Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Legitimate Government

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

What does it mean to "be responsible"? If citizens are freely electing a government, then they are responsible for that government, in the sense that it is bound to reflect positions held by large groups of those citizens, and often by a majority of them. Imagine that all the blue states and all the red states were to join into two separate countries. Chances are the two governments would then change from what we have today: one becoming more blue and the other more red. So-- at least over the medium and long run -- the freely-voting citizens are the cause, and the government is the effect that flows from that cause. 

 

That does not mean that everyone is responsible or even equally responsible. When I look around me at friends, family and colleagues, I see some variety of opinions about the role of government (I'm speaking of non-Objectivists). If I take any particular government policy (environmentalism, or something on immigration, or taxation) I generally find that there is a fair degree of philosophic agreement among a majority of these people, about what the role of government should be. The individuals who constitute this majority may change for each topic; but, the majority (or high plurality) is always there. So, the policies of the government are a direct reflection of their individually-held ideas (except that it is a mish-mashed average).

 

As for what they should do when their government violates people's rights, the first step should be that they change their own thinking and principles about what is right and wrong. Even if they're sympathetic when an individual case makes the news, they're also the ones who support the violation in principle, in the first place. So, they need to change what they think. 

 

I could say that they should protest in various ways, but that would be to drop context. If they did not think the way they did, there would be nothing to protest. if they changed their minds, their government would not be violating rights in the first place.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One political group is different from another and the type of government would also differ under one group compared to another. Under our democracies, the effect of voting is that one political group (e.g. Democrats in the US or Conservative/Lib Dems in the UK) are voted into power. Causally, it is those who voted for the winning party who secured this outcome. If I voted for a losing party, you could not say I supported or wanted the winning party to come into power. If you analyse recent historic elections you might be surprised. I did this during my undergraduate degree. I found that in the last 50-60 years, there are some elections when, if you take non-voters and people who voted for opposing parties into account, only a minority of people actually gave their support to the party who came into power; some where the successful party secured less than 50% support from the citizenry (worse in my country than yours I recall), a case of largest minority rule rather than majority rule. To what extent is this legitimate or representative? I'm somewhat confused by your comments about changing minds. I think you are saying that the government is the result of our thinking, so if we want another type of government we must change our thinking. Well I am thinking clearly of a different type of government that I would want. I am not getting it. Am I responsible for changing the thinking and acting of the rest of the citizenry? If they won't listen, am I still responsible for the kind of government we have? Or should I just shrug? Only if I shrug, Objectivists like Peikoff seem to be calling for my death for being a passive supporter of a regime and therefore no longer an innocent with rights. Well to be more concrete, the death of innocent Iranians who are shrugging at their situation, who Peikoff would happily nuke into oblivion in the name of self defense. I want to explore the steps a citizenry would be expected to take in order to take it off another regime's kill list, when their government has already initiated force, or is threatening to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One political group is different from another and the type of government would also differ under one group compared to another. Under our democracies, the effect of voting is that one political group (e.g. Democrats in the US or Conservative/Lib Dems in the UK) are voted into power. Causally, it is those who voted for the winning party who secured this outcome. If I voted for a losing party, you could not say I supported or wanted the winning party to come into power. If you analyse recent historic elections you might be surprised. I did this during my undergraduate degree. I found that in the last 50-60 years, there are some elections when, if you take non-voters and people who voted for opposing parties into account, only a minority of people actually gave their support to the party who came into power; some where the successful party secured less than 50% support from the citizenry (worse in my country than yours I recall), a case of largest minority rule rather than majority rule. To what extent is this legitimate or representative?

I think this asks a good question -- when do we consider a government to be "legitimate"? And what does that mean, anyways? What changes between the relationship of a citizen to a legitimate government versus the relationship of a citizen to an illegitimate government? It seems potentially like a rich topic.

But I think it necessary to add that, thread title notwithstanding, this wasn't asked in the OP. I think that sN took on your two initial questions and answered them fairly.

 

I'm somewhat confused by your comments about changing minds. I think you are saying that the government is the result of our thinking, so if we want another type of government we must change our thinking. Well I am thinking clearly of a different type of government that I would want. I am not getting it.

Here I believe that you're changing the scope of the question, from treating the citizens as a group, as asked in the OP (i.e. "To what extent is a citizenry responsible for the actions of its elected representatives?"), to asking about individual responsibility.

When sN says "they need to change what they think," I think he's referring in the main to those who initially support an immoral government, not those who do not.

As for individual responsibility, he said:

 

That does not mean that everyone is responsible or even equally responsible.

That seems sensible to me.

 

Am I responsible for changing the thinking and acting of the rest of the citizenry? If they won't listen, am I still responsible for the kind of government we have? Or should I just shrug?

These are new questions. And they are good ones.

I think you're responsible for supporting that which is good and opposing that which is evil. The specific form that this support or opposition takes will vary, depending on context. I don't think that it would be reasonable to say that "a good man will take up arms against a tyranny" or so forth, independent of the context that any individual might have. Good men certainly may take up arms, but it also opposes bad government to, for instance, argue against the principles of bad governance. We must each decide our actions individually, depending on our individual circumstances.

This extends to trying to reason with others or to shrugging.

In no case are you responsible for what another man thinks or does.

 

Only if I shrug, Objectivists like Peikoff seem to be calling for my death for being a passive supporter of a regime and therefore no longer an innocent with rights. Well to be more concrete, the death of innocent Iranians who are shrugging at their situation, who Peikoff would happily nuke into oblivion in the name of self defense. I want to explore the steps a citizenry would be expected to take in order to take it off another regime's kill list, when their government has already initiated force, or is threatening to.

If we want to discuss a specific claim of Peikoff's, or any other, it might be helpful to have some quote or link to examine.

But if the question is "is it moral to target innocents," my answer (as in

the thread targeted at that question) remains no.

If the question is "what must a person do to be 'innocent'?" in this context, I would say at a minimum: do not initiate the use of force.

But yes, apart from what Peikoff may or may not have said (for it doesn't matter who advocates for what, imo; the truth remains the truth regardless of who speaks it), I think it's a good question as to what activities a citizen may engage in where they are no longer to be considered "innocent."

My early inclination is that it depends on the support one gives to a government, knowing that the government is engaged in the initiation of force (or that they will). If you willingly provide the Third Reich with funds, with arms, with technology, with propaganda, then I'd say that you are not innocent of their activities. What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One political group is different from another and the type of government would also differ under one group compared to another. Under our democracies, the effect of voting is that one political group (e.g. Democrats in the US or Conservative/Lib Dems in the UK) are voted into power. Causally, it is those who voted for the winning party who secured this outcome. If I voted for a losing party, you could not say I supported or wanted the winning party to come into power. If you analyse recent historic elections you might be surprised. I did this during my undergraduate degree. I found that in the last 50-60 years, there are some elections when, if you take non-voters and people who voted for opposing parties into account, only a minority of people actually gave their support to the party who came into power; some where the successful party secured less than 50% support from the citizenry (worse in my country than yours I recall), a case of largest minority rule rather than majority rule. To what extent is this legitimate or representative?

In most truly democratic countries, the ruling party does not get the votes of 50% or more of eligible voters. In the U.S. -- because the two main parties tend to assimilate third-parties -- the winner actually tends to get a higher percentage compared to the winner in (say) Israel or Greece [so fragmented that the election is not sufficient to decide, one has to wait until the various parties have figured out who will form a coalition with whom].

In the U.S., differences between the two main parties is what stands out, and is what elections are about. However, Republicans and Democrats agree about a lot of things. A lot of people who vote Republican want the government to play a role in helping the poor, in education, in healthcare, even though the Democratic party is more closely identified with higher roles for government in these areas. A lot of people who do not vote also favor government intervention in all sorts of fields. This similarity comes from what the citizenry as an average think about the role of government. over the longer run, even the nature of politicians, and what they say to appeal for votes depends on what appeals to voters. It is not as if there was a groundswell of opinion that drugs should be free, but the government decided that they're going to fight a "war on drugs". It is not as if people are all mad when the government announces some new "tax on the rich" or a "tax credit for each child".

 

Consider an issue where one might be able to point to a single party. Take, gay marriage, where the Republicans are significantly against more freedoms. Here too, it is not really about Republicans if you step back and look at this from the perspective of even a decade or two. The underlying causal factor is that people at large were against gay marriage. As attitudes have changed, so have the laws. On some issues, the Republicans will hold out and fight for the old way; on other issues it will be the Democrats. But, these are rear-guard actions. As opinion changes, the parties will move and so will the laws. 

 

As for non-voters, consider a typical example: a city holds an election to raise some millage. If the election is in a year when there is no presidential or Governor's election, the turnout will usually be low (under 50%). Of the people who turn out, it is typical to find a lot are motivated to vote "Yes". For instance, my city once wanted a tax of about $150/year for a really nice library. All the folks who use the library were campaigning with friends and family, and the ballot passed even though more than 50% of the voters stayed home. Voting is super easy. So, every non-voter who could easily make it to the polls is at least somewhat responsible for the "Yes". That's just the nature of the system they live in. If they don't show up, they're responsible for saying "I'll go with what everyone else decides". (This is not to say that one must vote in every election even if both candidates are bad) Perhaps the bulk of those who stay away are indifferent to the outcome, but I'm willing to bet the bulk also do not have some radically different vision about the role of government.

 

Parties are mixes of policies. If one lives in Israel, where the survival of the country has always been a bit of a question, one might vote for a liberal party or a right-wing party primarily based on their security and foreign-affairs policies, while disagreeing with much of the rest. Withe the large number of parties, and with proportional representation, one can choose hard-line secular, or hard-line religious, or centrist-liberal-tough, or labor, or ... the list goes on. Its quite a mish-mash, and yet -- taken across a longer time-frame -- governments tend to shift back and forth between left-leaning and right-leaning and the policies of the governments tend to reflect a degree of popular support over time.

 

I'll be interested if you can point to a democratic country where a significant majority of the population strongly favors some type of law, and where this has been their position for a while, yet the law is not enacted over the course of a few terms. The one exception I can think of is where a law requires a constitutional change, but I'd be really interested in pondering such an example when it was about a regular law that takes just 50% of the vote. 

 

So, every law does not reflect the view of everyone who voted for the majority party -- in fact sometimes those who did not vote for that party might actually support that particular law, and their views are actually part of the calculus that the opposition uses.  In that way, even holding a view -- while voting for the guy who votes against the view -- may not absolve you of responsibility, when your view gets enacted by the guy trying to woo you to his side.

 

This post has grown too long, so I'm going to stop here and not going on to the "what can I do" section.  In general, if you are in a tiny minority on some view, your options are limited vis-a-vis that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. To what extent is a citizenry responsible for the actions of its elected representatives?

2. If elected representatives make decisions resulting in the initiation of physical force, what steps is a citizen responsible for taking, against those elected representatives?

 

1) A citizen is responsible for the consequences of a legitimate vote.

 

2)  Protest, impeach, elect new representation.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standard libertarian account of consent is found in the 19th century individualist Lysander Spooner's series No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. Though he speaks within the context of the Civil War, it still is pretty pertinent to your questions. The whole text is available online for free and can be read in an hour or two. He discusses voting ethics, majority rules, social contract theory, the responsibility of both voter and elected representatives. You might find it interesting.

A more modern treatment can be found in Professor Huemer's The Problem of Authority, I'm not sure if it's s online in pdf form, but it might be. This covers more arguments of consent in general, while Spooner's treatment covers more of the actually existing US constitution. Huemer answers more of mainstream academic arguments, while Spooner's is more of a legal analysis (Spooner was an attorney.)

Both of them actually mention your argument that a majority of voters is never actually a majority of the country, Spooner brings up the fact that blacks and women, for example, were never consulted about the Constitution.

As far as the topic of whether it can be permissible to kill innocents, or cause collateral damage, that seems like a different topic altogether, but certainly related. I think it's more of a continuum than an absolute yes or no. It seems improbable that the aggressor is always responsible for anything and everything the victim does in response or in defense, but at the same time it seems improbable that it can never be justified to kill an innocent or cause incidental collateral damage.

Suppose that a madman straps a baby to his chest and starts shooting and the only way to defend yourself is to shoot both him and the baby. Most people would probably agree that the death of the baby is the aggressor's fault in that case. So when the victim has no choice but to cause collateral damage, the justification for doing so is strong. But what about cases where the victim could have chosen not to cause collateral damage, but chose to anyway, or cases where the victim is actually provoking the aggressor and even cases where the victim is also committing other kinds of aggression of his own? Certainly there are such cases, so it seems like the justification for causing collateral damage weakens significantly in those cases.

A good start is to read the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which actually makes a lot of reasonable sense, starting with the point that everyone has the inherent right of self defense.

Interesting to note that the arguments Peikoff uses that enemy civilians can be targeted is the exact same argument that al qaeda uses to justify targeting American civilians.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to note that the arguments Peikoff uses that enemy civilians can be targeted is the exact same argument that al qaeda uses to justify targeting American civilians.

 

Do you mean that in a superficial sense, as in they both believe it is a practical means of winning a war? Clearly the fundamental justifications differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing that I've been thinking about which relates to the spirit of the original question is the fact that a government represents its citizens in its dealings with other governments. If a government bombs another nation, it does so in the name of its citizens, whether individual citizens agree with the action or not. In this sense, a citizen of a country should expect to bear the responsibility of his government's actions, even if the citizen disagrees with them. He may not bear individual moral responsibility for the actions of his government but he must bear the practical results of responsibility as it is impossible to distinguish moral responsibility amongst every individual in a country. In this situation, the terrible situation the innocent citizen finds himself in (bearing responsibility for something he was not responsible for) lies at the feet of those who initiated/supported the initiation of force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

1. To what extent is a citizenry responsible for the actions of its elected representatives?

An individual is responsible to the extent that they elected that representative with the (rough) knowledge of what they would do.

2. If elected representatives make decisions resulting in the initiation of physical force, what steps is a citizen responsible for taking, against those elected representatives?

Those steps which are necessary to live their lives to the fullest.

"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world." -Robert Heinlein

In such a situation the citizens' moral responsibility would be to protest and impeach the offender.

Why? I am not my brother's keeper. Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...