Let's use a little thought experiment to work this through.
Image via PixaBay
Suppose you and I live somewhere out in the wide, wide world, me on my land that I've cultivated and you on yours. Then, one day, you come over and inform me that you've declared yourself the governing authority of all the land you can see, including the land I own and use, along with everything I've built on my land. You lay down the rules that will now be enforced by you through physical force on what I can and can't do, and you also tell me that you'll be taking a portion of my property to pay for the physical violence you'll visit on me for not following your rules. Lastly, you tell me that I can make a claim against you any time you break the rules you've set out, but I have to make that claim to you, and you are the sole arbiter of whether or not you have broken the rules.
Since I really don't want to fight you because you're a lot stronger and better armed than me, I submit, despite the fact I do not consent to it and tell you this. Later on, you come to take the property you said you would, but instead of just taking the portion you said you'd take, you take even more. I object to this and try to stop you, and you, in turn, beat me over the head and tell me to come to your house later to appeal the action. Not wanting to get hit again, I decide to go with it, so later on that day I come to your house to appeal your taking of more property than you said you would.
I point out what you were supposed to take, and I show you what was actually taken. Instead of using my time to improve my property or prepare food for myself, I petition you to return the property that you have actually stolen from me. After listening to my argument, you tell me that you needed more than you had initially told me in order to provide yourself the means to enforce the rules on me. You tell me that you haven't done anything wrong, and there was a legitimate reason for you to take the extra property, despite the fact that you've broken the rules.
When I try to tell you this is theft, you tell me that, by not fighting you off when you first laid claim over my land, I've consented to be bound by the rules you set out. When I point out, again, that you broke your own rules, you repeat that there was a very good reason for you to do that, and this very good reason exempts you from being subject to those rules. When I point out, in utter exasperation, that it is entirely unjust for you to decide whether or not you have broken the rules you made up, you tell me that if I keep this up, you're going to beat me up and throw me in a cage.
Does this situation sound patently absurd and immoral? That's because it is.
And yet, despite the obvious absurdity of this hypothetical, when you change the parties to "the governed" and "government" instead of "me" and "you," that sense of absurdity goes out the window. Somehow, when this same thought experiment is amplified into hundreds of millions of people, this same sort of situation is no longer absurd and immoral; it is considered justice. What's more, when you attempt to point out the absurdity of having one of the parties to a conflict be the sole arbiter of that conflict, you are met with incredulity, vitriol, and threats of actual violence to your person. It's as though you pointing out how utterly mad this situation is somehow becomes a personal attack on the people that deluded themselves into accepting it.
This is, of course, by design. The state can only exist so long as the people it rules over believe it has the authority to rule them. One of the ways the men and women who call themselves the state do this is by creating the illusion of justice. If they can convince the people they rule over that they really have their consent, and that they can change the terms of their servitude, they can convince them they aren't slaves. Once that task is accomplished, it's actually pretty damn simple to break the rules and be a completely arbitrary authority. So long as you can quote some vague, nebulous "greater good," there's literally nothing you can't get away with in that situation.
Remember, kids: if it's an absurd and immoral scenario when it's between two people, it's still an absurd and immoral scenario between the governed and the government.
Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working at VapEscape in Montgomery County, Alabama, contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, writing short fiction, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.
I regret to inform you that I am going to need the name and the account titled "anarcho-andrei" for the greater good.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact @anarcho-andrei and he will be happy to explain this further and accept any petitions that you fill out.
Glory to Gonzostan
I'm sure you're no stranger to Hicks, but reading this I just have to comment with:
That was fitting. It's like you're up here in my noggin or something!
@anarcho-andrei - thanks man, very well written! Upvoted.
Is it a particular country you are talking about?
The conversation that spawned this post was about the US, but it applies equally to any so-called democratic nation.
Interesting, and I upvoted, but a few things to consider: The government is not a single person, entity, or branch. Occasionally, government branches will police each other. Of course, they only do so when violations are grievous, political will is present, and/or there is public outrage.
Also, with your analogy, we have to remember that we have the right to vote, that that we as a whole do a good job of it, but if we the citizens get our stuff together, and start to actually exert our political power, we might be able to force change.
Anyways, thanks for the interesting post!
And a broken clock is right twice a day. That some politicians manage to not be sociopaths for a very brief period of time does not change the fact that the government is in charge of deciding whether the government has violated the rules that the government has passed. The fact that the government has, at times, admitted it has done wrong does not change the fact that the system is stacked against the governed where it really counts: arbitrating disputes. This doesn't change if you acknowledge that government is really just a group of men and women who tell other people what to do and use violence to ensure compliance.
Force what change? Unless a supermajority of people here in the US were to vote to amend the US Constitution such that people could sue federal and state governments in an independent court or private arbitration, this would never change. Seeing as just about every response I've ever heard has been to the same effect as yours (or much more vulgar and angry), I don't see that happening. Moreover, there is always an exception to the rule, which invalidates any change that could occur.
Let's face it: the men and women who call themselves government are always going to excuse their violations of the rules if they have a really good reason to do it. Which, in layman's terms, means whenever they feel like it.
Hmmm....... Thousands of cases go against the United States government every year. Yes, thousands. There is plenty of recourse, and if you happen to be wealthy, your chances of taking on the government are very good. If your poor, you're probably screwed, unless you get a good lawyer willing to work for "free" (or often publicity). These aren't mere exceptions to rules, the staggering number of cases and rulings against the government show that the law has some degree of impartiality. Realistically, the wealthy are in the best position to enforce that impartiality through high paid lawyers.
I understand that many thousands more cases go in the governments favor, and power is clearly skewed in the government's favor. However, to equate the U.S. to a police state with a "monopoly" on violence (even though consent along the lines of Locke is far more visible and prominent than violence) is disingenuous, and disrespectful for the people who have suffered under totalitarian regimes.
Our government sucks, most western governments suck. And yet, they suck a whole hell of a lot less than many other regimes of the past (and also present). We do enjoy a hell of a lot more rights and recourse than people who suffered under the soviet union, or the old European monarchs. That doesn't mean we should stop, or even celebrate, but it does demonstrate that progress is possible.
Sorry for the delay in responding to you; I just now have the opportunity to type out a decent reply on my laptop. Since there's a fair amount to unpack in your response, I wanted to give you the benefit of a well-written response.
There is no degree of impartiality. If the only party that can arbitrate disputes between you and the government is, in fact, part of the government, it is not impartial. That cases are decided in favor of the plaintiff with some frequency does not change this fact.
First point first: the federal and state governments of the U.S. do have a monopoly on violence. They are the sole arbiters of whether or not violence is justified, and they are the only ones that determine whether or not an agent of the state has used violence excessively. To say that it is anything other than that because the U.S. maintains the illusion of impartiality and justice is disingenuous.
Second point second: how is it disrespectful to other people who have suffered and currently suffer under totalitarian regimes? My article was left purposefully ambiguous. The only reason I mentioned the United States was because you mentioned using political action, so I used the example I most familiar with to demonstrate how that was, at best, the most remote possibility, right up there with the government agreeing to dissolve itself. The content of the article applies doubly to places where there is a hard authoritarian regime, like Romania in the 80's - which is where I was born and grew up.
That the authoritarianism in the U.S. is a lot softer than the Socialist dictatorship my parents grew up under in Romania doesn't change the fact that it still is an authoritarian regime. I agree that progress is possible, but it doesn't come if people ignore facts. The fact is, appealing unjust and immoral acts by one party to that same party for arbitration is, by its very nature, unjust and biased. Whether or not you manage to win your case is irrelevant; it means that you won simply because the party that wronged you decided it was easier and more beneficial to them to let you win than to rule against you.
Thank you for your measured responses, by the way. This is the kind of conversation I moved to Steemit to have. Very rarely do you engage in actual discourse elsewhere on the internet.
Of course there can be impartiality within a government. Between individuals there can be impartiality, perhaps never perfect 100%, but to some degree. This comes down to personal choice. The supreme court has already proven to be relatively impartial in numerous rulings in regards to government actions, and has frequently overridden government decisions on multiple occasions. Of course, supreme court judges are heavily influenced by their own ideologies. Regardless, I view the idea of "no impartiality" as wholly irrelevant, and patently false. Are they perfectly impartial? Far from it.
There seems to be an unwillingness to grant individuals agency. For some reason, people have an obsession with removing individuality from people. This process is among the most powerful forces behind racial prejudice, sexism, etc. by my estimate. In this, and from my point of view, you're replacing "black", "female", etc. with "government employee".
An FBI agent is, in physical actuality, as well as applied reality, a different person than a judge. They aren't one in the same party. At the physical level, they can't be, at the applied level, in the United States there is a degree of separation between different branches, and while imperfect, it is far better than in authoritarian regimes, and has on numerous occasions proven capable of policing the government and reigning in government powers. Let me stress again, this process if far from perfect.
Generally, the US government adheres to its own laws, although it does write corrupt laws (which can and have been overturned by the supreme court). When the government is found to be breaking laws, and it is brought to public attention, there is a solid chance that prosecution, firings, etc. will happen. Usually, cover ups down happen between branches, but instead at the branch level. So congress might decide to try to hide the screw ups of a Congressmen, but once it reaches courts, it's more likely that a judge will be more impartial.
The point about "monopoly" of violence, isn't that the U.S. government doesn't have the total monopoly on legitimate violence in the U.S. It does (maybe I misworded my original statement), but having that monopoly doesn't necessarily make them a police state, and indeed the U.S. isn't one. A broken democracy beset by inequality, special interests, etc. yes. But recourse is possible against the government, even if difficult, and change is possible without revolution, even if difficult. In an authoritarian police state, both the monopoly and willingness to use that monopoly ensures that short of revolution, change is extremely unlikely.
I am going to assume that you are an anarchist (given your name). I have yet to find an anarchist who puts forward a non-utopian model, but I am all ears if you want to put forward an argument, or provide authors for me to research.
Thanks for the discussion.
Once again, saying that impartiality happens does not mean that the system is designed this way. It's not. It is designed to force you, the plaintiff, to petition the same party that wronged you for restitution. Sometimes this happens; sometimes this doesn't. However, pointing to the fact that it happens does not negate the fact that you are still entirely at the mercy of the party that did the wrong.
I understand what you're saying that an individual agent, or even a particular branch, is not equivalent to every other branch or agent comprising the entity called government. However, in the same way an employee of a company is still a member of the party that is that company, those agents and divisions are members of the same party called government. If an employee of a bank defrauded you, would it be considered just and proper to be forced to arbitrate the dispute with the governing board of the bank? No, of course not. It would be a severe conflict of interest. And yet, when it comes to government, this fact is somehow glossed over and ignored.
The only change that would effectively render the situation justified is if a government allowed a plaintiff in cases of government misconduct to appeal to a third party as an arbitrator. Otherwise, there is no impartiality in the proceedings; there is, by virtue of the actors involved, a conflict of interest, and it renders any claim of impartiality moot.
My argument is that this method is immoral and cannot possibly result in justice except by coincidence. By design, it is unjust. So far you've yet to disprove this claim. As for what model I'd suggest? I don't care, so long as people respect the property and consent of others. Have whatever system makes you feel happy. Hell, if you want to have a huge central government, you can have that, too, so long as it's built upon the actual consent of everyone it attempts to enforce rules on and it doesn't attempt to use force to make people obey its edicts and take people's property that do not consent to its rule.
I don't know, I think you're going to have to work a lot harder to prove that something is "coincidence" when it functions the way it is supposed to repeatedly and on countless occasions.
Also, different government branches have more autonomy that a department within a company. This is especially true for the legal system. They are still far to close together for my tastes, but I don't think that analogy holds up.