We were having a discussion in another topic regarding this issue.
For the sake of the discussion, suppose there is a government/state that is regarded as evil by a considerable proportion of people (say 5% but not necessarily a majority) both within that state and outside. Not that numbers necessarily matter. And suppose that those who think so are right, i.e. that government is truly illegitimate.
Let's say somebody from the outside has the means to overthrow it without endangering innocents.
Would you find it morally correct for him to act on it? I would say yes, if he's right.
LS seemed to argue against it, but in that case shouldn't we just go home and join the army, respect government etc.? After all, if we concede government is legitimate, it might at most be a nuisance. Because if it is not legitimate, why would acting against government be morally wrong?
Yes, just like it is morally correct to defy any kind of monopoly and engage in exchange.
However, it is not morally correct to overthrow a state only to establish your own state in its place. That is what results in death and devastation.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu:Would you find it morally correct for him to act on it?
If 5% of the population did not have faith in the government, then what could the government do to them if they all decided to stop obeying the government?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw:If 5% of the population did not have faith in the government, then what could the government do to them if they all decided to stop obeying the government?
Stranger: Yes, just like it is morally correct to defy any kind of monopoly and engage in exchange. However, it is not morally correct to overthrow a state only to establish your own state in its place. That is what results in death and devastation.
Exactly my point. That's what I was arguing for.
Snowflake: Spideynw:If 5% of the population did not have faith in the government, then what could the government do to them if they all decided to stop obeying the government? They could kill you with their guns.
They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us.
Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us.
They had run out of guns at the time.
Stranger: Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us. They had run out of guns at the time.
You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us.
Spideynw: You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them.
You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them.
Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
Spideynw: Stranger: Spideynw:They didn't kill Gandhi and his followers, I doubt they would kill us. They had run out of guns at the time. You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us.
I don't think they would, but even if they did, this would spark massive outrage among the 95%. The government would realize this.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Stranger:They had run out of guns at the time.
You mean bullets.
I think a quote from Samuel Adams would reflect how I feel about this topic:
'If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitudegreater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch downand lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly uponyou, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Giant_Joe: Spideynw: You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill them. Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
You really think they could do that? I suppose it's not substantially unreasonable, but I still believe that some sense would be knocked into at least a large minority of the people.
I don't know, perhaps the stupidity of the average American mind has no limits, maybe you are right.
Giant_Joe:Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it'll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
Oh, and this will happen how? You do realize, that 5% is 1 out of every 20 people, right? You do realize that these 1 out of every 20 people work with the other 20 people, right? You do realize that 1 out of every 20 people have family and friends, right? You do realize that 1 out of every 20 people in the U.S. would be fifteen million people right? You give the government way too much credit to believe they could wave some magic wand to condemn 15 million people to death just for disobeying or have far too pessimistic a view on humanity.
Libertarian_for_Life:I don't think they would, but even if they did, this would spark massive outrage among the 95%. The government would realize this.
Exactly. The government would lose no matter what they did. If they imprison the 5%, they go broke and lose a public relations battle. If they kill the 5%, they lose the public relations battle and show their true colors. If they don't do anything, everyone else will just stop obeying.
Spideynw:If they kill the 5%, they lose the public relations battle and show their true colors
Spideynw:You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population?
They need only kill a handful, and the rest of the 5% will disperse.
Power is the ability is to kill without retaliation. Percentages are not going to change this fact.
No.
It is only moral to prevent the State from holding you(and people who feel the same way as you) in an involuntary relationship. You don't have the right to prevent others from associating with (and victimizing) each other.
Peace
Why would it kill you?
Stranger: Spideynw:You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? They need only kill a handful, and the rest of the 5% will disperse. Power is the ability is to kill without retaliation. Percentages are not going to change this fact.
Really? And what do you base this on? All the evidence I see points to the fact that the government has to go through a lot to kill someone intentionally. And I don't know of any evidence where the government has killed someone in cold blood that has not resisted.
Snowflake: Spideynw:If they kill the 5%, they lose the public relations battle and show their true colors Meeediaaaa.I think you're right, I just don't share your optimism.
Optimism? That the government won't kill a bunch of people in cold blood that are not resisting? It has nothing to do with optimism, it has to do with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the government people would do such a thing.
Spideynw:That the government won't kill a bunch of people in cold blood that are not resisting?
Democide?
Spideynw:It has nothing to do with optimism, it has to do with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the government people would do such a thing.
Note there is a difference between shooting someone in cold blood and sending them off to die in a war. So maybe instead of killing 5% of the population the state could get away with drafting the dissenters, or by making something they have in common illegal. For example, Nixon really laid it on the anti war people by cracking down on drugs. Salami theory man! The state can't put death squads in the streets and start gunning us down tomorrow, but they can do other more subtle things...
What are you talking about not resisting? So when you don't pay your taxes, they'll throw you into jail. Granted, they won't kill you. So we should be talking about whether the state can throw 5% into jail, not if they can kill you.
Or put it another way: they will kill you because/if you will resist.
For anyone that has stated that overthrowing a government wouldn't work or wouldn't be moral, can you explain what would be the "correct" way to implement true liberty?
This is a massive topic in it's own, I know, so does anyone know if there has been a topic already related to this?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:That the government won't kill a bunch of people in cold blood that are not resisting? Democide?
Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders?
Libertarian_for_Life: For anyone that has stated that overthrowing a government wouldn't work or wouldn't be moral, can you explain what would be the "correct" way to implement true liberty? This is a massive topic in it's own, I know, so does anyone know if there has been a topic already related to this?
Violently over-throwing a government just results in a new oppressive government. I don't think it is necessarily immoral, just foolish.
Spideynw: Laughing Man: Spideynw:That the government won't kill a bunch of people in cold blood that are not resisting? Democide? Do you have any examples of 1%, let alone 5% of the population disobeying, and the government killing some of them in cold blood for disobeying, and admitting to the murders?
I'm not sure what the percentage exactly is, but snowflake referred to up top about the holocaust. The government seems to have successfully justified killing those innocents to the German people. That was at least 1%, but probably much more, I'm not sure.
Snowflake: Spideynw:It has nothing to do with optimism, it has to do with the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that the government people would do such a thing. idk i thought the holocaust and gulags did a pretty good job of suppressing minority opinion.11 million russians died fighting the state's war, and 2.5 million were sent to gulags. With a population of about 110 million, this is quite alarming.
And all of them cooperated right? I am talking about non-cooperation, meaning you sit down and they have to pick you up and take you places.
Snowflake:So maybe instead of killing 5% of the population the state could get away with drafting the dissenters,
They could draft them, but because they are not obeying, they would just not obey.
Snowflake:or by making something they have in common illegal. For example, Nixon really laid it on the anti war people by cracking down on drugs.
The disobedient would all be breaking laws. That is what it means to be disobedient, not obeying the law. They would all be breaking currency and tax law.
Spideynw:And all of them cooperated right?
Spideynw:non-cooperation, meaning you sit down and they have to pick you up and take you places.
Spideynw:They could draft them, but because they are not obeying, they would just not obey.
Spideynw: The disobedient would all be breaking laws. That is what it means to be disobedient, not obeying the law. They would all be breaking currency and tax law.
Libertarian_for_Life:I'm not sure what the percentage exactly is, but snowflake referred to up top about the holocaust. The government seems to have successfully justified killing those innocents to the German people. That was at least 1%, but probably much more, I'm not sure.
And I will agree that there is plenty of evidence of governments easily targeting ethnic/racial groups. But if the population was non-group specific (different religions, races, genders, etc.), they would not have any particular thing to target them about, except that they are all disobedient. Not only that, the Jews cooperated. The government needed to take them to camps to kill them. If they would have just not cooperated, I think things would have gone a lot differently for them.
Spideynw: Libertarian_for_Life: For anyone that has stated that overthrowing a government wouldn't work or wouldn't be moral, can you explain what would be the "correct" way to implement true liberty? This is a massive topic in it's own, I know, so does anyone know if there has been a topic already related to this? Violently over-throwing a government just results in a new oppressive government. I don't think it is necessarily immoral, just foolish.
Ok so, most people here believe the violent revolution will not work? No?
So, what is the debate in arriving at the destination about then? How much percentage of the population refusing government's authority it would take for government to collaspe?
Snowflake: Spideynw:And all of them cooperated right? I thought that conscription was involuntary.
Non-cooperation and involuntary are the same how?
Snowflake: Spideynw:non-cooperation, meaning you sit down and they have to pick you up and take you places. Or they could put a gun in your face...
And you could still just sit there...
Snowflake: Spideynw:They could draft them, but because they are not obeying, they would just not obey. what?
How exactly is the government going to force them to go to war? Evidence suggests that the government would put them in prison, not kill them. But they are already breaking a lot of laws, so the government could just put them in prison for breaking the other laws instead...
Snowflake: Spideynw: The disobedient would all be breaking laws. That is what it means to be disobedient, not obeying the law. They would all be breaking currency and tax law. What? I guess you kind of missed my point.
Your point is only that the government would pass more laws, that the disobedient would just not obey, because the disobedient are not obeying. So the government passing more laws, would be pointless.
Libertarian_for_Life:Ok so, most people here believe the violent revolution will not work? No?
From what I have seen, most on here do not think violence would work.
Libertarian_for_Life:How much percentage of the population refusing government's authority it would take for government to collaspe?
I conjecture at most 5%, but as little as 1%. Now I know that the U.S. government already incarcerates ~1% of the population, however, most of them are the poorest of the population. If the 1% included a lot more middle class and upper class people, then it would be much more expensive for the government to incarcerate them. Not only could they afford much better defense, locking them up would result in a lot of lost productivity, meaning a lot less tax revenue for the government.
Spideynw:Non-cooperation and involuntary are the same how?
Spideynw:And you could still just sit there...
Spideynw:How exactly is the government going to force them to go to war? Evidence suggests that the government would put them in prison, not kill them. But they are already breaking a lot of laws, so the government could just put them in prison for breaking the other laws instead...
Spideynw:Your point is only that the government would pass more laws, that the disobedient would just not obey, because the disobedient are not obeying. So the government passing more laws, would be pointless.
Snowflake: Spideynw:Non-cooperation and involuntary are the same how? Well if you don't cooperate with the state, they'll do something bad to you.
Right. Usually throw you in jail. That is the point.
Snowflake: Spideynw:And you could still just sit there... I bet they would do something bad to you. When indians sat on the train tracks to non-cooperate, the brits didn't shoot them, but they started pissing on them. I think that counts as aggression/violence even if you wouldn't die from it.
I never said the government would not be aggressive. Just that the state would not kill you.
Spideynw:How exactly is the government going to force them to go to war?
So? Do you have an answer?
Snowflake:There are like, tax laws, that you have to follow on your own, but then theres this other stuff government does that involves guns and violence that you don't have any choice about.
Huh? You think if people stopped paying taxes, the government would not become aggressive? Again, my point is only that the government would not start killing people over it.
Spideynw:Right. Usually throw you in jail. That is the point.
Spideynw:I never said the government would not be aggressive. Just that the state would not kill you.
Spideynw:So? Do you have an answer?
Spideynw:Again, my point is only that the government would not start killing people over it.
Depends on the state and how they react.
If the state's policy is genocide, then you have no choice but to respond with violence or escape - survival by any means possible. Germany = 7 million exterminated, tens of millions killed in war and its aftermath. USSR = 20 million exterminated. Red China = 20 to 72 million exterminated (depending on the source). Why are we so confident that this kind of horror won't occur in the U.S. or any other country? Presented with the right conditions anything is possible. [Oh, and Jews who didn't get in line for the concentration camps were shot - how's that voluntary?]
If the state is unwilling to commit such atrocities, then nonviolent civil disobedience is the proper method. Not sure 5% would be sufficient. 25-30% would be preferrable. In addition, a sizeable minority can frustrate the majority politically.
Now the situation with India resulted in the British giving up India. The U.S. was also the result of another nation giving up their claim to a territory. I think there are major differences between that and overthrowing your own country. The people or class in power must have a means to give up power or else they will pursue practically any means necessary to win.
The aftermath of violent overthrow is a problem as well. Once violence has been established as a source of power, it becomes that more convenient for those who seek power to utilize it. You could end up with something even worse than what you overthrew - much, much worse.
but they sure didn't mind throwing him in prison.
and that is exactly what will happen to anyone that tries to break away from the state. Or they pull a Waco.