We were having a discussion in another topic regarding this issue.
For the sake of the discussion, suppose there is a government/state that is regarded as evil by a considerable proportion of people (say 5% but not necessarily a majority) both within that state and outside. Not that numbers necessarily matter. And suppose that those who think so are right, i.e. that government is truly illegitimate.
Let’s say somebody from the outside has the means to overthrow it without endangering innocents.
Would you find it morally correct for him to act on it? I would say yes, if he’s right.
LS seemed to argue against it, but in that case shouldn’t we just go home and join the army, respect government etc.? After all, if we concede government is legitimate, it might at most be a nuisance. Because if it is not legitimate, why would acting against government be morally wrong?
If 5% of the population did not have faith in the government, then what could the government do to them if they all decided to stop obeying the government?
You really think the government people would have the stomach for killing a full 5% of the population? Even though that 5% was not being aggressive towards the government? I mean come on, really? 5%. 1 out of every 20 people in the population. Yes, I know government is awful, but come on guys, government is made up of humans. They would be killing their own family and friends and the family and friends of their friends. All for what? Because they refused to obey? Let alone in a country that believes the death penalty should be reserved for the worst criminals. They would not kill us.
Convince a large part of the other 95% that they are cultists, or vandals, or the bourgeois, or parasites on the society, and it’ll be pretty easy to get them all killed.
I think a quote from Samuel Adams would reflect how I feel about this topic:
‘If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us
in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down
and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon
you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen’
You really think they could do that? I suppose it’s not substantially unreasonable, but I still believe that some sense would be knocked into at least a large minority of the people.
I don’t know, perhaps the stupidity of the average American mind has no limits, maybe you are right.
Oh, and this will happen how? You do realize, that 5% is 1 out of every 20 people, right? You do realize that these 1 out of every 20 people work with the other 20 people, right? You do realize that 1 out of every 20 people have family and friends, right? You do realize that 1 out of every 20 people in the U.S. would be fifteen million people right? You give the government way too much credit to believe they could wave some magic wand to condemn 15 million people to death just for disobeying or have far too pessimistic a view on humanity.
Exactly. The government would lose no matter what they did. If they imprison the 5%, they go broke and lose a public relations battle. If they kill the 5%, they lose the public relations battle and show their true colors. If they don’t do anything, everyone else will just stop obeying.
I think you’re right, I just don’t share your optimism. I think the government can do anything if it is instituted slowly enough. Salami theory is, unfortunately, empirically tested.
It is only moral to prevent the State from holding you(and people who feel the same way as you) in an involuntary relationship. You don’t have the right to prevent others from associating with (and victimizing) each other.