Why Government is Unethical-Part 1
“The fundamental question of political philosophy is whether there should be any state at all,” stated Robert Nozick. Government and politics have become hot topics in society today, and for good reason. While it seems that the majority of people simply want to live their lives in the most ethical manner possible, it is impossible to do so without considering the law and government and their impact on the daily lives and ethical ideals of the citizenry. It is imperative to consider the effect that government has on the people and their freedoms insofar as the ways in which government is itself an unethical institution when considering its role and infringement on liberties and rights of the people. The idea of anarchy implies chaos and mob rule to many, however it is important to point out that many intellectuals have contemplated this philosophy for the last couple of centuries, and found that mankind is greatly hindered and harmed by the very people that are chosen, or that inherit the right to, rule over others. These scholars find that man is better off left to self-government, because unlike the common misconception, anarchy means not chaos, but simply an absence of government, which comes from the Greek anarchos, meaning no rulers.
Freedom, according to William Holmes “is the very essence of anarchism.” Holmes also states that “[n]o man can be a consistent [a]narchist who would abridge the freedom of others.” This cannot be said for the State. It is well-known that slavery was an institution that was not prohibited in America for the first part of its history. It was a popular means of acquiring labor by plantation owners in the Southern States, and is a practice that has a history dating back thousands of years. Like slavery, government often implements legislation which infringes upon the natural rights of human beings. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon stated, “liberty [is] not the daughter but the Mother of Order.” Proudhon’s successor, Mikhail Bakunin, described the State as:
“born historically in all countries of the marriage of violence, rapine, pillage, in a word, war and conquest… Even when it commands what is good, it hinders and spoils it, just because it commands it, and because every command provokes and excites the legitimate revolts of liberty.”
This, clearly, is not an example of the practice of the ethical ideals of loving kindness and justice. For example, the draft, started in time of war to provide soldiers for that effort, took citizens from their homes involuntarily to fight and die for the State. Using its “monopoly on the use of coercion,” the State forces human beings to bend to its will. According to Henry David Thoreau, the military is “both an instrument of the nation’s coercion and an example of it…” Thoreau goes further to say that, “The State never confronts a man’s sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength.” This is a fair assessment and is a far cry from the ethical ideal of justice and loving kindness. Coercion is never an example of either of these ideals.
It is difficult for most people to imagine a stateless society, however, people of different cultures lived without a State for centuries, such as the Tiv and Nuer of Africa, some well into the twentieth century. Peter Leeson gives two theories for the construction of government. The first is what he calls “social contract theory,” and the other, “predatory theory.” In the first theory, it is suggested that individuals decide that it is beneficial to construct some form of government because it is “socially efficient.” If done voluntarily, this does not infringe on individual rights or violate ethical ideals. The second theory suggests that government is formed out of the greed of some who find it advantageous to have the power of using force against others. This does not follow the ideals of beneficence, compassion, justice, or loving kindness. Citing numerous works, Leeson determines that in the absence of government, private institutions, such as arbitration, are put in place which “preventconflict and encourage cooperation.” In private organizations such as this, reputation is a major factor in whether those using the services provided will respect its word or action. This worked well for numerous anarchistic tribes for many years. Would it not have been a more ethical approach to leave these societies to their own designs than to impose governments on those who may have seen it to be unnecessary?
