Moving the goalposts are we? Are we to assume that the Soviet Union is or isn’t an industrialized nation?
Well I’m still confused. You say that government won’t kill large portions of people, but you say that can’t imprison people. What in the history of the state leads you to the conclusion that government will not do all that is necessary to sustain itself? Will it just crumble without a fight if we start saying no? They stick those who stand in their way concerning their foreign domains in a legal vacuum in which they extend no rights nor show any sign of release and are constantly torturing these individuals for extended periods at a time. These are dehumanized foreigners [ some are actually American citizens ]. You cannot imagine the dehumanization of a certain sector of society? [ one need only recall the HUAC ] Thus making it so much simpler to jail, torture and kill people? In the 50’s would the majority really be against torturing Communists in order to gain information? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Again you are moving the goalposts. What are we going to consider ‘industrialized’?
What do you propose to do when the government tries to kidnap you? Say ‘5% of America won’t like this!’?
Those who propound welfare and social programs and see it as a obligation to pay taxes for that purpose.
Reserve inequality of value. Of course if they are exchanging money for your food ‘dilemma’ at McDonalds then they are a fortiori benefiting in a ex-ante sense. If they don’t exchange the money then they don’t.
Theres a difference between emotionalism and emotions. If you value life, your emotions react when millions are killed. Its a subconscious calculation.
I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.
Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.
Allow me to clarify. The rulers responsible for these monstrosities, as individuals, deserve punishment in a fully justifiable fashion. These people constitute the government. I am basing this off the mass murdering, theft, and imprisonment committed by afore-mentioned rulers.
If the individual does it on a one to one basis and for the correct reason, then definitely. A state naturally has no rights and can’t feel pain, so it shouldn’t feel pleasure either; it simply has the responsibility to protect individual liberty.
Don’t worry, you’ll eventually realize bickering about minarchist & anarchist dichotomies is a waste of time beyond the computer armchairs.
Practical strategies might involve both, but this would be annoying to the idealists, especially we all reluctantly live in state-society regardless, & must learn how to survive in such a hostile environment, lest the individual dies.
It’s not as if we are already in an anarchist society & must strive to keep statism down before it takes over, because it already has, honestly.
The state is necessary in “situations where the state is necessary”. Even if we cannot come up with examples it does not prove they cannot exist. Oof. It is annoying to the idealists.
In the case of ‘revolution’, no, for that simply means mob violence and a repeat of the American and French failed experiments. But if one means to replace the State, when one has both the right and might to do so (for there is no right that is not also a might, one must not simply have an idea of an imaginary society, but must actually be in a positiion to become the government). To replace democracy with something that is sane and functional, such as a private equity right-wing kingship, is moral so long as it is possible.
Under the conditions you describe, it would be morally correct for him to act - on behalf of the sizable proportion of the people who are forced to endure the presence of the evils promulgated by this state. If he beleives he is right in in his judgement that this is an overblown and completely immoral state, then he would be right in asking for someone from the outside. He would have to trust this outsiders promise that innocents wouldn’t be endangered, and also have assurance that those with outside means also have moral rationale for their offer of help.
It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you.
I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is.
Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.
You still don`t know what a blockade is. A blockade means using force to prevent goods from a third country reaching the blockaded country. It is an aggression against two seperate parties and an act of war.
Even embargo is illegitimate. A government is free to cease trading herself, but has no business forcing its citizens to follow suit.