"In Our Name"?

[knast]

Hi everybody,

I have some questions I have been struggling with lately without being able to answer them satisfactory. I wonder if you any of you guys can help me...

According to Ayn Rand "a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it." Does that imply that I am - as an Objectivist - equally responsible for the high taxes in Sweden as my Statist neighbour?

Please note also that Rand once wrote:

A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom. (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 235).

Now, maybe it's just me but I don't know how the first statement is consistent with the latter.

Also, according to Ayn Rand one "accept" the social system one is living under, if one don't leave the country. If so, does that mean that you're "accepting" the welfare state in the US since you've not left the US? If so, what moral right do you have to complain about it since you're basically free to leave the US any time you wish?

One final question.

According to Yaron Brook, the innocent civilians of an enemy country has "no rights" if their country attacks an innocent country. My question is: how does the innocent lose their rights because of acts they've not sanctioned? I fully understand that those who through neglect or passivity chose to sanction the evil dictatorial regime they live under, have no rights. But the truly innocent? The freedom fighters?

[AisA]

According to Ayn Rand "a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it." Does that imply that I am - as an Objectivist - equally responsible for the high taxes in Sweden as my Statist neighbour?

Also, according to Ayn Rand one "accept" the social system one is living under, if one don't leave the country. If so, does that mean that you're "accepting" the welfare state in the US since you've not left the US? If so, what moral right do you have to complain about it since you're basically free to leave the US any time you wish?

Please supply the source for these quotations.

I fully understand that those who through neglect or passivity chose to sanction the evil dictatorial regime they live under, have no rights. But the truly innocent? The freedom fighters?

Yes, the freedom fighters have rights, and yes, those rights are violated if FFs are killed in a war. But the party morally responsible for that violation is the regime that initiated force, not the country using retaliatory force in self-defense.

[knast]

"Please supply the source for these quotations."

There you go: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...lian_casualties

[AisA]

According to Ayn Rand "a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it." Does that imply that I am - as an Objectivist - equally responsible for the high taxes in Sweden as my Statist neighbour?

Reading the entire quote, I think what Rand is saying is that your responsibility is to actively oppose statist policies -- do whatever you can to get them repealed.

Also, according to Ayn Rand one "accept" the social system one is living under, if one don't leave the country. If so, does that mean that you're "accepting" the welfare state in the US since you've not left the US?

I agree that a portion of Rand's answer to the second question is inconsistent with the quote from CUI. Frankly, however, I'm a little suspicious of this portion of the transcript, specifically this statement: "It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country)." If you are listening to an oral question and answer session, how do you know what to put in parenthesis? Of course, there is also the possibility that Rand simply mis-spoke.

In any event, when there is an apparent conflict between what someone thinks they heard Rand say, versus what we know she wrote, I would assume the latter to be her position.

[knast]

Yes, the freedom fighters have rights, and yes, those rights are violated if FFs are killed in a war.

Ok, are you sure about that? When the speech was available on Aynrand.org I made some notes while listening on it. Now since it's not available anymore, I can't verify if my notes are correct but according to my notes he said that ALL civilians lost their rights when their government attacks another innocent country, not just the guilty. In fact, if my notes are correct he even quotes Ayn Rand saying that it's irrelevant whether or not you're innocent or guilty; the government is our "agent" and "spokesman". So if our evil government attacks an innocent country we lose our rights. But perhaps I have just misunderstood him or something. You don't happen to have the speech available? If so, do you think you can be nice and quote him saying that the freedom fighters have rights?

Thanks for your interest and answers.

[AisA]

I'm sorry, knast, I should have made clear that my statement about the FF's having rights is strictly my own position, though I think it was Rand's also.

I have not heard the Yaron Brook talk that you mention. I would not agree that "ALL civilians lost their rights when their government attacks another innocent country, not just the guilty." I would agree that all citizens in a country that improperly initiates war can expect to be targets of retaliatory force. The innocents and FF's cannot, based on their rights, demand that the other country not defend itself. We cannot say that our rights trump the other country's right to self-defense.

Rather, we have to accept that the other country will respond, and if we are damaged in the retaliatory strike, the blame lies with our government, not the other country. This, however, is only my position, and I cannot claim that it is the official, Objectivist position.

I find it hard to imagine that Yaron Brook believes that everyone loses their rights once a nation improperly goes to war. That would mean the offending government could do anything it wished to its citizens. How can one improper action empower a government to an unlimited number of additional improper actions?

[knast]

Before we continue this discussion maybe it should be known what Brook actually said. So here are the notes I made when listening to Brooks speech. But before you read them please bear in mind that when I first made them I basically tried to write down exactly what he said, but translated into Swedish. So what I write now is a rough "re-translation" back to English so as you might expect there will be some faults on the language and the formulations I will use will most definitely differ from the ones Brook used, but the implicit meaning will hopefully be exactly the same:

"Doesn't the civilians in the enemy country have rights? Isn't it unjust to kill them? Doesn't it amount to murder innocent victims? No. The citizens of a enemy regime - a regime that has initiated or threatens to initiate the use of force - have no rights.

When a government goes to war it does so, to quote Ayn Rand "in the name of the citizens. Whether or not everybody is guilty or innocent is here irrelevant. The government is their agent and spokesman". Everybody invovled - on their own initiative or not - in the initiatiation of force against an innocent country is outside the sphear of individual rights. Just like a criminal lose his rights when he violates the rights of another individual, so does the leaders, soldiers and civilians of the enemy regime.

For the most part, the civilians in a country is not innocent by standard of the crimes commited by their government. You are responsible for the actions of your government, unless you don't take active steps to oppose the government. If you don't like the foreign policy of president George Bush but you don't do anything, don't say anything, don't write any letters to the editor, don't make any speeches - then you're morally responsible for his actions.

[Now I thought that Brook meant that you're innocent and therefore have rights, but if so, why didn't he just say so to begin with?]

Indeed, even if you oppose you don't have much of an option but to suffer for the actions of the president. If a future president would start an war against another (innocent) country, then that country, acting in self-defense have every right to kill you and me - even if we opposed the actions of our government. That's why it's a selfish obligation to understand and care about politics.

The same is true in a dictatorship. If you don't fight the oppression - in public or in hiding - or try to leave the country, then you can't claim to be innocent. You're implicitly supporting the regime. If a man chose to go on with his life as if everything is normal when people is getting slaughtered all around him and his own rights are being violated, then he shares the responsibility for the killing and his own imprisonment. And if his country attacks another, then he has no right to object when if is being punished for the actions of his government. Most of the civilians of a enemy regime is far from being innocent.

But what about the truly innocent? The freedom fighters and dissenters - who are always found in a small minority in every country. To the extent one can isolate them one should not kill them. It would not be selfish. We need more rational pro-american people in this world. But if we can't isolate them they become a threat to our soldiers and we should kill them without any hesitation.

Every true freedom fighter understands our situation, supports our cause, hopes for the best and blames his government and fellow citizen for the danger they've placed him in. The responsibility for all casualties lies with those who made the war necessary, including the civilians support. Not on those acting in self-defense."

[Godless Capitalist]

There is already a long thread somewhere about the "Morality of War" speech.

(edit: here it is: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=1637 )

My main objection to Dr. Brook's argument is that in most countries that oppose us, taking "active steps to oppose the government" would be suicidal. In Iraq under Saddam and in North Korea, Syria, etc. today. opposing the government would just bring you a painful death. It's hardly fair to assume that people support a dictatorial government just because they fail to sacrifice themselves in futile protests against it. A dictatorship may claim to represent its people, but that is not a legitimate claim and we should not hold the dictatorship's actions against the whole population.

Now I do agree that it is acceptable to take whatever steps necessary to defeat an enemy country, even if that leads to collateral civilian casualities. But I do not support deliberately targeting civilians by, for example, nuking cities.

As for accepting the system if you fail to leave the country, for Americans at least there is nowhere better to go.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

My main objection to Dr. Brook's argument is that in most countries that oppose us, taking "active steps to oppose the government" would be suicidal. In Iraq under Saddam and in North Korea, Syria, etc. today. opposing the government would just bring you a painful death. It's hardly fair to assume that people support a dictatorial government just because they fail to sacrifice themselves in futile protests against it. A dictatorship may claim to represent its people, but that is not a legitimate claim and we should not hold the dictatorship's actions against the whole population.

I think “active steps to oppose the government” in such a context would mean doing the bare minimum in order to survive. Don’t work harder than you have to, don’t create more values that will be taken and used against you than you must. If you are living in a socialist state or under a dictator you should act just as they want you to, as a mindless follower – sacrificing none of your ability to the system that oppresses you. This would be active opposition that would be undetectable ergo not suicidal.

But remember this is under the context of a society so bad that actively opposing it would result in punishment. For countries like the US that have problems but not censorship active opposition is the best way to go (since we can still obtain happiness to a large degree in our society). In a severe socialist state or dictatorship with censorship you are going to have to get out or wait for the revolution (or the US if you harbor terrorists ); speeding up the process seems like your only option.

[Godless Capitalist]

I think “active steps to oppose the government” in such a context would mean doing the bare minimum in order to survive.  Don’t work harder than you have to, don’t create more values that will be taken and used against you than you must.  If you are living in a socialist state or under a dictator you should act just as they want you to, as a mindless follower – sacrificing none of your ability to the system that oppresses you.  This would be active opposition that would be undetectable ergo not suicidal.

That's not what Dr. Brook seems to be saying. He's saying only "freedom fighters and dissenters" are "truly innocent." So in order not to be a target of your country's enemies, you have to first be a target of your own country. To me a more rational choice is more along the lines of what you suggest; do as little as possible to support the regime but do not risk yourself suicidally. That of course is what most people in a dictatorship do; go about their own lives as best they can and try not to be noticed. That hardly makes them responsible for the dictatorship's actions.

(All of my comments by the way are my own views.)

[GoodOrigamiMan]

That's not what Dr. Brook seems to be saying. He's saying only "freedom fighters and dissenters" are "truly innocent." So in order not to be a target of your country's enemies, you have to first be a target of your own country. To me a more rational choice is more along the lines of what you suggest; do as little as possible to support the regime but do not risk yourself suicidally. That of course is what most people in a dictatorship do; go about their own lives as best they can and try not to be noticed. That hardly makes them responsible for the dictatorship's actions.

I think I agree with you to the extent that I think “innocence” or ‘freedom from guilt’ is possible without becoming a “freedom fighter.” I would say however that contributing nothing to an oppressive society would be an art in and of itself. The question I guess is exactly what is meant by ‘freedom fighter’ since it doesn’t seem like a very explicitly defined term. For example: can I consider the genius that acts like a helpless idiot and messes up on every job he is assigned a freedom fighter?, isn’t he working against the system in his own way?

I am looking at it in terms of more personal considerations though… I know whether I am innocent or not. But that is of no direct concern to the country that is being threatened by the dictatorship that I live in. I want to speed up the decline of my government because it is evil and I hate it, sadly I can’t avoid the risk of becoming a civilian casualty. Naturally I would take the first opportunity to defect or change sides once the risk of that action was greater than the risk of remaining a citizen. The choice is of living a life where I cannot achieve my values until I die of old age vs. risking my life today for a better life tomorrow where I would be able to achieve my values.

[knast]

My main objection to Dr. Brook's argument is that in most countries that oppose us, taking "active steps to oppose the government" would be suicidal. In Iraq under Saddam and in North Korea, Syria, etc. today. opposing the government would just bring you a painful death. It's hardly fair to assume that people support a dictatorial government just because they fail to sacrifice themselves in futile protests against it. A dictatorship may claim to represent its people, but that is not a legitimate claim and we should not hold the dictatorship's actions against the whole population.

I don't think "opposing the government" means becoming a martyr. And I know for a fact that no one, neither Brook or Rand or anybody else would suggest such a thing since it's obviously altruistic and unselfish to attempt such a thing. I think that as long as you do EVERYTHING that you CAN do given the harsh circumstances, then you're innocent. That would be MY definition of a "freedom fighter". For the very same reason that it wouldn't be the wrong of a single Objectivist if the US would turn into a dictatorship due to the bad ideas influencing her, it cannot be rationally expected that a single man is capable of radically changing the country. Sure, there are the intellectuals which have a huge impact although they are very few. But it's not an moral obligation to be an intellectual, thus it cannot rationally be said to be a moral obligation to save the world by becoming an intellectual.

One should also note another thing. To my understanding Ayn Rand seemed to shared the view that basically every government is given it's power and authority through the consent of the governed. Not just the good governments but also the bad and evil. Historically and factually speaking, this seems to be true. Let me quote Ludwig von Mises:

"...the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it. Civil war and revolution are the means by which the discontented majorities overthrow rulers and methods of government which do not suit them." (Human Action, 149-150)

No government can function without the explicit and/or implicit support of the majority. While Rand actually used the actual words "in OUR name", which would imply that everyone in a given country is guilty of providing the government with a tacit or open support for it's policies, I don't think that that was what she actually meant (because if she really meant that, then she would probably have to admit that it's equally her own fault if the US is gradually turning into a fascist dictatorship).

Now, in a certain sense all of us do actually provide our government with a tacit consent through our actions. Everybody in the western world is basically free to leave his country whenever we want to. Still most of us stay were we are. Why? Sure, we got our friends and families here, our carrier, and so on. But I don't think that's the whole story. If I ask you how many of you would like to live in the US despite all it's statist interventions instead of, say, Iran? It's obvious what you would choose. Most of you would prefer the US to a lot of other countries. My point here is that even though we may not like all the statist interventions in our lives and in our economy, the reason why we don't simply overthrow the government is not merely because it's hard. It's also because it's unnecessary and unreasonable to demand such a thing in order to be a "freedom fighter", and not being accused of "sanctioning" the welfare state or all the statist interventions.

As long as we still have the chance to elect our leaders through free and democratic elections, and were still free to speak our mind, then it's possible to change the course of the country we're living PEACEFULLY and thus it would be unnecessary and unreasonable to demand out of us to start a revolution or something like that in order to be called "innocent". It's more than sufficient to explicitly oppose the given policies you're against and argue in favor of a better alternative. And if you read what Rand have actually said, this seems to be her position.

Let me quote her:

PLAYBOY: Throughout your work you argue that the way in which the contemporary world is organized, even in the capitalist countries, submerges the individual and stifles initiative. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt leads a strike of the men of the mind -- which results in the collapse of the collectivist society around them. Do you think the time has come for the artists, intellectuals and creative businessmen of today to withdraw their talents from society in this way?

RAND: No, not yet. But before I explain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy -- that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship. When and if this happens, that will be the time to go on strike, but not until then.

PLAYBOY: What do you mean by dictatorship? How would you define it?

RAND: A dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total, unlimited power over men.

PLAYBOY: What is the dividing line, by your definition, between a mixed economy and a dictatorship?

RAND: A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strike intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever.

And:

"The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified _only so long as he regards it as restitutiton and opposes all forms of welfare statism_. Those who advocate public scholarships have no right to them; those who oppose them have. [...] Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such right as the right fo the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others - the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better." (The Voice of Reason, 42)

"Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force." (Return of the Primitive, 173)

"A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom." (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 235)

This by the way is also Mises viewpoint:

"For the sake of domestic peace liberalism aims at democratic government. Democracy is therefore not a revolutionary institution. On the contrary, it is the very means of preventing revolutions and civil wars. It provides a method for the peaceful adjustment of government to the will of the majority. When the men in office and their policies no longer please the majority of the nation, they will—in the next election—be eliminated and replaced by other men espousing different policies." (Ibid.)

[Godless Capitalist]

One should also note another thing. To my understanding Ayn Rand seemed to shared the view that basically every government is given it's power and authority through the consent of the governed. Not just the good governments but also the bad and evil. Historically and factually speaking, this seems to be true. Let me quote Ludwig von Mises:

"...the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it. Civil war and revolution are the means by which the discontented majorities overthrow rulers and methods of government which do not suit them." (Human Action, 149-150)

The problem, though, is "Who bells the cat?" A dictatorship by its nature makes it very difficult to organize and carry out a mass rebellion. People who act individually are easily dealt with by imprisonment or murder. I admire the courage of dissidents against tyranny but I hardly consider it a moral failing or sign of consent not to stick one's neck out.

[knast]

The problem, though, is "Who bells the cat?" A dictatorship by its nature makes it very difficult to organize and carry out a mass rebellion. People who act individually are easily dealt with by imprisonment or murder. I admire the courage of dissidents against tyranny but I hardly consider it a moral failing or sign of consent not to stick one's neck out.

I think it's wrong to simply assume that to take "some steps" against a dictatorship is equivalent to taking actions that necessarily put yourself in danger. But then again I believe this is a false alternative to begin with: you're, for the most part, *not* safe in a dictatorship no matter what you do. A lot of people tend to think that you won't get in any trouble as long as you obey the law. But that's not how it works in a dictatorship. In fact, no one is "safe" in a dictatorship (not even the dictator himself, due to all the power struggle that take place within the ruling gang). So in fact, the REAL choice while living in a dictatorship is between trying to do *something*, meaning anything, like for instance trying to escape, or rebell, or hide underground, etc. Or you can just sit there and passively wait for "something" to happen "somehow", while luring yourself into thinking that you and your family will be "safe" as long as you don't "stick out your neck".

[Godless Capitalist]

Of course no one is completely safe. But in any case this is somewhat of a side issue. My main point is that failing to rebel, where such a rebellion would be extremely dangerous, is not a moral sanction of a dictatorship's actions.

I don't think "opposing the government" means becoming a martyr. And I know for a fact that no one, neither Brook or Rand or anybody else would suggest such a thing since it's obviously altruistic and unselfish to attempt such a thing. I think that as long as you do EVERYTHING that you CAN do given the harsh circumstances, then you're innocent. That would be MY definition of a "freedom fighter".

Well, maybe, but that does not seem to be what Dr. Brook is saying.

[knast]

Well, maybe, but that does not seem to be what Dr. Brook is saying.

Given that my notes on Brooks speech were correct to begin with he doesn't seem to specify what he means with "opposing" and "fighting" against the dictatorship. It should also be noted that Rand seems to settle with "non-cooperation". I take this to mean that one should do everything you pssible *can* do.

[Marc K.]

Now I do agree that it is acceptable to take whatever steps necessary to defeat an enemy country, even if that leads to collateral civilian casualities. But I do not support deliberately targeting civilians by, for example, nuking cities.

This construction obviously doesn’t work, it’s self contradictory!!! And it is indicative of what’s wrong with this thread. You are conflating a philosophical principle with military strategy. Your first sentence is correct -- a legitimate government must take whatever steps necessary to defeat an aggressor nation. Period. End of philosophy lesson.

In the next sentence you switch gears to military strategy and contradict your philosophical statement. So I must ask the obvious question: If you were Commander in Chief and the military came to you and said “the only way to prevent further loss of American lives is to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima” -- would you have?

When we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing whatever percentage of so called “innocent” civilians you may wish to define, do you think we saved American lives? Wasn’t this a thoroughly moral act on the part of the American government?

Who is responsible for the deaths of every person in wartime: the aggressor or the aggrieved?

It's hardly fair to assume that people support a dictatorial government just because they fail to sacrifice themselves in futile protests against it.

Are you suggesting though that it is the responsibility of a threatened nation to sacrifice its citizens to defeat an aggressor?

A dictatorship may claim to represent its people, but that is not a legitimate claim and we should not hold the dictatorship's actions against the whole population.

This is a difficult issue. Ayn Rand’s essay “Man’s Rights”, which can be found in both CUI and VoS, helped me figure it out:

Rights are moral sanctions to positive action and require nothing of anyone else except that they leave you alone. So your right to life not only gives you the moral sanction to do whatever you must to live, it requires that you take action in order to live.

By the same logic, the right of all men to liberty not only allows them the “freedom to act on [their] own judgment”, it requires that they take action in order to secure their liberty. (Of course implicit in this line of reasoning is that the only people you will have to act against in order to secure your liberty are those who wish to take it, and the only way it can be taken is by force.)

Thus we arrive at Ayn Rand's position that every government is the representative of its people. Anyone who does not flee or actively oppose an aggressor government gives their implied sanction to its actions. Whether they are truly “innocent” matters not. “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [the individual rights of its citizens, it is not only their right] to alter or to abolish it” it is their responsibility.

And while some may prefer to “suffer, while evils are sufferable” their abdication of their rights to an aggressive government confers no requirement on a free people to live in a similar state; taking no action against the aggressor for fear of killing people who are unwilling to right themselves.

[knast]

Hi Marc K,

What do you mean with "Whether they are truly “innocent” matters not."?

You see, I am getting a bit confused. Either you're innocent or you're not, right?

[Marc K.]

Hi Marc K,

What do you mean with "Whether they are truly “innocent” matters not."?

You see, I am getting a bit confused. Either you're innocent or you're not, right?

- Government is the representative of its people.

- People choose their government either actively or passively.

- If a government threatens another, it puts all its people at risk.

[knast]

- Government is the representative of its people.

- People choose their government either actively or passively.

- If a government threatens another, it puts all its people at risk.

If people choose their government actively or passively, doesn't that imply that I am at least partly responsible for the statist policies of my country (Sweden)? And if that's the case, what do you suggest I should do in order to be "innocent"? Leave Sweden? "Rebel"? Go underground? Or is it enough for me to just explicitly oppose the policies and argue against them? If so, how do you comment the following remark made by Rand in a Q&A from her speech Global Balkanization:

Q: Miss Rand, as an advocate of individualism there's one point that I find difficulty in figuring out in my own mind, and perhaps you can clarify and that is the statement that it is the prerogative of a free country to invade and attack what you call a slave state or a slave pen or a non-free country. I find this hard to figure out because in the final analysis it is not a nation attacking a nation it's people attacking people, attacking individuals, and they may not want your attack. Could please explain that?

AR: ...I know the source of this statement. It's the idea that nations do not exist, only individuals and if some poor blob in Soviet Russia didn't want an invasion, or he is not a communist, we mightn't harm him. Who do you think permits governments to go to war? Only a government can put a country into war and who keeps their government in power? The citizens of that country. Including the worst dictatorships. Even Soviet Russia who did not elect the communists keeps them in power by passivity. Nazi Germany did elect it's dictatorship, and therefore even those germans who were against Hitler were still responsible for that kind of government and have to suffer for the consequences. (My emphasis)

No, I am not trying to mock you or your argument, these are serious questions. You see, I think that both you and Rand have a point when you say that the government acts in our name. But that suggestion also give rise to some problems for me. What all my questions really amount to is this: what do you have to do in order to be considered "innocent" for the acts of your government? How can somebody who're against Hitler still be responsible for "that kind of government"? What made him responsible? The fact that he perhaps didn't "rebel" or leave Germany? That is what I would like to know. Since you seem to better understand Rands argument, maybe you can explain this to me?

[Marc K.]

Be careful, there are two contexts here.

In a relatively free country like Sweden all you need do to be considered innocent of advocating statist policies is “explicitly oppose the policies and argue against them”. Being free, of course, does allow you to leave Sweden if you so desired. If Sweden started censoring free speech perhaps then it would be time to rebel.

In a dictatorship like Nazi Germany the truly “innocent” will either flee the country or actively rebel against it.

But notice that in neither case does being “innocent” grant you any sanction:

- Being “innocent” in Sweden still requires that you live by the rules and pay the high taxes.

- Being “innocent” in Nazi Germany won’t guarantee that the bombs we must drop to defeat that nation won’t kill you.

Being “innocent” in an aggressor nation secures your integrity and perhaps some reprieve from the free nation defending itself (especially if you can help defeat that aggressor), but not much else. That is why I said “it matters not”. Because when the bombs are dropping it won’t matter if you are innocent or not.

As to your last question about who is responsible for the Nazi regime; reread the Ayn Rand passage you quoted, it's all in there:

- It is the responsibility of the citizens of a country to choose their government. When they choose poorly or passively allow their government to become threatening, it is their responsibility to right themselves.

- Every person must suffer the consequences of the actions of the government they allow to exist.

Which part of your post did you consider “mocking”?

[knast]

Thanks for your answer. I have found your last post to be very helpful. Thanks! But I have nevertheless one more question...

You wrote:

Be careful, there are two contexts here.

In a relatively free country like Sweden all you need do to be considered innocent of advocating statist policies is “explicitly oppose the policies and argue against them”. Being free, of course, does allow you to leave Sweden if you so desired. If Sweden started censoring free speech perhaps then it would be time to rebel.

In a dictatorship like Nazi Germany the truly “innocent” will either flee the country or actively rebel against it.

Now, what makes it sufficient in a free country to merely "explicitly oppose the policies and argue against them"? Or to put it differently: why does it - in the context of a relatively free country such as Sweden - not count as an "implied sanction" of the statist policies of the Swedish government if I choose to stay (even though I am in principle free to leave any time I wish)?

Which part of your post did you consider “mocking”?

I just wrote that in an attempt to assure you that I am not some sort of troll, that I am not here to mess with you or something.

[Marc K.]

Now, what makes it sufficient in a free country to merely "explicitly oppose the policies and argue against them"?

The only moral way to oppose the policies of your government in a free society is to use your freedom of expression to argue against such policies. What else could you do? Would you use force against some government agent when no one is forcing you to stay?

Or to put it differently: why does it - in the context of a relatively free country such as Sweden - not count as an "implied sanction" of the statist policies of the Swedish government if I choose to stay (even though I am in principle free to leave any time I wish)?

Because in a free society you are free to protest the government and tell anyone who will listen what is wrong with it, explicitly.

Again, be careful of the context. Free society or dictatorship?:

- Any “implied sanction” others in a free society may assume you are giving your statist government can be countermanded by you exercising your rights, as you should do. The freedom to assemble and exchange ideas makes possible the peaceful change of government policies.

- The only way a dictatorship stays in power is by force so the only way to remove it is by force. That force should be applied by the citizens of that country. If they are unable to change their government and it threatens a free nation, then the “implied sanction” they give it by not fleeing leaves them exposed not just to the depredations of the dictator but to the force free nations must apply in order not to suffer similar depredations.

[knast]

The only moral way to oppose the policies of your government in a free society is to use your freedom of expression to argue against such policies. What else could you do? Would you use force against some government agent when no one is forcing you to stay?

Because in a free society you are free to protest the government and tell anyone who will listen what is wrong with it, explicitly.

Again, be careful of the context. Free society or dictatorship?:

- Any “implied sanction” others in a free society may assume you are giving your statist government can be countermanded by you exercising your rights, as you should do. The freedom to assemble and exchange ideas makes possible the peaceful change of government policies.

- The only way a dictatorship stays in power is by force so the only way to remove it is by force. That force should be applied by the citizens of that country. If they are unable to change their government and it threatens a free nation, then the “implied sanction” they give it by not fleeing leaves them exposed not just to the depredations of the dictator but to the force free nations must apply in order not to suffer similar depredations.

Thank you very much. Your answer has been most helpful for me. And yes, I agree with you.

Once again, thanks!

[Godless Capitalist]

In the next sentence you switch gears to military strategy and contradict your philosophical statement. So I must ask the obvious question: If you were Commander in Chief and the military came to you and said “the only way to prevent further loss of American lives is to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima” -- would you have?

There's no contradiction. Yes, I would drop the bomb in order to save American lives. I would not do so, however, merely to "punish the enemy."

As for the idea that people give a dictatorship sanction by not fleeing, have you never heard of the Berlin Wall? It's not rational to sacrifice yourself trying to escape. It's also not rational to sacrifice yourself in a futile rebellion.

It's absurd to say that people are responsible for their government, when they did not freely choose that government and cannot freely oppose it. How can there be responsibility without freedom of choice?