If the USA was “the first moral society in history” and “morality ends where the gun begins”, how does that square with the fact that it was created by violent revolution in which tens of thousands of people were killed and 5% of the population1 was displaced from territory claimed by the USA, the vast majority of whom ended up fleeing to territory still held by the “irrational” monarchy of George III?
Pretty easily. Great Britain initiated force, thus it is morally justified to revolt with force. Yes, it was violent (albeit not as violent as other ones). The only legit question I think is what portion of those killed were civilians, who killed them, and why. As far as I know, people were only “displaced” if they voluntarily decided to leave, and not because it was tyrannical or dangerous.
If the USA was “the first moral society in history” and “morality ends where the gun begins”, how does that square with the fact that it was created by violent revolution in which tens of thousands of people were killed and 5% of the population1 was displaced from territory claimed by the USA, the vast majority of whom ended up fleeing to territory still held by the “irrational” monarchy of George III?
1Rothbard, Murray. Conceived in Liberty, Vol. 4.
So where’s the contradiction? Great Britain initiated force by imposing unnecessarily harsh terms on its colonists; the colonists resisted this initiation of force. Indeed, some blood is spilled in the course of human events. And if the course of events leads to greater freedom for the individuals who took the risk of defending themselves, then that’s one giant leap for mankind. Defending one’s self, or one’s nation of free people, is a moral cause for bloodshed.
So you think that violent rebellion with the aim of overthrowing the government is justified whenever any government “initiates force”, as you put it?
If we’re discussing the American War for Independence, could we please stay on point, and not meander into a scatological and hypothetical scenario. The conflict between the American Colonists and Great Britain was violent. In contract to other historical uprisings, I would argue that none have resulted in as few deaths in the cause of extending personal liberty to so many people. The very idea that men have “natural rights,” as opposed to rights granted by supernatural powers, or through monarchical bequest, was revolutionary. Those specific rights, “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” spelled out a very well-defined objective in light of the fact that monarchical powers (powers of church and state) were the only established means of governing over law-abiding people up until that time. The immorality institutionalized under “the Divine Right of Kings” was in the temptation for abusing that power on the monarch’s subjects. We are not subjects; we are free individuals. At times, it is necessary to maintain that freedom through violent action. And while it may be argued that contemporary Americans are voluntarily forfeiting their natural rights, we preserve most of the concepts of personal liberty as conceived by the Founders.
Dustin86, if you have some notion about some scenario involving an imaginary government that may require violent rebellion aimed at regime change, then make your intentions known. Create a hypothetical scenario, if you wish. But trying to cast aspersions on the motives, results, and morality of America’s Revolutionary War, and on its leaders, is a losing proposition. So if you feel so inclined, elaborated on the “immorality” of the defense of liberty carried out by the American Colonists from 1774 to 1781.
You’re misunderstanding the “morality ends where the gun begins” quote.
Ayn Rand doesn’t mean that violence is immoral. She just means that Objectivist Ethics doesn’t teach you how to wage war, or how to be violent, it teaches you how to live in peace…when peace is possible, because no one is initiating force against you.
When it’s not possible, you have to do what is necessary to defeat or evade the people who are initiating force. The principles that guide a man’s life in peace time can’t help you do that. As an obvious example, the virtue of honesty won’t help you spy on your enemy, or deceive enemy spies (the way the Allies did before the Normandy landing, for instance). You can’t treat your enemy with benevolence, respect and honesty, you have to treat him for what he is: a sub-human, irrational thug. You don’t try to reason with him, the way Objectivist morality prescribes you to interact with people willing to respect your rights, you interact with him like you do with a mindless animal.
Just to make sure you don’t read anything I didn’t say into my post: Objectivist moral and political principles DO help you determine who your enemy is. For instance, you can’t just declare all Muslims your enemy, because some of them initiated force against you. There are principles that tell you that the enemy are those groups and people who are complicit in the initiation of force, not the millions who just happen to belong to the same religion.
It can is the short answer. My long answer, well, I made a thread and discussed some of it here.
/t/24998
Louie, I don’t really understand either your short or long answers. It can? Who gets to make these decisions? Does one person disgruntled by laws or taxes that he disapproves of gain the right to violently overthrow the government from an entire country?
Louie, I don’t really understand either your short or long answers. It can? Who gets to make these decisions? Does one person disgruntled by laws or taxes that he disapproves of gain the right to violently overthrow the government from an entire country?
It’s not a who decides - it’s what principle to use. Initiating force may morally be met with force. The question to ask next is if someone really did initiate force, and if it’s a stupid idea to fight back. If the government did initiate force, and winning is realistic, I say it’s a good idea to revolt by any possible means. I wouldn’t say a “right” to overthrow, I’d rather say it requires careful thinking.
It’s just the connotation of the word I don’t like there. Probably because it didn’t specify being a response to force. I prefer not to say any acts of force are rights per se for that reason. Here, it’s a matter of who initiated. There’s a right in the sense “sometimes it is appropriate and right”.
If the government did initiate force, and winning is realistic, I say it’s a good idea to revolt by any possible means.
But what government in the world today or anywhere in history has never initiated force? That’s what governments do. They lay down the law and they enforce it.
But what government in the world today or anywhere in history has never initiated force? That’s what governments do. They lay down the law and they enforce it.
It’d often be justified in today’s world, but enforcement of the law is different. It’s not that government by nature requires force that I am talking about, but initiation of force. Law enforcement is not force initiation per se, but it is initiation if the law being enforced also initiates force. All governments enforce the law, by definition. After determining if the law is unjust, next you decide what to do about it. A lot of the time, a revolt is unlikely to work, so sometimes a protest is smarter. AnCaps like to argue that law enforcement is initiation of force, and interestingly, albeit for different reasons, a Communist sees government as inherently coercive. But, one, I don’t see how enforcement requires initiation, two, government isn’t coercing people to follow laws except possibly people who intend to initiate force. It’s not coercion to say “murder is illegal”, as murder is force initiation.
DW I’d need to think about it, but my intuition is you’re right.
Ok, I think I understand what you mean now, but what about taxes? What government today or in history does not initiate force in order to collect taxes, and/or against tax evaders?
Ok, I think I understand what you mean now, but what about taxes? What government today or in history does not initiate force in order to collect taxes, and/or against tax evaders?
Why don’t you read up a little on Objectivism? You’re spending hours on this forum, getting nowhere. Wouldn’t that time be better spent actually learning about the subject you keep asking loaded questions about?
If according to Objectivism, a government “initiating force” provides a moral justification for violent overthrow of that government, and every government in the world or that ever was initiates force to collect taxes and against those who evade taxes, then there would seem to be a moral justification according to Objectivist morality for the violent overthrow of every government in the world.