Tolstoy

Thursday 02.04.2010 02:26PM

I really need to read some Tolstoy, apparently. I came across this on the Live Free or Die blog and it really resonated with me.

From The Kingdom of God is Within You:

“We may dispute upon the question whether the nestlings are ready to do without the mother-hen and to come out of the eggs, or whether they are not yet advanced enough. But the young birds will decide the question without any regard for our arguments when they find themselves cramped for space in the eggs. Then they will begin to try them with their beaks and come out of them of their own accord.

It is the same with the question whether the time has come to do away with the governmental type of society and to replace it by a new type. If a man, through the growth of a higher conscience, can no longer comply with the demands of government, he finds himself cramped by it and at the same time no longer needs its protection. When this comes to pass, the question whether men are ready to discard the governmental type is solved. And the conclusion will be as final for them as for the young birds hatched out of the eggs. Just as no power in the world can put them back into the shells, so can no power in the world bring men again under the governmental type of society when once they have outgrown it.

”It may well be that government was necessary and is still necessary for all the advantages which you attribute to it,“ says the man who has mastered the Christian theory of life. ”I only know that on the one hand, government is no longer necessary for ME, and on the other hand, I can no longer carry out the measures that are necessary to the existence of a government. Settle for yourselves what you need for your life. I cannot prove the need or the harm of governments in general. I know only what I need and do not need, what I can do and what I cannot. I know that I do not need to divide myself off from other nations, and therefore I cannot admit that I belong exclusively to any state or nation, or that I owe allegiance to any government. I know that I do not need all the government institutions organized within the state, and therefore I cannot deprive people who need my labor to give it in the form of taxes to institutions which I do not need, which for all I know may be pernicious. I know that I have no need of the administration or of courts of justice founded upon force, and therefore I can take no part in either. I know that I do not need to attack and slaughter other nations or to defend myself from them with arms, and therefore I can take no part in wars or preparations for wars. It may well be that there are people who cannot help regarding all this as necessary and indispensable. I cannot dispute the question with them, I can only speak for myself; but I can say with absolute certainty that I do not need it, and that I cannot do it. ...“

Whatever arguments may be advanced in support of the contention that the suppression of government authority would be injurious and would lead to great calamities, men who have once outgrown the governmental form of society cannot go back to it again. And all the reasoning in the world cannot make the man who has outgrown the governmental form of society take part in actions disallowed by his conscience, any more than the full-grown bird can be made to return into the egg-shell.”

Tagged: / / /
comment (1) | add to del.icio.us

My political philosophy, Volume 1

Sunday 04.13.2008 01:40AM

It was back in October that I was given a blog homework assignment about my political beliefs and how my faith has impacted them. It is a topic I have been interested in writing about, but it is such a broad topic that often I did not know how to best tackle it. Some discussions have happened recently among friends and I finally decided to just jump into it and do my best.

I do not support the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.

That is about as simple a groundwork as I can lay for my political philosophy. While succinct, there are nuances to it that are commonly overlooked or misunderstood. It's known as the non-aggression principle and Wikipedia elaborates:

It holds that “aggression,” which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

This is easy to understand in simple, one-to-one, real world interactions. If Jim has an apple and John wants an apple, it is wrong for John to punch Jim and take the apple. It is also wrong for John to threaten to punch Jim unless he gives him the apple; and it is wrong for John to deceive Jim and take the apple while he is not looking. In an instance like this, the majority of people will agree with the principle. It is something we learned from a young age.

In order to consistently apply this principle, it should not change when there are more than two people. John's actions would still be wrong if he got 2 people or 1000 people to go along with him.

My faith has impacted my political beliefs, quite simply, by containing this principle as part of its core. I believe Jesus epitomized the non-aggression principle. His example calls followers to peacefully (e.g. non-aggression) spread the gospel - to use persuasion, not coercion.

Continuing with my political philosophy, it is important to understand that governments rely on force and the threat of force in order to enforce laws.

When we see a speed limit sign, most of us will make sure we are close to that limit. Why? Because we understand if a police officer catches us speeding, there are escalating penalties: there is a fine with the ticket, then there are more fines, then there is suspension of the license, then there is arrest for driving with a suspended license, and finally there is risk of bodily harm for resisting or fleeing the arrest. These penalties act as coercion and work well enough that most people will be very careful to avoid speeding in the first place, much less do anything to escalate the penalties beyond the first fine. Without these penalties – the threat of force – who would care about the speed limit? It would just be a speed suggestion.

Similarly, with income taxes, we know there are escalating penalties if we fail to file or pay: fines, interest charges, bank account seizure, liens against property, arrest, and the risk of bodily harm for resisting or fleeing arrest. Again, these act as coercion and work well enough that most people will file their taxes. Without the threat of force that we know lies implicitly behind each law, there would not be reason for people to obey them.

If it is understood that governments rely on force and the threat of force in order to enforce laws, then the next logical question should be: is it legitimate in the case of government? I have come to the conclusion that it is not, because government is just a grouping of people, and as I mentioned before, the principle should be consistently applied.

If John formed an organization that coerced Jim to give it his apples, it would be illegitimate. Even if this organization had support from a majority of the population, it would still be illegitimate. Should it change anything if John called this organization “government”?

Your thoughts and questions are welcomed. I know, from experience, that these ideas can bring up questions that head in a variety of directions. I would prefer the discussion stay roughly within the concepts of this post; others I may wait to address in future posts.

Tagged: / / /
comments (8) | add to del.icio.us