Moral Shielding Through Democracy

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Let me first frame my own position: I am an anarchist and a libertarian. I believe no initiation of violence, fraud, or threat thereof should be tolerated. This is the Non-Aggression Principle. Now regardless of the implications of this, I believe everyone accepts this in their own little way.

Now, this applies to government as well, and I would argue that government initiation of aggression is just as unjust as the private variety. I imagine most would also agree with this, as well.

Now to get the point, one of the more disappointing matters concerning this last election was the various state amendments banning gay marriage that passed. Even several abortion bans were narrowly defeated.

I consider both of these measures to be exactly what I was referring to: illegitimate initiation of violence from the government. I have a feeling many here will agree with me.

So here is my question: Since these measure were settled by direct democracy, would all those who voted for these proposals bear a moral culpability? Should they be held as responsible as if they initiated the violence themselves, as if they personally stopped a woman from getting an abortion or stopped two gay men from having a marriage?

Not accounting for the feasibility of it, consider: if a new government was founded that was bound by a true moral code (simply insert your moral code), should those who have voted for unjust actions by the government (not necessarily what I have mentioned, consider segregation laws or any other possible law that you would consider morally reprehensible) be held responsible for those actions and be punished as if they had done them personally?

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Now to get the point, one of the more disappointing matters concerning this last election was the various state amendments banning gay marriage that passed. Even several abortion bans were narrowly defeated.

I consider both of these measures to be exactly what I was referring to: illegitimate initiation of violence from the government. I have a feeling many here will agree with me.

I don't see how banning gay marriage or abortion is an act of violence, unless you consider all laws acts of violence. I would call them imfringements on individual liberty.

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

So here is my question: Since these measure were settled by direct democracy, would all those who voted for these proposals bear a moral culpability? Should they be held as responsible as if they initiated the violence themselves, as if they personally stopped a woman from getting an abortion or stopped two gay men from having a marriage?

Not accounting for the feasibility of it, consider: if a new government was founded that was bound by a true moral code (simply insert your moral code), should those who have voted for unjust actions by the government (not necessarily what I have mentioned, consider segregation laws or any other possible law that you would consider morally reprehensible) be held responsible for those actions and be punished as if they had done them personally?

Well first, let me state the obvious, which you implied yourself; this is impossible. In a democratic state, who would punish the majority for making their decision? By definition, any such punishment would be illegal. Moreover, if banning gay marriage or abortion is an act of violence, as you say, how would punishment for those who favoured the bans not be an act of violence? Frankly, if you hold all violence, which you seem to equate with coersion, as morally wrong and unjustified, then government itself is unjustified, justice is unjustified. You cannot be a libertarian, as libertarians require a government, albeit of very minimal one.

This is what I have never understood about people who say that anarchy is the only just form of society; if you abolish government coercion, which is the essential of government, because coercion is itself unjustified, how can you claim that anarchy, in which each person takes on the role of the government, can be just? That said, I have no problem with anarchy; but anarchy must be a state of affairs in which there are no moral principles or rules, not one which somehow supports freedom, as an absolute right. Anarchy can only be a result of absence of rules, not the system by which a just rule is manifested.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

I don't see how banning gay marriage or abortion is an act of violence, unless you consider all laws acts of violence. I would call them imfringements on individual liberty.

Abortion is the better circumstance, so consider, once abortion is completely outlawed, how do you think a woman who has an abortion or tries to have an abortion will be handled by the government?

Conditional promises to initiate violence is forbidden as well by the NAP.

Well first, let me state the obvious, which you implied yourself; this is impossible. In a democratic state, who would punish the majority for making their decision? By definition, any such punishment would be illegal. Moreover, if banning gay marriage or abortion is an act of violence, as you say, how would punishment for those who favoured the bans not be an act of violence? Frankly, if you hold all violence, which you seem to equate with coersion, as morally wrong and unjustified, then government itself is unjustified, justice is unjustified. You cannot be a libertarian, as libertarians require a government, albeit of very minimal one.

OK. First I am assuming a revolution of some sort. The current system is overhauled and all unjust laws overturned.

Now, I am not a pacifist, I simply oppose aggression. This means that while I am not justified in initiating violence against an individual, I am justified in using violence to protect myself from aggression as well as recouping any theft or harm, or possibly punishing to prevent recurrence.

And there are branches of libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and mutualists, who hold that no government is necessary.

This is what I have never understood about people who say that anarchy is the only just form of society; if you abolish government coercion, which is the essential of government, because coercion is itself unjustified, how can you claim that anarchy, in which each person takes on the role of the government, can be just? That said, I have no problem with anarchy; but anarchy must be a state of affairs in which there are no moral principles or rules, not one which somehow supports freedom, as an absolute right. Anarchy can only be a result of absence of rules, not the system by which a just rule is manifested.

There are many anarchists who are pacifists. They don't makes sense to me, but they exist. The supporter of the NAP does not oppose coersion or violence itself, rather aggression and invasion onto the person of another, what that means can vary.

Anarchy does not oppose rules, it merely opposes rulers. Rules are perfectly fine to the anarchist as long as they are consented to and not imposed. Proudhon, for example, insisted that justice rested completely in upholding contractual agreement, with many building upon this idea to form a model for which private individuals meeting together in a marketplace would provide the methods for guaranteeing this.

There is also a line of thinkers who take anarchism to be a complete lack of prescripted rules, with all actors acting rationally and freely simply coexisting peacefully. I tend to fall in this group, as I think the costs of violence are prohibitive unless supported by an outside party. The government and its thinktanks have long provided the cost cutting methods of ideological hegemony through religious justifications.

More recently, liberal tradition has brought us democracy, which argues that, as long as you have the chance to vote, you are justified in getting screwed. The real danger of democracy is in the guaranteed support of uninvolved bystanders in assuaging the costs of violence.

It would require a pretty major social revolution, but if people began to understand themselves and act as rational individuals, violence simply would no longer be a productive choice and mutual freedom of all actors would lead to mutual benefit of all actors.

[BrightNoon]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Anarchy does not oppose rules, it merely opposes rulers. Rules are perfectly fine to the anarchist as long as they are consented to and not imposed. Proudhon, for example, insisted that justice rested completely in upholding contractual agreement, with many building upon this idea to form a model for which private individuals meeting together in a marketplace would provide the methods for guaranteeing this.

-----

It would require a pretty major social revolution, but if people began to understand themselves and act as rational individuals, violence simply would no longer be a productive choice and mutual freedom of all actors would lead to mutual benefit of all actors.

1. A rule that is only consented to is not a rule; unless the rule is enforced is does nothing. In the same way, a contractual agreement, with no manner of enforcing the contract, is worthless.

2. Violence is definately beneficial for those who are more successful at it. It would take more than a social revolution, it would take a different creature than man, one that always put the needs or desires of others above its own, which is reprehensible and impossible I think. On the other hand, this might be possible if you ensure a constant supply of LSD.