My Philosophy Part 3: Government

As I have stated on several previous occasions the purpose of government is to protect individuals' natural rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Certainly nothing more because in most cases when it attempts to accomplish more it actually violates natural rights.

Government is essentially a security firm. It is supposed to use defense or retaliatory force, meaning that the government only reacts, only uses force, when someone is being attacked, when force is initiated against someone's natural rights.

Obviously, that is not what any present government does. Actually, there probably has never been a government in existence that acted this way, that acted properly. Even the best government's, liberal democracies, are dysfunctional. Even liberal government's become monsters, drooling beasts lusting for violence. They murder, steal, kidnap, and shackle people. There are so many simple examples. Any ridiculous regulation works. For example, a month ago Chicago legalized fois gras, which meant at one time fois gras was outlawed. Fois gras is nothing more than a meal. It is a fattened goose liver. Neither eating fattened goose liver nor serving it violates any individual's natural right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property. No one is being attacked when fois gras is served. No forced is initiated when someone eats a chunk of fois gras. Yet, the government outlawed it, meaning that if an individual ate or served fois gras he would receive a fine. Of course, he could refuse to pay the fine, but that would not go over well. The government would keep hassling him to pay them because he bit into a fattened goose liver. The man could continue to refuse. The government would continue to hassle. Eventually, the police would show up. The police have no right to be there. This man harmed no one. Yet, men with guns arrive at his home and demand money. Since no natural rights were violated, the government is not using retaliatory force, the government is initiating force, in this case they are stealing, they are violating his natural rights, specifically his natural right to property. Of course, the man could continue to refuse, but then the police would try to arrest him. The man could resist that, but then the police would attack him. He could fight back, fight for his life because he harmed no one and two men with guns are threatening him, but then the police would shoot him. Obviously, the smart thing to do would just be to pay the fine because one would rather live and enjoy a comfortable amount of liberty than be dead. It is not like this man is living in Society Russia or Nazi Germany. Tyranny in liberal democracy is a burden, but not a ruthless cruelty devoiding life of all individual pleasure and liberty. However, this could still happen, and in the end an innocent man is threatened, robbed at gun point, kidnapped, and murdered because he ate a fattened goose liver. Some people will say that is an awfully stupid reason to die and he should have just paid the fine. I agree to some extent. I have already stated that. However, it is more stupid, more ignorant, more psychotic to murder a man or do any of that to a man who ate or served a fattened goose liver. That reasoning is as sound as the Son of Sam. "I kill people because a demon possessing my neighbor's dog told me to." "I threaten people, rob them, beat them, kidnap them, and kill them because they eat fattened goose liver."

Of course, the animal rights activists out there will say that animals have rights like humans and the government is also protecting those rights by making sure geese are not force fed to expand their livers. Allegedly that is painfully. Personally, eating sounds delightful. Additionally, animals do not have rights. I explained that in several previous posts, so I will not explain it here. However, there are other examples of tyranny within liberal democracies. The drug war is a prime example. Men are kidnapped, murdered, and robbed because they use or distribute drugs. Now, the drug war activists will say that drug dealers and users initiate force, they murder, kidnap, and steal. Well, what do you know, murder, kidnapping, and stealing are already initiations of force. Therefore, the government can narrow the spectrum and focus on retaliating against those actions not the acts of using and distributing. However, that may not be clear enough for the drug war activists. However, what these activists will not mention, or do not know, is that about every month or so SWAT teams kill innocent men in the war on drugs. SWAT was originally for hostage situations. I have no problem with that. Hostages' have had force initiated against them, and they need to be rescued. Therefore, special tactical teams trained to retaliate against the hostage holders in order to save the hostages is necessary. However, SWAT should not be used to blow open doors without knocking and declaring that they are the authorities all in the name of fighting drugs. The argument is that if the authorities knock then the drug users and distributors will have time to flush all the drugs down the toilet, eliminating the evidence. However, if the drugs are the problem, then flushing them down the toilet is good because now they are gone. No more problem. Of course, the drugs is not the problem any way. The problem is that every once and awhile SWAT hits the wrong house. They break open the door, the innocent residents inside are nervous that armed robbers, killers, kidnappers, or rapists are coming into their house, so they fire back in self defense. In response, SWAT fires back. The person in the right here is the home owner. Whether or not they have drugs, the home owner has not violated anyone's natural rights. Therefore, busting down their door is clearly not retaliatory force but initiatory force. The one retaliating with force is the home owner. His natural rights are being violated by the government. Of course, once the home owners realize they are firing at the authorities they drop their guns. If only the authorities would knock and declare themselves, but know the authorities must behave like armed robbers, killers, and kidnappers.

However, this example may not be satisfactory either. It sure ought to be. The former on sure ought to be. I am not going to list every example of tyranny, initiatory force within a liberal democracy. One only has to think.

Obviously, I have a clear and enormous problem with government. However, I am within my own conflict between anarchy and some form of limited government. In a previous post I outline my problems with democracy; therefore, I can never be satisfied with that. However, as I think about it more, some aspects of a liberal democracy may not be initiatory force. Yet, I still know there is lots of force; therefore, it is still bad.

Firstly, there is no way capitalistic anarchy is achievable in my life time. People depend on the government too much. Furthermore, in a democracy, the government is the people. Since day one of America the government has been expanding, becoming more tyrannical. In order for capitalistic anarchy to function, the people must function. They must not have warped moralities that see justice in a drug war. The current democratically elected government is a clear indication that people are no where near ready for capitalistic anarchy. However, my other fear with anarchy, is even if the people function properly there will always be the misguided killers, thieves, and rapists. How are these actions to be countered? How are the innocent to be protected from the criminals? Obviously, a private security firm could take up the task. However, could that not lead to competition between multiple security firms that could become violent? Of course, if the people are acting properly the competing firms will compete but not attack one another. However, how are the firms to investigate crimes? They could make contracts with their customers outlining their search procedures. If a customer does not agree, he does not hire that particular firm. However, what if the victim was from one security firm and the criminal is of the other security firm? How is the victim's security firm to investigate the criminal since they do not have a contract with him? They cannot just break into his house. Of course, firms could cooperate on this matter. They also could not cooperate, which would be a problem. At this point I really have no answer as to how this would work. Of course, I have not thought much on the issue, but the possibility that killers, thieves, and kidnappers could roam free alarms me. Unfortunately, there are plenty roaming free today under the guise of government.

Secondly, in recent months I have been seeing a little less force int he government. The prime example is taxes, which I readily labeled as armed robbery. However, as I have thought about it, there may have been some consent in the matter. If all candidates for the House support taxes, then by voting for any candidate would not the vote be consenting to taxes? When voting for a candidate one cannot pick and choose which policies he agrees with. A vote is for the whole package. Therefore, if he votes for a candidate that will keep taxes, he consents to taxes; therefore, it cannot be armed robbery, it cannot be initiatory force. Therefore, those voters who voted for a pro-taxes candidate and refuse to pay their taxes are actually the one's initiating force. They are violating a contract, and violating the terms of the contract makes them a thief. However, what about the minority? What about those that did not vote for the pro-taxes candidate? Say they voted for a candidate who wanted to eliminate all taxes? Is not force being initiated against them, for they never agreed to taxes? Or, is the simple act of voting consent? I think that is how it works in a democracy. If one votes he consents to abiding by all the policies of the victor regardless of whether or not the victor is the voter's choice. Therefore, could not voting be the loop hole? By not voting one is not consenting to the system. He is not consenting to following the victor's policies even if the victor is not his choice, for he has not made a choice. Thus, could it then be initiatory force to collect taxes from him? Or, is simply living within the boundaries the consent? By living in America one consents to adhering to all the policies of the American government. If one is displeased he can simply leave whenever he likes. Therefore, the government would only be initiating force if it refused to let the residents within its boundaries to leave, or attacked innocents outside of their boundaries. Unfortunately, I think this may be how it really works. Even more unfortunate is the fact that there is no where to move to. One can leave America, but it may be the freest country presently on the globe despite all its initiatory force. Once again I have not actually done any research. I have no idea if America is the freest country on the globe. I assume it is one of them. However, there is no unclaimed land to go to. There is no wilderness where natural rights are natural rights and there is no government to confuse them with warped citizen's rights and then violate natural rights in the name of consent by choosing to live some where. There is no place for the capitalistic anarchy, but as I have stated that appears to have its problems. It may be worse than a liberal democracy.

As one can see I am caught in this tug of war. Throughout high school I wanted to work for the government. I wanted to be a protector of natural rights. However, I have come to see that if I was part of the government I would be initiating force. I would be violating natural rights. I would not be a defender. Therefore, I no longer desire to work for the government; however, the desire to defend is still there. I have had a few conversations with my cousins about what is enabling government force and what is not. I see government employment as clear enabling. They do not. I am unsure about voting. By voting there is that consent given to the government; however, as I have stated, I think the real consent comes from living here. However, that really does not seem right to say living here is the consent, and thus by staying here I am enabling. Therefore, wherever I went I would be enabling some government. My cousins pointed out that by my argument using roads and public transportation would be enabling. There seems to be some truth to that. Unfortunately, I use public transportation frequently. Of course, I really do not have much choice in the matter. I cannot afford a car and I need to get places. I could just go to less places though. However, even if I had a car I would have to use the roads, meaning I would need a helicopter and I cannot afford that let alone I have no idea how to fly it. Therefore, I am decided about public transportation and roads. There seems to be something wrong with calling it enabling because of my limited choice. However, I could always choose not to go anywhere, but even the people who brought me my food would use the roads. Of course, I could grow my own food. These make me question whether or not government employment is enabling tyranny. I obviously have much more choice in that matter.

The way my cousin explained it to me is through an anecdote. If an amnesiac washes up on the shore starving and approaches a house for food but no one is home, should the man break in and steal food. The answer is obviously yes because life is valuable and even the home owner should value life. However, the man should remain at the home until the owner returns. He should explain the situation and offer to pay back everything. The damage of breaking in and the food he ate. He should even offer to work for the home owner until the debt is paid if he has no money. My cousin states that government employment, using the roads, etc. is just like this. Their motives for government employment is to increase liberty. I see that as impossible to accomplish because as I stated before the people are the government. The people must change first, then the government can follow. Unfortunately, currently people do not want to increase liberty. However, my cousin argues that working for the government to increase liberty is just like a prolonged version of that anecdote. I really do not see it though because who is the amnesiac and who is the home owner. The home owner must be the people, for their house is being invaded and their food eaten. That is the apparent initiation of force. However, the amnesiac cannot be the government. That would mean that the government is sick and dying and needs what the people have to live. This is somewhat true, but there is no incentive to keep the government alive. It is an institution not a dying human being. Maybe the amnesiac is the amount of liberty, breaking into the house is the government, and the home owner is the people. Therefore, after awhile the amnesiac is not starving, liberty is increased, breaking into the house and government is no longer needed, and the home owner and the people are satisfied. That seems a little shaky to me though because the people and the government are directly related; therefore, the home owner and the breaking and entering should be related. Meaning, the home owner should have instigated the break in some how.

the final point my cousin gave me was that the good is not the enemy of the perfect. He said this to point out that a good government, a government that protects individuals' rights most of the time is not the enemy of the perfect government that never violates individuals' natural rights. My problem is where is the line between good an evil, and is the American government or any government on the side of good, or is everything on the side of evil? This also applies to actions such as employment with the government. Is that good or evil? Certainly, none of them are perfect.