Can "government" be moral? A response to the debate between Tom Wilcox and Stefan Molenuex

[Makalakumu]

I just listened to the debate between Stef and Tom on the Peace Revolution podcast (I can't find it in the FDR feed) and I had the following idea when Stef was asking Tom to please respond to his definitions of government and morality.  I asked myself, "How would I respond if I had to take Tom's position as an intellectual exercise?"

So, here is my swing at this.  Government we can define as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area.  We can also define the initiation of force as immoral.  Stef's argument is that it would then follow that the government was immoral.

Now, if I were Tom, I would have accepted Stef's definition and then added one.  I would add a definition for moral behavior.  I would define moral behavior as the control of the initiation of force.  Then, I would argue that since some forms of government act as a limitiation on the initiation of force in society, some forms of government have the possibility to be moral.  

Perhaps a line of reasoning for this could follow as such.  The initiation of force in human society is universally accepted as immoral by humans, but all human societies create exceptions to this moral rule.  Thus, it could be argued that the overall morality of a society could be measured by it's ability to control the initiation of force.  On one end of the spectrum, we could imagine a society in which any human being can initiate the use of force against any other individual without limitations.  This would define as a 1 on social evil continuum and truly this society would be hell on Earth.  On the other end of the scale, we could imagine a society in which a society has completely controlled the initiation of force among all individuals.  We could define this as a 10 on our social evil continuum.  

Therefore, we can define progress toward morality in a society by charting it ability to control the initiation of force among individuals.  Government may not be moral now, but it can become more moral in the future by controlling the initiation of force among it's individuals.  As society progresses toward moral behavior, less and less individuals have the ability to initiate force against one another.  At the far end of the spectrum, no individual chooses the initiate force in that society which makes every individual in that society equal to one another.  Thus, all of society could be considered as being within the monopolistic group and ability to initiate force simply is not exercised.

Our definition of government is preserved, our definition of morality and immorality is preserved, and we have argued that "government" has the ability to be moral.

There you go, Tom.  Use that in the next debate.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Government being, by the most felicitous definition, representatives of the people, I would ask, is there any act that you would not accept by an individual, that you would accept by government?

This is not some exercise in semantics. Either you accept that government has power that the people do not possess, or, you don't. What other option is there? Limited power. Yeah, isn't that the U.S. Constitution? How long did those limits last?

If government, as my representative, is allowed to use force, then I am allowed to use force. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, did I, or any one else, give the government the right to use force, while excluding my own right to force. If such exists, please show me where.

Possibility just ain't cuttin' it. I also have the "possibility" to control my use of force. How does that help you, when my blade is to your throat? Or my hand is in your wallet?

The concept that some have power over others has been in play for thousands of years. How's that working?

Controlling the initiation of force among individuals is, by definition, the control of force. Arguing for a moral principle by giving control to an entity outside the principle is, what, the Bible?

It is long past time for all people to admit the failures of the past. Defending immorality by some new twist of words is no longer very effective. Except to "Baaaaaaa".

How many times does it have to be stated: Will you grant to an arbitrary group power that you would not grant to an individual?

Answer no, probably an anarchist; answer yes, a slave (whether of the body, or the mind, makes little difference).

[Arius]

Here's how I see it.

Government we can define as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area.

The initiation of force in human society is universally accepted as immoral by humans...

Government may not be moral now, but it can become more moral in the future by controlling the initiation of force among it's individuals.

Let's tinker:

1) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area (Government) may not be moral now, but they can become more moral in the
future by eliminating(controlling) the initiation of force among individuals.

2) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can
become more moral in the
future by not initiating force (eliminating the initiation of force among individual).

3) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can
become more moral in the
future by not acting as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area.

4) Government may  not be moral now, but it can
become more moral in the
future by not acting as a government.

Government will be moral when A does not equal A.  I agree wholeheartedly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Makalakumu]

 

Here's how I see it.

Government we can define as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area.

The initiation of force in human society is universally accepted as immoral by humans...

Government may not be moral now, but it can become more moral in the future by controlling the initiation of force among it's individuals.

Let's tinker:

1) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area (Government) may not be moral now, but they can become more moral in the
future by eliminating(controlling) the initiation of force among individuals.

2) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can
become more moral in the
future by not initiating force (eliminating the initiation of force among individual).

3) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can
become more moral in the
future by not acting as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a
given geographic area.

4) Government may  not be moral now, but it can
become more moral in the
future by not acting as a government.

Government will be moral when A does not equal A.  I agree wholeheartedly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like the changes.

One thing that struck me in the debate was the idea that the initiation of force seemed to be a meme all by itself in human society. This type of behavior shapes the brain and makes it easier for itself to replicate, like a virus. Therefore, I wonder if we could view the struggle for human liberty in evolutionary terms? Imagine government being like some kind of really bad, hastily thrown together evolutionary mechanism that is attempting to control this meme. It's not going to be perfect because that isn't how evolution operates. That said, the transition toward human liberty, if it occurs at all, is never going to be perfect, but it might grow to function better over time. It might not as well. Humans could just go extinct. Noting this, I wonder how useful the utopian ideal of Anarchy, where all individuals in a society stop excusing themselves for initiating force, really is? Even in the best scenario, there are still going to be ugly things. I really wonder if society could ever get to the point where it would score a perfect 10 on the scale i noted above.

[Makalakumu]

This debate just appeared in the FDR podcast feed.  It is show FDR 2362.  Take a listen and comment if you wish.