Political Theory

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Alex the Amused — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:14:00 GMT

Marko:

You still don`t know what a blockade is. A blockade means using force to prevent goods from a third country reaching the blockaded country. It is an aggression against two seperate parties and an act of war.

Even embargo is illegitimate. A government is free to cease trading herself, but has no business forcing its citizens to follow suit.

Alright, I'm in a corner. Point conceded.

I still hold that assaulting their government, however, would be perfectly justified.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Marko — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:33:29 GMT

You still don`t know what a blockade is. A blockade means using force to prevent goods from a third country reaching the blockaded country. It is an aggression against two seperate parties and an act of war.

Even embargo is illegitimate. A government is free to cease trading herself, but has no business forcing its citizens to follow suit.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Alex the Amused — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:10:10 GMT

Marko:

Alex the Amused:

Marko:

Alexander:

I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.

No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new.

Alexander:

Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.

So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense.

Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree.

It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you.

I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is.

Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.

A blockade is not a boycott.

I would prefer a boycott. However, I am speaking of this with a presumed government in charge.

As for private military forces invading? I see no issue with it. No different then hunting down any other murderers.a

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Marko — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:50:07 GMT

Alex the Amused:

Marko:

Alexander:

I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.

No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new.

Alexander:

Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.

So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense.

Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree.

It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you.

I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is.

Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.

A blockade is not a boycott.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Spideynw — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:38:28 GMT

Snowflake:

Laughing Man:
Moving the goalposts are we?
This is why its so hard for me to keep up w this thread...

Or it could be for other reasons.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Spideynw — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:37:45 GMT

Laughing Man:
Moving the goalposts are we? Are we to assume that the Soviet Union is or isn't an industrialized nation?

Were the people in the Soviet Union non-cooperating?

Laughing Man:
Well I'm still confused. You say that government won't kill large portions of people, but you say that can't imprison people. What in the history of the state leads you to the conclusion that government will not do all that is necessary to sustain itself?

Gandhi.

Laughing Man:
Will it just crumble without a fight if we start saying no?

If enough of us say no, yes.

Laughing Man:
You cannot imagine the dehumanization of a certain sector of society?

Not a large group of non-cooperators, since it has not happened yet.

Laughing Man:

Spideynw:
Yes, that I don't think industrialized countries would slaughter its own population for non-cooperation. How many of those deaths from 1900 to the 1980's were by industrialized nations on non-cooperating populations?

Again you are moving the goalposts. What are we going to consider 'industrialized'?

How many of those deaths were people practicing non-cooperation?

Laughing Man:

Spideynw:
Yes, cults that use armed resistance. So I will ask again, you think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes, that were simply non-cooperating?

What do you propose to do when the government tries to kidnap you? Say '5% of America won't like this!'?

You didn't answer the question.

As to your question, they may kidnap me. So what? The other 5% are still free and non-cooperating.

Laughing Man:

Spideynw:
So, what evidence do you have that people would pay taxes, if they were told they do not have to?

Those who propound welfare and social programs and see it as a obligation to pay taxes for that purpose.

That's not evidence. That is speculation. People say lots of things. Who cares what they say? What is important is what they actually do.

Laughing Man:

Spideynw:
In your world, would people happily pay for the food of someone behind them at McDonald's, if McDonald's had a policy of charging some customers extra so that they could give free meals to other customers? Is that how markets work?

Reserve inequality of value. Of course if they are exchanging money for your food 'dilemma' at McDonalds then they are a fortiori benefiting in a ex-ante sense. If they don't exchange the money then they don't.

So if it is such a great business model, why doesn't anyone implement it?

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Alex the Amused — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:00:47 GMT

Marko:

Alexander:

I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.

No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new.

Alexander:

Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.

So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense.

Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree.

It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you.

I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is.

Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Andrew Cain — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:14:10 GMT

Nitroadict:
Don't worry, you'll eventually realize bickering about minarchist & anarchist dichotomies is a waste of time beyond the computer armchairs.

That's impossible because my time is already worthless!

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Marko — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:33:40 GMT

Alexander:

I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.

No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new.

Alexander:

Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.

So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense.

Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

MissMillly — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:24:49 GMT

Under the conditions you describe, it would be morally correct for him to act - on behalf of the sizable proportion of the people who are forced to endure the presence of the evils promulgated by this state. If he beleives he is right in in his judgement that this is an overblown and completely immoral state, then he would be right in asking for someone from the outside. He would have to trust this outsiders promise that innocents wouldn't be endangered, and also have assurance that those with outside means also have moral rationale for their offer of help.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Caley McKibbin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:12:56 GMT

JonBostwick:

You have the right to prevent the Government of Mexico from victimizing you, or anyone else who wishes to not associate with the government of Mexico. You, however, would be an aggressor to invade Mexico and destroy the state against the will of the people who do wish to be enslaved to it.

So, if I enslave you and you like being my slave and I threaten to enslave Spideynw, Spideynw would be an aggressor to invade me. Makes sense.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Edmund Carlyle — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:31:53 GMT

In the case of 'revolution', no, for that simply means mob violence and a repeat of the American and French failed experiments. But if one means to replace the State, when one has both the right and might to do so (for there is no right that is not also a might, one must not simply have an idea of an imaginary society, but must actually be in a positiion to become the government). To replace democracy with something that is sane and functional, such as a private equity right-wing kingship, is moral so long as it is possible.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Sieben — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:31:04 GMT

Nitroadict:

Practical strategies might involve both, but this would be annoying to the idealists, especially we all reluctantly live in state-society regardless, & must learn how to survive in such a hostile environment, lest the individual dies.

The state is necessary in "situations where the state is necessary". Even if we cannot come up with examples it does not prove they cannot exist. Oof. It is annoying to the idealists.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

Nitroadict — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:23:00 GMT

Snowflake:

Laughing Man:
Moving the goalposts are we?
This is why its so hard for me to keep up w this thread...

Don't worry, you'll eventually realize bickering about minarchist & anarchist dichotomies is a waste of time beyond the computer armchairs.

Practical strategies might involve both, but this would be annoying to the idealists, especially we all reluctantly live in state-society regardless, & must learn how to survive in such a hostile environment, lest the individual dies.

It's not as if we are already in an anarchist society & must strive to keep statism down before it takes over, because it already has, honestly.

Re: Is it morally correct to overthrow a state?

No2statism — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:20:01 GMT

If the individual does it on a one to one basis and for the correct reason, then definitely. A state naturally has no rights and can't feel pain, so it shouldn't feel pleasure either; it simply has the responsibility to protect individual liberty.