4 ms·

I agree that government should be prohibited from killing anyone, just like regular people should be prohibited from killing anyone (the self-defense case is di

I agree that government should be prohibited from killing anyone, just like regular people should be prohibited from killing anyone (the self-defense case is different, even from a moral point of view, because all major moral systems distinguish between attack and defense). Most democratic governments manage to work just fine without threatening to kill anyone. The death penalty is the exception rather than the rule in civilized societies. Also, you will find that a vast majority of people accept the use of force by government in the vast majority of cases where it actually happens in practice (which is to stop violent crime). Yes, government uses force in other situations. And usually, that is followed by a public outcry when it becomes known. And when the people actually agree that this use of force is inappropriate, laws do tend to change - see the history of civil disobedience around the world as an example.

oleganza 14y ago
Death penalty as described in a law is irrelevant. What is relevant is a threat of murder when police/court requires you to do something. Pay a fee, pay taxes, go to jail etc. And this threat of murder is very real and is used in enforcement of every single law. Government never threatens you with ostracism and defamation. It always threatens you with death if you do not obey.
- nhaehnle 14y ago
  I call bullshit. Outside of a death penalty, government does not threaten you with murder, but with prison in the worst case. Government will actually try not to kill you, even if you resist arrest (note: I was once arrested - or is it detained? - for political reasons. I'm not sure about the legal terms in English). Obviously, if you barricade yourself in with machine guns or more, it might come to a stand-off where you are killed. But ask yourself this: If it comes to that, how many people will still think you were acting reasonably relative to any standard? The only way you could possibly talk about a threat of murder by government (in countries that do not have the death penalty) is if you're essentially saying: "There is a possibility for me to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves my own use of physical violence to such an extent that some government agent may end up killing me. This is what I mean by 'threat of murder'." But then the term "threat of murder" becomes entirely meaningless, because by that standard, virtually every person in the world threatens you with murder every day. Think about it: There is a possibility for you to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves your use of physical violence to such an extent that any random stranger may end up killing you - in attempted self-defense against your own violence. So: Do you believe every person in the world is latently threatening you with murder? Because if you truly, genuinely believe that government generally threatens you with murder (independently of a death penalty), then you must logically hold that belief as well. Now to be fair, I think I have some understanding of where you are coming from. I got acquainted with some far leftist/anarchist groups during my undergraduate. This feeling of being up against an all-powerful and overreaching evil can be a powerful social glue. This is what they felt, and I suppose it affected me as well, though to a smaller extent. But I grew up. I sincerely hope for your own sanity that there is some part of your mind that recognizes how ridiculously extremist you previously stated position is.
  - oleganza 14y ago
    Calling idea ridiculous for being extreme is dishonest. Idea either has merit or it does not, regardless of your opinion of its extremity. Roundness of Earth was also considered extreme, that does not change its validity. You say I'm extending definition of "threat of murder" to everyone. That's true, but it's not their fault. If we both have a thing called "court", then even if I don't want myself to inflict violence on you, I'm not sure you won't use the court against me. Since the court has the last word and all the guns in the world, I have no choice, but to protect myself by either fleeing from the jurisdiction or using the court against you. It's absolutely the same with patents: Apple and Google are buying up patents because if one of them does not, they will be damaged by others. You could blame them only if they had voluntarily established such a destructive system for themselves, but they did not. Patent cross-licensing is an evidence that people do not like fighting with each other: by doing cross-licensing two entities expect to reduce amount of stupid fight. Of course, human nature is not perfect and some people who are born into this system, feel they have a full moral right to use it for their benefit. E.g. recent war of Apple against Samsung is mostly proactive use of violence that was sold via patents. But even here, the problem does not begin with Apple, but with those who controls the guns (Apple only hired some of them). Without state some people can still voluntarily fund an agency with guns, courts, licensing and patents. But it will be very different from today's situation. Because today the violence is paid by taxpayers, not the actual users. So when some army of lawyers wants to press you for copying a file, it is not them who pay for prosecutors, lawmakers, prisons, police, propaganda, army and huge bureaucracy. Lawyers spend their salary not on guns and prisons, but on iPods and spa. So how about trying to build an army of policemen using private funds? What would be the business model? Who would risk putting money in the enterprise? If you seriously fear that someone could earn a $billion and then risk all of it to build a James Bond-style corporation of evil, then you for sure cannot advocate the state - a monopoly on violence funded by forcible extraction instead of voluntary investment. Did you notice that all of evil guys in James Bond movies were either government-funded or absolutely economically impossible (how would you gather 1000 engineers to build a secret nuclear weapon without massive public propaganda that military spendings are good for "society")? All real big mafia structures exist with governmental support. And the bigger they are - the more support they have. Actually, the government is simply a name for the biggest organized thugs in a given region. Ultimately, it boils down to existence of choice: those who have no choice are not moral agents. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, but I cannot justify any violence and I don't need to - I simply have no choice. If we both are in a situation when court ruling will put one of us in jail, we have no choice but to play this game. Are we morally responsible for this? Not as much, as the prosecutor, who sure has a choice to not threaten either of us. Equally, if someone steals a wallet from you, and you do not expect any violent threat from this guy, would you think it's morally justified to catch him and put in jail? If he cannot give you wallet back without you breaking his neck, would you prefer to let him go and make sure he never steals again (using doors, locks, reputation, insurance, ostracism), or will you threaten him with physical violence? If latter, would you institutionalize this threat of violence (and accept a risk of getting hit by it), or you'd rather not give anyone ultimate power and seek more preventive solutions? If you can hire a protection agency voluntarily, would you require maximum transparency of its operations and other proofs that they cannot kill people arbitrarily and would immediately lose a lot of money in case everyone withdraws their contracts? If you want to be an armed guard, you sure will have to prove to everyone how they will punish you effectively in case of a corruption. Without such proof, no one will hire you. If you would require such transparency and strict controls as a customer of protection agency, why is it okay to have a government who was not established with your consent and which cannot be affected directly and immediately in case of misbehavior, but on contrary is forcing you to fund it anyway? It is huge logical mistake to fear a violent guy in a free market and at the same time allow a system of monopoly of such violence that surely will attract people who'd love to use such power.

oleganza 14y ago

Death penalty as described in a law is irrelevant. What is relevant is a threat of murder when police/court requires you to do something. Pay a fee, pay taxes, go to jail etc. And this threat of murder is very real and is used in enforcement of every single law. Government never threatens you with ostracism and defamation. It always threatens you with death if you do not obey.

nhaehnle 14y ago
I call bullshit. Outside of a death penalty, government does not threaten you with murder, but with prison in the worst case. Government will actually try not to kill you, even if you resist arrest (note: I was once arrested - or is it detained? - for political reasons. I'm not sure about the legal terms in English). Obviously, if you barricade yourself in with machine guns or more, it might come to a stand-off where you are killed. But ask yourself this: If it comes to that, how many people will still think you were acting reasonably relative to any standard? The only way you could possibly talk about a threat of murder by government (in countries that do not have the death penalty) is if you're essentially saying: "There is a possibility for me to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves my own use of physical violence to such an extent that some government agent may end up killing me. This is what I mean by 'threat of murder'." But then the term "threat of murder" becomes entirely meaningless, because by that standard, virtually every person in the world threatens you with murder every day. Think about it: There is a possibility for you to behave in a way that is so far out of the social norm and involves your use of physical violence to such an extent that any random stranger may end up killing you - in attempted self-defense against your own violence. So: Do you believe every person in the world is latently threatening you with murder? Because if you truly, genuinely believe that government generally threatens you with murder (independently of a death penalty), then you must logically hold that belief as well. Now to be fair, I think I have some understanding of where you are coming from. I got acquainted with some far leftist/anarchist groups during my undergraduate. This feeling of being up against an all-powerful and overreaching evil can be a powerful social glue. This is what they felt, and I suppose it affected me as well, though to a smaller extent. But I grew up. I sincerely hope for your own sanity that there is some part of your mind that recognizes how ridiculously extremist you previously stated position is.
- oleganza 14y ago
  Calling idea ridiculous for being extreme is dishonest. Idea either has merit or it does not, regardless of your opinion of its extremity. Roundness of Earth was also considered extreme, that does not change its validity. You say I'm extending definition of "threat of murder" to everyone. That's true, but it's not their fault. If we both have a thing called "court", then even if I don't want myself to inflict violence on you, I'm not sure you won't use the court against me. Since the court has the last word and all the guns in the world, I have no choice, but to protect myself by either fleeing from the jurisdiction or using the court against you. It's absolutely the same with patents: Apple and Google are buying up patents because if one of them does not, they will be damaged by others. You could blame them only if they had voluntarily established such a destructive system for themselves, but they did not. Patent cross-licensing is an evidence that people do not like fighting with each other: by doing cross-licensing two entities expect to reduce amount of stupid fight. Of course, human nature is not perfect and some people who are born into this system, feel they have a full moral right to use it for their benefit. E.g. recent war of Apple against Samsung is mostly proactive use of violence that was sold via patents. But even here, the problem does not begin with Apple, but with those who controls the guns (Apple only hired some of them). Without state some people can still voluntarily fund an agency with guns, courts, licensing and patents. But it will be very different from today's situation. Because today the violence is paid by taxpayers, not the actual users. So when some army of lawyers wants to press you for copying a file, it is not them who pay for prosecutors, lawmakers, prisons, police, propaganda, army and huge bureaucracy. Lawyers spend their salary not on guns and prisons, but on iPods and spa. So how about trying to build an army of policemen using private funds? What would be the business model? Who would risk putting money in the enterprise? If you seriously fear that someone could earn a $billion and then risk all of it to build a James Bond-style corporation of evil, then you for sure cannot advocate the state - a monopoly on violence funded by forcible extraction instead of voluntary investment. Did you notice that all of evil guys in James Bond movies were either government-funded or absolutely economically impossible (how would you gather 1000 engineers to build a secret nuclear weapon without massive public propaganda that military spendings are good for "society")? All real big mafia structures exist with governmental support. And the bigger they are - the more support they have. Actually, the government is simply a name for the biggest organized thugs in a given region. Ultimately, it boils down to existence of choice: those who have no choice are not moral agents. If someone attacks me, I will defend myself, but I cannot justify any violence and I don't need to - I simply have no choice. If we both are in a situation when court ruling will put one of us in jail, we have no choice but to play this game. Are we morally responsible for this? Not as much, as the prosecutor, who sure has a choice to not threaten either of us. Equally, if someone steals a wallet from you, and you do not expect any violent threat from this guy, would you think it's morally justified to catch him and put in jail? If he cannot give you wallet back without you breaking his neck, would you prefer to let him go and make sure he never steals again (using doors, locks, reputation, insurance, ostracism), or will you threaten him with physical violence? If latter, would you institutionalize this threat of violence (and accept a risk of getting hit by it), or you'd rather not give anyone ultimate power and seek more preventive solutions? If you can hire a protection agency voluntarily, would you require maximum transparency of its operations and other proofs that they cannot kill people arbitrarily and would immediately lose a lot of money in case everyone withdraws their contracts? If you want to be an armed guard, you sure will have to prove to everyone how they will punish you effectively in case of a corruption. Without such proof, no one will hire you. If you would require such transparency and strict controls as a customer of protection agency, why is it okay to have a government who was not established with your consent and which cannot be affected directly and immediately in case of misbehavior, but on contrary is forcing you to fund it anyway? It is huge logical mistake to fear a violent guy in a free market and at the same time allow a system of monopoly of such violence that surely will attract people who'd love to use such power.