A man makes a living for himself. A criminal enters into his house without permission and is promptly shot by aforementioned man. Most people would agree his actions were justified, right?
So, if a man makes a living, but is forced to pay taxes year after year (extorted more like), all for alleged security and services the state, the largest protection racket ever, is "mandated" to provide. Is not incurring in violence against the state (and its army of bureaucrats) a justifiable act of self defense? (assuming a perfect world where innocent bystanders do not exist)
I've been wrestling with this for a while and have meant to start a topic like this one to ask something similar. Outside of practical considerations (I.E. It's simply better for our cause to nonviolently educate and passively resist statism) is it moral to commit violence against the state? As a corollary, is it moral to commit violence against anyone who supports the state and wishes to expand its power?
Just because you're within your libertarian rights doesn't mean you have to act on them to their fullest extent.
You'll never reform the state out of existence.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Naevius: Outside of practical considerations (I.E. It's simply better for our cause to nonviolently educate and passively resist statism) is it moral to commit violence against the state?
Outside of practical considerations (I.E. It's simply better for our cause to nonviolently educate and passively resist statism) is it moral to commit violence against the state?
Where does morality come from if not from practical considerations?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Considering I'm a Christian, I think you can guess what my answer to that is. But I realize that's not a good enough reason for everyone and the reason why I'm asking is I want to know what others think on the issue. If your answer is "There IS no abstract sense of morality and one must always keep practical considerations in mind" then thank you very much for answering.
@ Naevius. Re: Corollary
I don't think its moral to commit violence against anyone who simply wishes the state would expand its power. Taking the analogy back to the home invasion: if there's some guy out on his porche cheerleading for the robber, do you have a right to attack him? He's on his property and has a right to his opinion, not actively participating in the home invasion.
As for the rest I agree with you, I wish people would give up a straight answer. I recognize crucifying the governor, tempting as it may be, will not help the libertarian movement or facilitate the end of the state. However, would a person who commits agression against the state, against bureaucrats in general be acting in simple self defense?
I find scant non-moral reasons (morally, I don't find any violence right, ever. neccesary sometimes, but never right) that violence against the institution/s of the state is wrong. But openly going after the beauracrats is purely reactionary (serves no revolutionary purpose). If a person violently defends the state, that's a different matter.
What, are you going to kill some HUD official because you're losing your house? (I live in NE Ohio, we are dealing with this exact stuff everyday. 3 real estate workers have been killed in the last week. That's unnecessary. People will strangle and burn some lady trying to sell a house and feed her family, but Rumsfield and Cheney keep walking the street... ya, genious guys)
haha, /rant
:edited for coherence:
i don't quite understand the question. is it moral or is it within the libertarian legal limits. my own ethical viewpoint would say no to the first one. to the second question i answer yes. that doesn't mean, its practical, or necessarily moral but that its non-criminal.
@Epicurus: I agree about the bureaucrats. I can't really fathom that blowing up a state hospital full of doctors and nurses is justifiable, at first glance. But have you ever considered organized crime? If a drug cartel extorts you for money, and in defense/retaliation you go after the guys planting mariguana for them are you really definding yoursef or initiating a second act of aggression? That's what's been nagging me all along. If the state is organized crime, is every participant in the racket guilty?
Wouldn't it be MUCH more productive to go after the Don, and even more productive to go after the system that creates organized crime (drug war, mostly)?
Well you are definitely on some kind of government list now
haha, that's nothing new
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpSGH_Xu9KE
If the state is organized crime, is every participant in the racket guilty?
Not every act is a crime.
People do not commit violence toward aggression-initiating state agents only out of fear. Should it be feasible to protect one’s property without incurring too much damage, from the state, it would cease to be a state, and become para-voluntary, as everyone who disagreed with its conditions would just shoot the police out of his place.
As for ‘but the policeman is innocent, the state is guilty’, no better way to put it that Morpheus did: these are the people we’re trying to free, but until we succeed they’re part of the system and will defend it. And than of course the state does not exist, only the policeman does.
I. Ryan:Where does morality come from if not from practical considerations?
Fairy tales and Germans with alliterave names...
DMI1: A man makes a living for himself. A criminal enters into his house without permission and is promptly shot by aforementioned man. Most people would agree his actions were justified, right?
Most people on here or most people in general? Either way, I would say the answer is yes to both.
I would agree it is justifiable. However, in the current state of things, it would mean sure death since most people in general do not think it is justifiable.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
No, actions are not justified. It begs the question. What kind of criminal it is? Just a thief? Or a violent one (murderer or rapist)?. Owners actions should be proportional, otherwise he is criminal too. First he has to ask that criminal to leave and if he resists only then he can only threaten with his gun. But that doesn't give him right to kill intruder at all. He can shoot in a leg for example. There are some grey areas, shock for example etc, so if criminal gets shot by accident, well, it's his problem.
So violent actions against the state are only justified if only state uses direct violence. If it steals money through taxes, you can "steal" money from them too, well, there are many ways. If the state violently tries to put you in a cage, you can be morally justified in resisting arrest and killing everyone who is trying to hurt you. I think you would be interested in Kinsella's "Estoppel", gave me some thoughts: http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/17/rp_17_4.pdf
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
DMI1: Considering I'm a Christian, I think you can guess what my answer to that is. But I realize that's not a good enough reason for everyone and the reason why I'm asking is I want to know what others think on the issue. If your answer is "There IS no abstract sense of morality and one must always keep practical considerations in mind" then thank you very much for answering.
I will try to answer your original question.
DMI1: Is not incurring in violence against the state (and its army of bureaucrats) a justifiable act of self defense?
Is not incurring in violence against the state (and its army of bureaucrats) a justifiable act of self defense?
Of course not.
If you met somebody who had systematically tortured and killed domesticated mammals owned by other people in their neighborhood, what would you conclude about his personality? It would be clear that he is a violent psychopath with little respect for private property rights, and couldn't be trusted to not do the same thing to other people. I would be wary, to say the least, of somebody like that, because that sort of behavior seems to imply that he would be much more likely to torture and kill you or somebody else than the guy who lives next door to you and waves to you whenever you pass by, and because that lack of respect for those private property rights seems to imply that he might break other private property rights, if he thinks that it would better his situation, and he could get away with it. I want to stay away from people like that.
But, if you met somebody who had been a part of systematically "stealing" money from people in the form of taxes, what would you conclude about his personality? It would be clear that he is probably just another statist who thinks that taxes are for the public good, and that somebody not paying his taxes is in a sense stealing from the rest of society and being selfish. I wouldn't be wary at all of being around somebody like that. Would you expect the guy to steal your television? Would you be wary of him maybe breaking into your house and stealing your computer? Would you expect that him to be violent? Probably not.
David Hume: Men are not blamed for such actions as they perform ignorantly and casually, whatever may be the consequences. Why? but because the principles of these actions are only momentary, and terminate in them alone. Men are less blamed for such actions as they perform hastily and unpremeditately than for such as proceed from deliberation. For what reason? but because a hasty temper, though a constant cause or principle in the mind, operates only by intervals, and infects not the whole character. Again, repentance wipes off every crime, if attended with a reformation of life and manners. How is this to be accounted for? but by asserting that actions render a person criminal merely as they are proofs of criminal principles in the mind; and when, by an alteration of these principles, they cease to be just proofs, they likewise cease to be criminal.
Men are not blamed for such actions as they perform ignorantly and casually, whatever may be the consequences. Why? but because the principles of these actions are only momentary, and terminate in them alone. Men are less blamed for such actions as they perform hastily and unpremeditately than for such as proceed from deliberation. For what reason? but because a hasty temper, though a constant cause or principle in the mind, operates only by intervals, and infects not the whole character. Again, repentance wipes off every crime, if attended with a reformation of life and manners. How is this to be accounted for? but by asserting that actions render a person criminal merely as they are proofs of criminal principles in the mind; and when, by an alteration of these principles, they cease to be just proofs, they likewise cease to be criminal.
What is left is just what they are doing as state employees, because them being state employees doesn't seem to say that they would do anything violent in their ordinary life. Being a state employee means that you are involved in the "institutionalized theft", but doesn't give us any idea that they would engage in theft or violence in their ordinary life. So the only thing that we can blame them for is being state employees.
So what is the most effective way to limit the number of state employees, and the damage that they do in their capacity as state employees? Or, to make this more specifically an answer to your question, would violence against state employees limit how many state employees there are, and how much damage they do? You already answered that question in your original post. Commiting violence against state employees isn't going to limit how many there are, and might even increase the number, because of a bunch of reasons that are pretty obvious, such as that people would gain for sympathy for the state, think that we need more state security because of the attack, and so on.
^ great post
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: ^ great post
Thanks.