idea that there ought to be rules set up by some third party, even libertarian, is falling back into collectivism already.
Nir: I had assumed by the Rothbardian conception of property rights the answer would be Yes, but recently I read something by him where he seemed to imply that property rights aren't related to morality.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap