This evening I had a long debate with my friend about the ethics of government. He said that he was willing to accept large amounts of government because many of the things government does either help him (restaurant smoking bans), can be avoided (marijuana prohibition), or didn’t hurt his standard of living too much (taxation). He seemed to think (but wouldn’t admit when I pressed him) that majority opinion authorizes any government action.
At the end of this debate we were discussing the minimum wage and I asked him “would you support forcing your employer to pay you more than your worth?” and he replied “Of course, wouldn’t you?” I was astounded, it felt like when Nixon said “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal” in Frost/Nixon. I told him that I didn’t believe in using force, but something came up and our conversation was cut short.
This seems to me to be the ultimate defense for statism. That institutionalized coercion is legitimate on its face. Not for utilitarian reasons (government make society better off), practical reasons (anc-cap “wouldn’t work”), or ethical reasons (it’s in human nature to have a government). My friend seemed to accept that government is an unethical institution, but that he supports it because it’s unethical actions make his life better.
Is there a philosophical response to this? I could be pragmatic and show how that government really doesn’t make him better off (especially in the long run), but I’m looking for a philosophical response other than, “you’re an evil person.”
Hypothetically speaking, if a government made its citizens lives better on average, would you still consider it unethical? (i.e, it increased net happiness).
Technically wouldn’t anarchy make his life even better than the government does? Sure he’ll have to lower his time-preference but he won’t be disappointed in the investment.
He said that he was willing to accept large amounts of government because many of the things government does either help him (restaurant smoking bans) [so he’s a fascist who imposes his own subjective prefrences on others], can be avoided (marijuana prohibition [someone missed the war on drugs]), or didn’t hurt his standard of living too much (taxation)[and someone missed an econ lesson or two].
I was once close to this camp. I thought it was OK for the US to run a worldwide empire, so long as we did so benevolently. Of course, there’s nothing benevolent about strafing Iraqi children with 20mm cannons, even though it does benefit me (it’s part of the DC imperial strategy that keeps us from having to pay our national debt so our government can deliver us gold-plated public works benefits and so on, essentially, stealing from people overseas to pay for our lifestyle here.) I’m sorry but there really is no way around it, to assent to such a system is evil. It’s too bad that there is a significant minority that will assent to the naked crimes of state so long as those crimes benefit #1. I guess society hasn’t changed as much as it is supposed.
If it made everyone’s life better, than it wouldn’t really be coercive, but rather a voluntary association. On the other hand, if you’re talking about benefitting some at the expense of others, then there are two immediate questions to answer:
How do you quantify and add the utilities of different people?
Why should the people getting harmed accept this as desirable?
As a practical matter, I think it’s unwise to pull the “you’re evil” card without having a more involved discussion first. You might want to ask your friend if he would steal (/kill/etc.) if he knew that he wasn’t going to get caught*. If he says no, then you have a seed to work with – an affirmation that ethics is not all about self-interest. From there, you can try to break down his mental compartmentalization barriers: what is the state, if not a group of people?
Statist ethics comes about when you divide your thinking into separate domains that you don’t see any relation between. E.g., “It’s bad if I do it, but it’s OK if The State does it,” or “I wouldn’t steal from you, my friend, but I’d steal from a stranger.” Stating it in such stark terms makes the contradiction more apparent, so it’s likely to be responded to by something along the lines of “Well, that’s not really the same thing…”
*(I admit, this is rather manipulative, since even if he were actually willing to do these things, he probably wouldn’t say so in public.)
You need to point out the gun in the room. He doesn’t realise it’s in his hands, aimed at other peoples heads. At the moment he’s advocating other people (gang of thieves) do his dirty work for him.
Bring it down to the personal level. Would he iniate physical aggression against you for smoking a joint? etc.
If he says yes…
Response is to enquire, “How far would you go?” “Would you put a gun to my head, and if I said I’m going to keep on doing which isn’t harming anyone else… would you shoot me dead?”
Show him how inconsistent his views are. He thinks coercion is good if it favors him, but I’m sure the minute it’s on him he’ll be singing a different tune.
I’m very sorry, but you do understand that YOURE ON AN ECONOMICS SITE THAT SUPPORTS FRE MARKETS, MOSTLY ON THE BASIS THAT IT SUPPORTS HIGHER LIVING STANDARDS??? The whole point is that the lack of a state (the austrians believe) will end in higher living standards. Indeed I’m an (ethically) nihlist libertarian who encourages a stateless society because it coincides with both of my major societal value preferences for voluntary interactions followed by higher living standards
The minimum wage for everyone hurts everyone (even in mainstreamis is basic economics this is even accepted widley) , a minimum wage for one helps that person but is so irrelevant that it really doesn’t effect anyone else in any way. However his statement that he supports a minimium wage, but doesn’t support his earlier statement that supports taxation but also supports minimum wage which have (according to his analysis) opposite effects
However if you’re looking for a “more philisophical” statement just attack his value preference for “a better life” and talk about how hes hurting others and himself by supporting the state. If I like helping people and instead all I do is hurt them, then attack the absurdity of my methods
It sounds like Utilitarianism, greatest good for the greatest number of people. You can’t really show that government won’t make his life better in the long run, because government does make lives better for some people. Look at Clinton or Palin, they are superstars because of government and media. Anyone who gets a government job is somewhat better off.
On average it won’t make things better. But it is just that, an average. It makes things better for some, worse for most.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Stefan Molyneux’s video was excellent, I’ll have to look up more stuff of his.
I was thinking about the discussion I had with my friend I think I know where he was going with his argument. He was stating that his quality of life is very high and so he doesn’t care that the government is invading his life. I have to agree with this position a little. Government is ethically wrong, but my life is pretty good, so I’m not going to start a revolution or stop paying my taxes. My friend took this position a little farther by saying that since the status quo is desirable, the current level of government is not only tolerable, but also ethical.
Your standard of life would be higher without the state
This system may work for you, but for the billions living in poverty due to state actions it doesn’t work so much
With the economy as it is today, and the possibility of an impending crash, it might well be that your current defence may no longer apply
What you need to show him is something along the lines of this: If you lived a normal middle class life but for the fact that you had no air conditioning or heating, would you say “oh, it’s ok I still live a pretty good standard of life”? No. You would try to fix it. If you had to work more for a few months, and then get a paycheck that is noticably higher for the rest of your life, then I assume you would work more for the few months and then enjoy the few thousands of dollars more for the rest of your lifetime. The point is why isn’t he attempting to improve his quality of life? At very least it’s understandable why he wouldn’t directly be attempting to, say, overthrow the state, but why is he doing the equivilent of “oh no, I like it that my airconditioning is broken”, while outside it’s a 100 degrees.
Try to understand his value preferences, stop using made up/high minded words like “morality”, and focus on what HE values and then (assuming it is the case) attempt to show him that they would be better satisfied in a stateless society.
