3 ms·

I do not. However, my conscience is not clear. I'd like to see a more peaceful world. But I am not, and cannot possibly be responsible for the actions of any

I do not. However, my conscience is not clear. I'd like to see a more peaceful world. But I am not, and cannot possibly be responsible for the actions of any other man or woman. I never asked anyone to go kill anyone else. However, I am not doing everything in my power to stop people from doing so. So there is some conflict here.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
Yeah I get it, and I think this is the most common way of thinking about it. Here's where I ended up though: I was taught that the government acts on behalf of its citizens in the interests of its citizens. I largely don't think that's true, but if it is to any extent, then to that same extent we are culpable for its actions. If not then we're knowingly casting away our responsibility, essentially the bystander effect on a grand scale. If it's not true at all and the government doesn't act on my behalf or for my benefit, then there is a coercive, violent force acting in my name without my consent. Either way, whether or not I am responsible, I must oppose its violence.
- manofmanysmiles 5y ago
  > then there is a coercive, violent force acting in my name without my consent. There is. Or really, there are people that believe they are doing what is right in the name of government. I did not vote for the people who claim to have the right to rule. Even if I did, could they prove they are acting as my agents? They are simply doing what they chose, using their own free will, either for good or for evil. Not once did I delegate any of my authority to them, even if I could. Here's a thought: let's say that 2/3rds of a group of people decide it would be nice to have a place where the downtrodden can go get free meals, which sounds like an admirable goal. However, instead of using their own effort to build this place, they instead decide to appoint another group of people, they label "the government" to do so. They cast votes anonymously, and select 10 people to act as "the government". These people decided that in order to build their place to feed the downtrodden, they will go and take (by force if necessary), the property of other people, such as money, land goods, etc. Is there really a government, or are there people that believe there is a government, and act as if they have the right to use force? Another question, how are you opposing its violence? I ask because with all my talk, I am only taking baby steps to oppose it, and maybe you have come up with a better way.

giraffe_lady 5y ago

Yeah I get it, and I think this is the most common way of thinking about it. Here's where I ended up though: I was taught that the government acts on behalf of its citizens in the interests of its citizens. I largely don't think that's true, but if it is to any extent, then to that same extent we are culpable for its actions. If not then we're knowingly casting away our responsibility, essentially the bystander effect on a grand scale. If it's not true at all and the government doesn't act on my behalf or for my benefit, then there is a coercive, violent force acting in my name without my consent. Either way, whether or not I am responsible, I must oppose its violence.

manofmanysmiles 5y ago
> then there is a coercive, violent force acting in my name without my consent. There is. Or really, there are people that believe they are doing what is right in the name of government. I did not vote for the people who claim to have the right to rule. Even if I did, could they prove they are acting as my agents? They are simply doing what they chose, using their own free will, either for good or for evil. Not once did I delegate any of my authority to them, even if I could. Here's a thought: let's say that 2/3rds of a group of people decide it would be nice to have a place where the downtrodden can go get free meals, which sounds like an admirable goal. However, instead of using their own effort to build this place, they instead decide to appoint another group of people, they label "the government" to do so. They cast votes anonymously, and select 10 people to act as "the government". These people decided that in order to build their place to feed the downtrodden, they will go and take (by force if necessary), the property of other people, such as money, land goods, etc. Is there really a government, or are there people that believe there is a government, and act as if they have the right to use force? Another question, how are you opposing its violence? I ask because with all my talk, I am only taking baby steps to oppose it, and maybe you have come up with a better way.