What is the moral justification for the state? (2 Viewers)

[Riet]

How do you believe a legal system (covering property rights etc.) should be enforced and administrated, if not by a government?

I think your premise, that a government implicitly involves force, is false. Where the government is responsible for administration only in regards to upholding justice against violations of your property and person, it can be said the force is levied in self-defence. A small government whose sole responsibility is organizing minimal legal rights, could be administered voluntarily, by donations or levied through fines for breaches of these legal rights, removing the need for violent taxation.

I'm sure you knew all this anyway, blah.

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[copkiller]

So far no one has actually answered any of the questions I posted.

If you have practical problems with the idea of anarchy, that's fine. But the question posed was whether the existence of the state is morally justified, and is reconcilable with the view that most people take that the initiation of aggression and force against others is wrong.

Even if you still think it is practically impossible or dangerous to have a stateless society, surely if the moral basis for the existence of the state is itself shaky, then at a bare minimum we have a responsibility to at least seriously consider the work of anarcho-capitalist writers and their ideas about how a stateless society could function.

I think your premise, that a government implicitly involves force, is false. Where the government is responsible for administration only in regards to upholding justice against violations of your property and person, it can be said the force is levied in self-defence. A small government whose sole responsibility is organizing minimal legal rights, could be administered voluntarily, by donations or levied through fines for breaches of these legal rights, removing the need for violent taxation.

Well if that happened it wouldn't be a government as we know it, and I wouldn't have a problem with it.

The reality is it hasn't happened. Not one example of a government relying solely on voluntary contributions exists. Every piece of land on this planet, and much of the oceans is claimed by nation states, and every single one of them is either funded by taxation, or by aid from another government which itself uses taxation.

 

[John McCain]

Why should property rights override the rights of others to health and welfare?

Suppose entirely due to luck, our effort and labor being equal, I manage to come into wealth, while my neighbour suffers misfortune and poverty.

If my neighbour is starving and I have an abundance of food, why is upholding my right to property morally better than preventing his ill health and eventual death?

It's plain that redistributing my food has the best outcome. Where I have excessive supplies beyond my basic needs, taking some of my wealth and giving it away will only make me slightly worse off, where the alternative will make my neighbour substantially worse off. Ideally I should act morally out of good conscience, but if not the second best outcome is that I should be forced to share my wealth.

Thus, all manner of government intervention, taxation, welfare and the use of force is morally justified. Practically, we might suppose that in libertopia, charity and insurance will provide the gap, but this is, as you said purely a moral excercise, and it's not hard to justify the use of force supposing charity and insurance are insufficient.

 

[copkiller]

Why should property rights override the rights of others to health and welfare?

Property rights provide an unambiguous guide to acceptable human behavior. Health and welfare is a very slippery slope. How much health and welfare are people entitled too before forcing others to fund it becomes theft?

Why should this idea be limited to within arbitrary national borders? If a country is very poor and suffering from starvation, should that country's troops therefore be entitled to come to Australia and take some of our excess wealth to feed their population?

(the country used in the example is irrelevant, you spoke in hypothetical terms and so shall I. The point is we could potentially have a situation where a government that genuinely wanted to help the poor in its country existed, but didn't have the resources to do so within its national borders)

Thus, all manner of government intervention, taxation, welfare and the use of force is morally justified.

Based on your poverty argument, how is ALL manner of government intervention justified? Even if we accept the premise that some intervention is necessary to protect the basic "rights" of the very poor; how on earth does it follow that taxation is justified well beyond this level to fund things like overseas wars, the war on drugs and corporate welfare which have nothing to do with helping the poor?

Of course you still haven't answered the question.

Taking your example of helping the poor, what makes it okay for the state to use force to help the poor, but not for individuals, or other groups to do the same thing?

For instance, is it okay if I rob you at gun point if I use the money to help people who are genuinely poor.

What if everyone in your neighborhood gets together and votes that they want to give 10% of their income to the poor. Can they then force you to be part of their neighborhood charity?

Do governments derive their "legitimacy" simply from the scale upon which they do this? If so why? At what point in terms of size does a government become legitimate and not simply a group of robin hood style criminals?

 

[yoddle]

What's with this board being overrun by lolbertarians and anarchists lately?

Maybe because more people are coming to realise that we can aim for a better human condition.

But the free market solves everything, am I right guys?

I agree with your sarcasm. Anarcho-capitalism and fundamental free-marketism for the aims of freedom are completely self-defeating because social control will be forced and freedoms curbed by money. We will be slaves to profit, even more so than we are now.

I'm assuming this question refers to police etc

The government restricts freedoms and exerts controls in many more latent ways than by employment of the police force.

 

[Smile_Time351]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

The issue with government as it exists today is relatively simple; we've forgotten their intended purpose. Governments and politicians exist to serve us. To make our lives easier, to do the boring logistical jobs so we can get on with our lives. Somewhere along the line this purpose has become perverted and thus reversed. Now for some reason we work to send them on holidays and let them grow fat on our labour. Do we need a government: Yes. If for convenience than anything else. We just need to keep its true purpose in our minds at all times.

As to the use of force, I am an advocate of survival of the fittest in the extreme, especially in the context of the state. Force all the way, in the protection of citizens and interests, or just to take someone else's stuff.

 

[Silver Persian]

So far no one has actually answered any of the questions I posted.

If you have practical problems with the idea of anarchy, that's fine. But the question posed was whether the existence of the state is morally justified, and is reconcilable with the view that most people take that the initiation of aggression and force against others is wrong.

Yes I agree.

 

[SashatheMan]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Why should it be justified morally? It's not a moral issue, a government is required when a society of people get's to a certain size that it requires services that benefit everyone ie roads, police, armed force, but which would not be possible based on single indivudual interests.

The size of the government can be debated, and is debated constantly, but i think the current size of the government in Australia atleast is relatively good, give or take a few things from it.

How can you morally justify making your family live under this tyranical government would be my question. You should be packing your bags, and looking for a cave to live in.

 

[SashatheMan]

Do governments derive their "legitimacy" simply from the scale upon which they do this? If so why? At what point in terms of size does a government become legitimate and not simply a group of robin hood style criminals?

Well in a democracy, it can be argued that the government redistributing some of the wealth was elected by the majority of thepeople who have that interest in mind, and hence where it finds it's legitimacy.

 

[copkiller]

Another statist refuses to actually answer the questions posed:

Why should it be justified morally? It's not a moral issue, a government is required when a society of people get's to a certain size that it requires services that benefit everyone ie roads, police, armed force, but which would not be possible based on single indivudual interests.

Well I would question whether it is true that we "need" the government, and so should you if you are having trouble justifying it morally.

Obviously some people such as myself do not agree that we need the government. Why should we be taxed and forced to be part of the governmental system? I'm not even saying that all governments should be dismantled. You can live in a country with a government if you want. I'm just saying people that don't want to live under a government should be able to buy land and succeed from the nation state.

Given that we can't do this, and are forced to live a some sort of nation state, and pay tax to this state, we are being treated as slaves, as though the government owns us. We are forced into a system we disapprove of. How is this not a moral problem?

How can you morally justify making your family live under this tyranical government would be my question. You should be packing your bags, and looking for a cave to live in.

Well I have to live somewhere, and every piece of land is claimed by governments, including caves.

 

[copkiller]

Well in a democracy, it can be argued that the government redistributing some of the wealth was elected by the majority of thepeople who have that interest in mind, and hence where it finds it's legitimacy.

You basically just repeated the post I was responding to. The question I then posed was:

"What if everyone in your neighborhood gets together and votes that they want to give 10% of their income to the poor. Can they then force you to be part of their neighborhood charity?

Do governments derive their "legitimacy" simply from the scale upon which they do this? If so why? At what point in terms of size does a government become legitimate and not simply a group of robin hood style criminals?"

So at what point does a democracy become big enough to make it legitimate for democratic institutions to initiate force.

Also, can anything therefore be morally justified by democracy. If 90% of people vote to shoot the other 10%, is this morally justified because it is democratic?

 

[John McCain]

Property rights provide an unambiguous guide to acceptable human behavior. Health and welfare is a very slippery slope. How much health and welfare are people entitled too before forcing others to fund it becomes theft?

Aside from that being a slippery slope fallacy, these are practical issues and have nothing to do with whether a basic level of welfare is moral.

The government will always fuck up welfare, going too far, but suppose they got it just right? That'd be mad.

Why should this idea be limited to within arbitrary national borders? If a country is very poor and suffering from starvation, should that country's troops therefore be entitled to come to Australia and take some of our excess wealth to feed their population?

Practically, war is certain to worsen the conditions of both nations occupants. But yes, just as I don't believe there should be any restrictions on immigration, I don't see why national borders should be respected in the distribution of wealth from a moral perspective. Though practically impossible, in a perfect world wealth would be evenly distributed among people, by force if necessary. Of course, in reality, the total pool of wealth would be substantially reduced by doing so, and there'd be an overall reduction in well being

If a war of conquest could be waged, that saved more people than it killed, and overall improved human conditions, then yes it would be moral.

Based on your poverty argument, how is ALL manner of government intervention justified?

"all manner" is a figure of speech, it doesn't mean "the entire sum".
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU327AU328&q="all+manner+of"&btnG=Search&meta=

Of course you still haven't answered the question.

My answer was implied. Force against other people is justified when there's a utilitarian benefit.

Taking your example of helping the poor, what makes it okay for the state to use force to help the poor, but not for individuals, or other groups to do the same thing?

For instance, is it okay if I rob you at gun point if I use the money to help people who are genuinely poor.

Of course it's good for individuals to act in the same way, in practical terms it would usually be better, if the wealth of your neighbour is ample and you distribute the wealth accurately. Who could argue stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family is immoral?

What if everyone in your neighborhood gets together and votes that they want to give 10% of their income to the poor. Can they then force you to be part of their neighborhood charity?

Whether this a correct course of action, depends on whether 10% is an appropriate level to ensure the health of people while not excessively reducing my own wellbeing, and whether there is an income "charity donation free threshold", so those who are poor themselves do not suffer.

 

[copkiller]

Force against other people is justified when there's a utilitarian benefit.

Well at least you're being honest now.

So how do we measure utility?

How do we conclude taking from Jones and giving to Smith increases utility.

Almost anything can be justified on these grounds.

In a fundamentalist Muslim country, if it makes most people happy to have Sharia law imposed on everyone, is this morally justified?

Or as I said, if 90% want to kill or enslave the remaining 10%, could this be justified on utilitarians grounds?

Since everyone's idea of what is a utility maximizing outcome will differ, we are still left with the problem of people initiating force and it generally resulting in people rent seeking, rather than it actually producing utility maximizing outcomes.

 

[John McCain]

Well at least you're being honest now.

I think utility isn't as simple as 'majority rules'. If 90% choose to kill 10%, there is a substantial cost to the 10%, for a limited benefit to the 90%, so the overall utility is reduced. There are scales of happiness involved. The suffering of the 10% is immense, where the happiness of the 90% is limited. Just because these scales of happiness can not be absolutely measured by the natural sciences, does not mean they don't exist or are not valid.

Of course it's not simple to determine utility, only libertarians would think the best outcomes could possibly be acheived by a set of simplistic rules governing property.

Because utility is complex to determine, and there is risk in getting it wrong, it should only be applied in the most clear cut of instances. Providing people with basic physical and mental health care, at the cost of a few luxuries for other people.

I think it's ridiculous to argue that utility is so subjective that someone could possibly argue utility may be maximized by more luxury yachts or plasma tvs for some, at the cost of others suffering ill-health or death.

 

[copkiller]

I think it's ridiculous to argue that utility is so subjective that someone could possibly argue utility may be maximized by more luxury yachts or plasma tvs for some, at the cost of others suffering ill-health or death.

Well that scenario doesn't describe what the government actually does. If the resources could be costlessly transferred, this might make some sense.

However, you must consider the transaction costs of taxation and of wasteful bureaucracies like centerlink that redistribute the income.

It also creates perverse intensives to not work, since hard work is punished, while sloth is rewarded, thus lowering the overall wealth of society.

Also if you take this utilitarian argument for redistribution of income to its logical conclusion, we get socialism where everyone is forced to have equal wealth. After all, if poor people get more utility from extra income than rich people, then utility will not be maximized until all income is distributed perfectly equally. This does not only apply to the very poor in cases of access to food or health care. It can just as easily be argued that a poor person who doesn't have a computer will benefit more from say a new computer than a rich person who already has access to many technological and educational resources.

 

[ad infinitum]

To those of you that believe we need a government, how do you justify it morally?

Do you accept the premise that it is wrong to initiate force against others, except in self defense?

If so, why should the state be granted an exception to this rule?

If not, in what other circumstances is it also okay to initiate force against others?

Yes; a State is morally justified (presuming you are referring to a modern, democratically controlled state). Morality[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] is a system of thinking about (and maximizing) the well being of conscious creatures like ourselves. Hence there can be right and wrong answers to moral questions; there are empirical answers as to which [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]personal habits, uses of attention, modes of discourse, social institutions, economic systems, governments, etc. are most conducive to human well-being[/FONT].
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
If we imagine a community with no one to enforce the Rule of Law, no one to safe-guard vulnerable people against exploitation, no one to set norms (i.e weights, currency, language, etc), and so on, we can safely say that such a society would be less conducive to the happiness of its people; and more conducive to the suffering of its people (Indeed we do not even need imagine, but simply look to history or other parts of the world where civility does not reign, and instead tribalism and anarchy prevail); a civil, co-operative society relies on government and at least some of our happiness is derived from a, and grown upon, a coherent, civil society in which people are able to collaborate. And hence it would be truism to say that a civil society (facilitated by government) is morally justified.

Of course Government must be limited and has only a role to play in maintaining a society conducive to the happiness of its sentient members (indeed it is this restriction of government that ensures its viability and justification), but to say that no government at all would be a greater moral solution would be to deny the reality of our situation.
[/FONT]

 

[quik.]

The government restricts freedoms and exerts controls in many more latent ways than by employment of the police force.

Can someone expand on this?

Short of thinking tax is gay I do not feel restricted in day to day life.

I mentioned police because short of someone noticing and snitching or police being present, you can p much do what you want anyways.

 

[John McCain]

Well that scenario doesn't describe what the government actually does. If the resources could be costlessly transferred, this might make some sense.

However, you must consider the transaction costs of taxation and of wasteful bureaucracies like centerlink that redistribute the income.

The bureaucratic costs are unfortunate, but I don't think they substantially change the equation which favors wealth redistribution.

It also creates perverse intensives to not work, since hard work is punished, while sloth is rewarded, thus lowering the overall wealth of society.

Also if you take this utilitarian argument for redistribution of income to its logical conclusion, we get socialism where everyone is forced to have equal wealth. After all, if poor people get more utility from extra income than rich people, then utility will not be maximized until all income is distributed perfectly equally. This does not only apply to the very poor in cases of access to food or health care. It can just as easily be argued that a poor person who doesn't have a computer will benefit more from say a new computer than a rich person who already has access to many technological and educational resources.

Socialism would a good idea if the overall wealth of society could remain constant or increase. Unfortunately, high government intervention is always inefficient and lowers productivity, and as you said incentives against hard work are a problem, actual socialism will be contrary to providing maximum utility.

If you push much beyond basic welfare, you start to harm utility by reducing the overall pool of wealth for things that aren't absolutely necessary, you'll begin to have the government providing things people may have otherwise gone out and worked for, harming job creation and the ability for people to choose to go out and work for things etc... vicious cycle.

I think there's a balance to be achieved between allowing the government to guarantee basic health, and only introducing a bare minimum of government intervention and disincentives to productivity. Tricky in practice.

 

[Smile_Time351]

Why should it be justified morally? It's not a moral issue, a government is required when a society of people get's to a certain size that it requires services that benefit everyone ie roads, police, armed force, but which would not be possible based on single indivudual interests.

The size of the government can be debated, and is debated constantly, but i think the current size of the government in Australia atleast is relatively good, give or take a few things from it.

How can you morally justify making your family live under this tyranical government would be my question. You should be packing your bags, and looking for a cave to live in.

Excluding the emboldened text, I agree with you. The issue with said text is simple; Australia is the most governed country per capita on the planet, we have proportionately more politicians and beauracrats than any other nation, and this quagmire of beauracracy is a direct obstacle to any semblance of efficiency an Australian government can manage. I'm in favour of an enormous overhaul, perhaps even removing state governments altogether and expanding the jurisdiction and legislative powers of the local governments. We are a country of approx. 21 million people; what the hell do we have states for.

The detractors of this argument claim that such an overhaul is unconstitutional and thus not viable. In terms of the former they are correct, but ladies and gents the Constitution is broken and ridiculously rigid in its structure. If it must be put aside in the interests of political progress, then we as a civilised nation should have no reason not to. We are obsessed with a ridiculous and ineffectual tradition that makes change on this level nigh impossible.

 

[dieburndie]

Why should property rights override the rights of others to health and welfare?

Because rights to health and welfare don't exist.

Ignoring how vague those two terms are, individuals must be ultimately responsible for obtaining the resources necessary to maintain a given standard of living for themselves. The enforcement of these 'rights' creates a complementary obligation on others. This obligation remains in place even if the welfare recipient decides to spend their time sprawled in alleys, high on paint thinner and concrete powder. Other, hard working individuals must be expected to deliver this individual food, ensure his position in the alley on each evening is sheltered and comfortable etc etc. It's his right.

Should I provide more examples of the absurd requirements of "welfare" and "health" being enforced as rights?
What happens in cases of famine or natural disaster?
Rapidly increasing unemployment? Do you constantly adjust welfare in line with wages, or allow entrenched unemployment to be incentivised? (Oh yeah, the minimum wage right?)

It is impossible to consistently enforce positive rights. Furthermore, the line where entitlements end is always arbitrary. It is not a slippery slope fallacy, such imprecise and ambiguous standards inevitably form the justification for the state abusing its power. The extent of the resulting oppression is potentially limitless. This is the case for both the welfare state and utilitarianism.

Suppose entirely due to luck, our effort and labor being equal, I manage to come into wealth, while my neighbour suffers misfortune and poverty.

If my neighbour is starving and I have an abundance of food, why is upholding my right to property morally better than preventing his ill health and eventual death?

Because you have no absolute moral obligation to prevent people from starving. If you did, wouldn't you have to help every starving person regardless of geographical proximity? What if you have a very scarce supply of food, should you still help him? When do you stop helping? Exactly how poor do you have to be before you are no longer obliged to give?

Even on utilitarian grounds it can't be justified. If applied consistently, the collectivist system created would fail to provide the necessities demanded by a large population. Many more people would die. You of course know this, and don't support such a level of redistribution. Yet you have failed to draw a line. "To the extent that is best for everyone" simply won't cut it. Any semblance of a consensus on what that means is an impossibilty