So I have a question about the ethics of responsibility for the state. Who exactly is culpable when it comes to the state. Do we blame Police, Non-conscripted Military personnel, Politicians, the Intelectuals who convince the people of the state necessity, Judges, Voters? Who is ethically responsible for what the state does?
Depends on what they do... a policeman can choose not to enforce non-libertarian laws. A politician can be like Ron Paul. Voters for the most part are duped into voting. Maybe everyone is responsible for the state, but some people are more responsible than others.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Sam Armstrong:Who is ethically responsible for what the state does?
We are. They exist only by consent.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
They exists by the majorities consent. What of the minority who doesn't consent but the cost of dissent is too great (namely jail or death).
Sam Armstrong:They exists by the majorities consent.
Right, so if not you, then all of your friends, family and neighbors who want the state.
Sam Armstrong:What of the minority who doesn't consent but the cost of dissent is too great (namely jail or death).
They have a lot of work to do. The smaller the minority, the greater the responsibility. Which is why you will typically see people in small movements have very strong character. Small movements are not composed of "man in the crowd" type individuals.
The problem of the state versus liberty is that it's very easy for individuals to give up their liberty to the state voluntarily whereas it's very difficult to recapture liberty from the state once it's given up or taken.
The strategy of refusing to accept the state relies on a collective effort. An individual who refuses to accept the state is either imprisoned or killed. Once individuals form a collective, they risk creating yet another state. It's not very hard for individuals who back the state from dividing those who seek liberty. Some seek liberty in degrees - lower taxation, support for free markets, less intrusive government, lax laws on drugs, etc.. Some seek minimal government - for those functions deemed critical that they believe can't be provided privately. The few that see no point in a state are thereby isolated, and are left with the choice to resist, convince others to act, or to do essentially nothing (griping on an internet forum doesn't change much at all, except to vent emotion or frustrate action).
So is it ethical to vote if I want to vote for the person who will most bring us towards anarchy? What of the proposition of voting for the worst candidate so as to further show that the government is evil, so that there will more quickly become a rebellion.
Sam Armstrong:So is it ethical to vote if I want to vote for the person who will most bring us towards anarchy? What of the proposition of voting for the worst candidate so as to further show that the government is evil, so that there will more quickly become a rebellion.
I say no to that. Participating in an evil system only helps to legitimize it.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
You can only be moraly responsible for an action. You can not be responsible for a want, a desire, a thought, an inclination, an opinion, an instinct, an outlook, etc.We can talk about some sort of metaphorical responsibility, but in actuality it takes an action to be actually guilty of something, or otherwise we are in the domain of positive rights and in the territory of the "you are either with us or against us" thinking.People who are responsible for the state are the people who act in the name of the state.
Angurse:I say no to that. Participating in an evil system only helps to legitimize it.
This. Anything received from the system, is received from an illegitimate source. Even if it is good, it legitimizes the system as the provider of our wants if we pray to it in sufficient numbers and religious zeal.
Sam Armstrong:So I have a question about the ethics of responsibility for the state. Who exactly is culpable when it comes to the state. Do we blame Police, Non-conscripted Military personnel, Politicians, the Intelectuals who convince the people of the state necessity, Judges, Voters? Who is ethically responsible for what the state does?
Block has a paper on this: "Libertarian Punishment Theory: Working For, and Donating to, the State."
It would be interesting to see an analysis of this topic from a pure restitution standpoint.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Yes, but while stating that it must also be understod that in actuallity nothing can legitimize something that is unethical by definition. So doing something that seemingly legitimises something unethical is foolish on tactical grounds, but is not wrong on ethical grounds merely because it contributes to the mirage of legitimacy.
Stating the contrary would be utilitarian. A person can not be responsible for the valuation of his actions by other people. If any of my actions are deemed by someone else to be a proof towards the state being legitimate that is not my responsibility. It is my problem from a tactical standpoint, but not an ethical responsibility.Abolitionism through political process is ultimately self-defeating, but it does not necessarily constitute injustice or aggression. (Albeit it can.)
Sage:Block has a paper on this
I like how he doesn't wait any later than page 2 to declare he is not a criminal.
State employment is not a sufficient condition to establish criminality since there are many ways to work for government, and still be able to rebut this presumption. For example, take the position of professor at a state sponsored university working to promote liberty in the classroom, while still teaching the subject matter.
liberty student: Angurse:I say no to that. Participating in an evil system only helps to legitimize it. This. Anything received from the system, is received from an illegitimate source. Even if it is good, it legitimizes the system as the provider of our wants if we pray to it in sufficient numbers and religious zeal.
I think it varies. For instance, is the slave legitimizing the master's ownership of him if he takes a meal from his master?
In this world, it can be very difficult to make a living and get what you want without helping the state. Not that it's an excuse to work for the state, but what the heck can I do about the income tax, or getting an income tax credit?
As far as I'm concerned, stealing from the thief who steals from me (or us) isn't nearly as bad as stealing from a stranger who has nothing to do with you. The near bankrupting of Detroit's city government has led to less government services, and people resorting to fending from themselves. To some extent, it can be seen as a strategy. (which isn't as effective when there is a government monopoly on money)
The difference between me and some people is that when I receive something from the government, I exclaim "damn straight I get something back from those ruthless assholes!" while the person next to me might thank them. I just fail to see how me getting more from government helps to legitimize it. I am not free to choose dropping out of government involvement because of the threat of coercion. Instead, I do as much as I can to not help them.
One of my weaknesses is relying on my intution, and here my intution tells me that not getting involved with government this way is just running in fear from the government. This is all still stuff I'm trying to figure out and read up on, before I'm comfortable with either position.
The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. -Rothbard
Sam Armstrong: So I have a question about the ethics of responsibility for the state. Who exactly is culpable when it comes to the state. Do we blame Police, Non-conscripted Military personnel, Politicians, the Intelectuals who convince the people of the state necessity, Judges, Voters? Who is ethically responsible for what the state does?
No one. Blame solves nothing; this perspective leads nowhere. We are all part of the system anyway, to a greater or lesser degree. Simply, society has a problem and we want to cure it. We don't have the luxury of negative emotions muddying our thinking if we want to do this right.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
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