The role of Government coercion and it's morality (Discussion thread)

[Crom's Black Blade]

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but I've recently concluded a rather heated argument over government power and its morality that I guess I wouldn't mind second opinions on. Ego and emotions being what they are on the internet discussion they can blind you to arguments and accent the negative of the opposition's position.

In the simplest terms the disagreement arouse over the desirability of the Government to use a monopoly of food distribution to compel a populace compliance either in compulsion of performance of certain tasks/ duties or as a means to repress riots against the government's rule. While we never delved too far into specifics one recurring element was the formation of camps where citizens would have to go to be evaluated to determine what job they were best suited for.

I objected to this on, among other issues, moral grounds. That it is wrong for a government to treat its citizens as prisoners that need to be caroled into doing the "right" action. Believing it was more moral, and more practical, in a crisis for the governing body to devote its energies maintaining the security and stability so that citizens could make their own informed choices and actions.

Naturally we did not see eye to eye on this. My opponent argued my complaint was groundless. That taxes were a form of coercion since they are not consequence-free if you refuse to pay them. Which I felt was a deliberate obfuscation. That, at least in principal, taxes are a freely entered compact where I pay in part for the commongood in exchange from enjoying the shared security and amenities like roads. That being fined for not paying taxes is no more coercion than going to jail for robbery.

At which point the argument still further descended to the American Revolutionary War leading to a bizarre exchange where I was informed I either had to acknowledge my opponent's view that coercion was moral, at least for governments, or admit that George Washington was morally equal to the Nazi's. It was at this point I ended the discussion rather vehemently.

So yeah. I'll freely admit that maybe I'm naive or just too stupid to gleam the nuance of the situation but it was surreal to me that our disagreement was not over whether something was coercion but that coercion itself was a good thing or not. And having enjoyed lurking in some of the high-minded discussions in this sub-forum I thought I'd kick it here.

At the very worst, I figure ya'll will get a good laugh at me for any stupidity in my argument above.

 

[JagerIV]

My understanding, which I believe to be the Orthodox position on such things, is that Coercion is something states do, in fact the right to legitimate coercion is one of the defining features of a state.

Being fined for not paying taxes and going to jail for robbery are both examples of government coercion, they are just generally accepted to be cases of the government applying their coercive powers correctly.

 

[Simonbob]

If you talk to a Libertarian, they'll say "coercion is wrong, all of it, but sometimes its the lesser evil".

That's the better argument. However, it comes down to morality. Depending on your morals, if you have any, tells you if it's right or not, and where the limits are. If you have a Faith, that has a code, or if you're a Libertarian. Or a Communist, where your code is "The Party will fix everything if we just give them all the POWER!". There's a few others, better or worse.


Most people don't have actual morals though. They just feel it's right or wrong. Hard to argue with.


You should just say something like "If you want to be a slave, that's not my problem, but I'm not going to be one." and go do something more useful.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but I've recently concluded a rather heated argument over government power and its morality that I guess I wouldn't mind second opinions on. Ego and emotions being what they are on the internet discussion they can blind you to arguments and accent the negative of the opposition's position.

In the simplest terms the disagreement arouse over the desirability of the Government to use a monopoly of food distribution to compel a populace compliance either in compulsion of performance of certain tasks/ duties or as a means to repress riots against the government's rule. While we never delved too far into specifics one recurring element was the formation of camps where citizens would have to go to be evaluated to determine what job they were best suited for.

At which point the argument still further descended to the American Revolutionary War leading to a bizarre exchange where I was informed I either had to acknowledge my opponent's view that coercion was moral, at least for governments, or admit that George Washington was morally equal to the Nazi's. It was at this point I ended the discussion rather vehemently.

Your opponent is an authoritarian fascist.

Wants the government to have the right to commit mass murder if necessary, wants to set up concentration camps, thinks that level of coercion is moral? Absolutely fascist.

Not in the way liberals frequently use it today, but in an unironic, real life sense.

 

[JagerIV]

Your opponent is an authoritarian fascist.

Wants the government to have the right to commit mass murder if necessary, wants to set up concentration camps, thinks that level of coercion is moral? Absolutely fascist.

Not in the way liberals frequently use it today, but in an unironic, real life sense.

States, up to the US, will do it to survive though. And most people would probably support it. Or in the case of an occupation, wouldn't have much right to complain.

The big issue me and Crom had was over the practical moral question of what kind of reaction people would have to various types of government coercion. If the government was the only source of food, he seemed to believe people would rather commit suicide than comply. That effectively getting paid to work at much lower rates due to the change of circumstance would be so morally insulting they would rather die.

Looking at history most people give in to much less extreme forms of coercion, and if society did fall apart so the government was the only source of food, people would be supportive of the government, not hostile to it. And would probably want the government to force people to work, rather than allowing freeloaders in a time of crisis and shortage to laz aground on government largess.

And obviously, if your an occupying armies, one method of suppressing a rebellion/insurrection is controlling resources, such as limiting food rations to just enough for the households, so nothing can be given to the rebels. And obviously if everyone has to work to earn just enough to eat, no one has the free time to join the rebellion.

Its a regular, tried and true method of suppressing rebellion. I believe the British did roughly this strategy in the Boer War and Malyaia to general success, we tried something like this in Vietnam to failure, and of course the USSR I believe did something similar when occupying Germany, that those who did not work, did not eat.

The moral argument is a practical one, that such heavy handed means inevitably backfire and trigger more rebellion, rather than suppress it and force compliance. Looking at history, I am not convinced this is a good read of human nature. If told to work or starve, most people will actually prefer to work.

And if the government implements work or starve in response to an actual crisis and emergency, popular support would probably be behind the work or starve policy, and if your a foreign occupying force, well, your already willing to conquer someone, so from conquering to rationing food doesn't seem like a major moral step, and to the degree it allows an occupation with less bloodshed than otherwise, might even be the morally superior option.

Edited to remove some duplicate words and break up a run on sentance.

 

[Simonbob]

The moral argument is a practical one, that such heavy handed means inevitably backfire and trigger more rebellion, rather than suppress it and force compliance. Looking at history, I am not convinced this is a good read of human nature. If told to work or starve, most people will actually prefer to work.

And, that's the problem. Moral isn't practical.

There's a difference between right and effective. Would it work? Likely. Scams work, slaving works, corruption works, and a whole bunch of other things we don't like.


They're still wrong.

 

[King Arts]

Which I felt was a deliberate obfuscation. That, at least in principal, taxes are a freely entered compact where I pay in part for the commongood in exchange from enjoying the shared security and amenities like roads. That being fined for not paying taxes is no more coercion than going to jail for robbery.

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. They are not freely entered. People were never given a choice to sign up, or given the option to leave the deal if they feel it's not good. It's weird you don't see how taxation is similar to theft. I will concede to the Libertarians it looks like that. So it's weird that you compare the guy who refuses to pay his taxes with the armed robber, when it should be the other way around, the government is the armed robber.

At which point the argument still further descended to the American Revolutionary War leading to a bizarre exchange where I was informed I either had to acknowledge my opponent's view that coercion was moral, at least for governments, or admit that George Washington was morally equal to the Nazi's. It was at this point I ended the discussion rather vehemently.

Now this I'm curious and confused on. How was George Washington morally equal to the Nazis?

 

[JagerIV]

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. They are not freely entered. People were never given a choice to sign up, or given the option to leave the deal if they feel it's not good. It's weird you don't see how taxation is similar to theft. I will concede to the Libertarians it looks like that. So it's weird that you compare the guy who refuses to pay his taxes with the armed robber, when it should be the other way around, the government is the armed robber.


Now this I'm curious and confused on. How was George Washington morally equal to the Nazis?

It was an attempt at a clarification/reduco add absurdum to his argument regarding how taxes weren't coercive. Taking what I understood his argument to be, and if it was applied consistently, Hitler would have never coerced the Jews either, because Hitler was just applying penalties to enforce the freely entered compact that the Jews agreed to by continuing live in a State that elected Hitler to power.

Thus, George Washington and Hitler would be equally innocent of ever having coerced anyone, at least domestically. Because they were just enforcing the social compact and the penalties for not complying with it.

Thus I was making the critism that:

1) The principal as you've explained it to me is absurd on its face.
2) What were really arguing about it not coercion, but something else.

I think it was some mixture of legitimacy and good ends was the true issue under discussion. Trying to define the good or evil of an action in terms of whether coercion happened or not seemed to me to confuse the argument more than it illuminated. The Hitler comparison was an attempt to do so, by putting the basic structure of the argument presented in its most extreme form.

I think both George Washington and Hitler both coerced people. Its part of the job of head of a state. The moral weight of their leadership instead rests more in how extreme their coercion was given the circumstances and to what end that coercion was being applied to.

My follow on example was that I want the state to coerce rapists, and in fact I'd like them to coerce them quite strongly. I would not be supportive of the State coercing me to fight in a war that literally only served to enrich the rich and powerful.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. They are not freely entered. People were never given a choice to sign up, or given the option to leave the deal if they feel it's not good.

You were entered into the compact by your parents and in turn, by not renouncing your citizenship, you enter your descendents. Certainly not perfect but there is some choice in the matter.

Now this I'm curious and confused on. How was George Washington morally equal to the Nazis

Because I made a point that the British, with the stamp act and other Intolerable acts, we're using coercion against the colonies.

Jager pointed to the Whisky Rebellion and argued I either had agree with him about coercion or admit Washington was comparable to Nazi's.

For the record I at no point compared the British to WWII Germany or Fascists in general in my argument before.

His argument is also somewhat complicated by earlier claiming Nazi's forcing Jews into cattle cars wasn't coercion if paying taxes wasn't.