Would it be moral?

[Fred Cole]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

[Fred Cole]

I meant re-reading

Damn autocorrect

[studiodekadent]

Personal opinion:

Unlikely, since piracy of that scale would likely necessitate killing military members that cannot personally be held morally repsonsible for the conduct of the government itself.

If it could be done 100% non-lethally, perhaps. But of course, there would be plenty of practical difficulties like calculating who-is-owed-what and returning it to them.

Additionally, in a real-world corporatist mixed economy, it is hard to estimate someone's earnings that come EXCLUSIVELY from voluntary market transactions. Most people accrue benefits (and incur costs) from state-based economic distortions which make it hard to determine how much of someone's wealth is legitimately acquired.

Such an exercise would require a huge amount of personal effort; the cost to a person may render such a campaign against one's rational interests even in the long run.

And finally, just an important note, Atlas should be read allegorically. Rand didn't advocate real-world Utopian communities even though there's one in Atlas, she didn't advocate shooting people for being indecisive (even though Dagny does it in Atlas), and chain-smoking probably isn't in one's rational self-interest (even if all the heroes chain-smoke in Atlas). So I'd be skeptical of ANY claim that one should follow a pattern of action lifted DIRECTLY from Atlas Shrugged, at least initially (for one, I think some level of "going on strike" can, in many circumstances, to various degrees, be justified).

[Fred Cole]

Well, im not saying it'd be simple...

Hmmm... Ok

I recently read a story about how TX makes a profit on stuff confiscated ("voluntarily forfeited") by/to the TSA.

If I hijacked a truck carrying such things, would that be moral?

And on the same lines would it be moral to rob a wearhouse holding such items?

And would it be moral to rob a warehouse storing stolen govt furniture?

In my head I can hear Peikoff saying No because of ego-ism and the need for self preservation.

[BaalChatzaf]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

Only if the forces of "law and order" became totally corrupt and your piracy was used to enable just ends.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Fred:

Yes, it would be moral to be an avenger who returned property taken by force by the government to its rightful owners.

Practically, it would be extremely risky and difficult to effect properly.

But definitely moral.

Adam

[Reidy]

Leaving aside my problems with the phrasing ("Would it be moral?" sounds too much like "Do we have a duty?" or "Do we have the permission of the Objectivist authorities?"), I'd say it's not the right course of action. One reason is that the costs and risks (if you can call them that when failure is such a sure thing) so far outweigh any possible benefits. The other is that current circumstances don't merit it.

Rand, like Plato, Locke and the authors of the Declaration of Independence, pondered the question of what a state has to do to forfeit its legitimacy and merit violent resistance. I think "Collectivized 'Rights'" was where she took this up. Her criteria included, as memory serves, censorship, forced labor, execution without trial and one-party rule, none of which we have in the US today.

[Fred Cole]

I like the phrasing of "Would it be moral?"

Because

I'm not about to get a pistol and start hijacking trucks. This isn't a question of practical application (How do I successfully do this?), it's a question of morality (Is it right or wrong?).

[Brant Gaede]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

There's good reason Rand didn't dwell too much on Ragnar: In real life he'd have been blown out of the water. Or, if not that, he'd have had to have killed and maimed a lot of people. Now, why did Orren Boyle build his factory on the coast of Maine? So Ragnar could destroy it with naval gunfire. This is one Randian character not to be put under a microscope for sure.

--Brant

there was a German raider in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic in the early days of WWII called "Atlantis." The Captain of which actually comported himself as close to how the fictional Ragnar could in real life. His basic approach was to use his converted cargo ship as a surprise weapon and destroy the other guy's radio room before he could transmit what was going on. He would take off the crew and what cargo he could and sink the ship or put on a prize crew. The Brits caught up with him in the South Atlantic. I read about all this as a teenager and the book was The German Raider Atlantis, if I remember correctly. This had to have been serious news back then and I'd be surprised if Rand hadn't read about it.

--Brant

[Fred Cole]

He may or may not have been blown out of the water consider that modern piracy consists of illiterate somali fishermen with RPGs and speedboats.

Also consider that in the world of Atlas, then men of the kind are disappearing, competency is disappearing, so a competent man by comparison would be amazing.

[Selene]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

There's good reason Rand didn't dwell too much on Ragnar: In real life he'd have been blown out of the water. Or, if not that, he'd have had to have killed and maimed a lot of people. Now, why did Orren Boyle build his factory on the coast of Maine? So Ragnar could destroy it with naval gunfire. This is one Randian character not to be put under a microscope for sure.

--Brant

there was a German raider in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic in the early days of WWII called "Atlantis." The Captain of which actually comported himself as close to how the fictional Ragnar could in real life. His basic approach was to use his converted cargo ship as a surprise weapon and destroy the other guy's radio room before he could transmit what was going on. He would take off the crew and what cargo he could and sink the ship or put on a prize crew. The Brits caught up with him in the South Atlantic. I read about all this as a teenager and the book was The German Raider Atlantis, if I remember correctly. This had to have been serious news back then and I'd be surprised if Rand hadn't read about it.

--Brant

Brant:

One of my most fascinating stories of WWII - I even had the model that you assembled, painted and decaled which was an amazing learning experience.

GERMAN RAIDER ATLANTIS

1/100 Scale 61" x 7"

Built in 1939 as a freighter, Atlantis was converted to a surface commerce raider, or "Q" Ship. Using a variety of disguises, she sank 22 allied vessels before being sunk herself by HMS Devonshire in 1941.

http://www.usmbooks....arine_book.html

http://en.wikipedia....ruiser_Atlantis

http://www.geocities...ng/raiding.html

http://www.ahoy.tk-j.../2Atlantis.html

Hope all these links still work.

Adam

Edited June 23, 2011 by Selene

[sjw]

Personal opinion:

Unlikely, since piracy of that scale would likely necessitate killing military members that cannot personally be held morally repsonsible for the conduct of the government itself.

Not to weigh in on one side or the other, but you do realize that you've just outlawed war itself don't you?

Shayne

[Fred Cole]

They might not be able to be held personally responsible for the moral conduct, but the US has am all volunteer force,

By wearing the uniform they voluntarily assume the risks rationally assumed to go with it.

[Xray]

I like the phrasing of "Would it be moral?"

Because

I'm not about to get a pistol and start hijacking trucks.

Good to know.

This isn't a question of practical application (How do I successfully do this?), it's a question of morality (Is it right or wrong?).

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

What do you and the other posters think Ayn Rand would have replied to your question?

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

But before tackling the intricate and highly controversial issue of "absolute morality", my first step in examining a moral philosopher's moral code is always to test whether what the philosopher considers as "moral" is consistent with the philosopher's own principles regarding morality.

Pirating ships clearly violates the non-initiaton of force principle advocated by Rand, for pirating a ship cannot be done without initiating force.

The same goes for Howard Roark. Roark violates both the Objectivist principle of not faking reality (he acts as Keating's accomplice in committing a fraud: Keating's presenting Roark's work as his own), and the NIOF principle (blowing up the building is clearly an initiation of force).

Edited June 25, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

Angela:

In "our society" you mean what?

Second, define "moral standards," please.

Finally, once you answer that, can you give me three (3) examples of specific changes from then to now.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

Only real Objectivists are allowed to become pirates or blow up apartment buildings.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I like the phrasing of "Would it be moral?"

Because

I'm not about to get a pistol and start hijacking trucks.

Good to know.

This isn't a question of practical application (How do I successfully do this?), it's a question of morality (Is it right or wrong?).

I've been retracing (listening to) Atlas and it made me wonder

Would it be moral for me to become a pirate?

Using the rules in Atlas, only taking govt ships, only to return property taken by force? Would that be ok?

What do you and the other posters think Ayn Rand would have replied to your question?

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

But before tackling the intricate and highly controversial issue of "absolute morality", my first step in examining a moral philosopher's moral code is always to test whether what the philosopher considers as "moral" is consistent with the philosopher's own principles regarding morality.

Pirating ships clearly violates the non-inition of force principle advocated by Rand, for pirating a ship cannot be done without initiating force.

The same goes for Howard Roark. Roark violates both the Objectivist principle of not faking reality (he acts as Keating's accomplice in committing a fraud: Keating's presenting Roark's work as his own), and the NIOF principle (blowing up the building is clearly an initiation of force).

Rationally one would want objective moral standards and they would naturally change with the acquisition of new knowledge, not of the standards but the human referent. Subjectivity here would or could mean seeing people as molding clay for authoritarians, and if they are too old to be changed just get your hands on the children. If change is still too slow, kill the adults after dehumanizing them. You can kill everybody if it's a racist matter. Dewey to Hitler.

Seizing government ships is either initiation of force or the tactical initiation of force in the context of war. Ragnar was at war. Was there strategic justification for what he did? Yes, but . . .

Roark helped Keating fake reality, a mistake he owned up to after his help did more to destroy Keating than Keating's momma or Toohey did. If he hadn't helped him in school Keating might have gotten the message then that he might do better at painting. You have to be extremely careful how you help people. You can easily subsidize the real problem just beneath the surface.

I'm glad Roark blew up the housing complex. Great reading! I'm glad Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, including that pirate! More great reading! Let Ayn Rand write her novels. Let her readers sort things out!

--Brant

[Xray]

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

Angela:

In "our society" you mean what?

In this context, it was to be understood as 'our modern (Western) society'.

Second, define "moral standards," please.

What it says in 1) and 3) here regarding the definition of "standard" fits it quite well:

stand·ard

1.

something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

2.

an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.

3.

a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard

A moral standard would therefore be a basis of judgement from which behavior is classified as moral or immoral.

Finally, once you answer that, can you give me three (3) examples of specific changes from then to now.

1) Women wearing miniskirts in public was quite a revolution in that field. Wearing this garment way before it finally became accepted in the mid-sixties would have violated the moral standards of 'decent dressing' of the preceding decades.

2) A woman's losing her virginity before marriage is no longer considered as "immoral behavior".

3) Homosexuality is no longer condemned as "immoral".

Also interesting to observe is that there seems to be no falling back to a previous stage.

From this one can infer that we won't see e. g. a sudden moral 're-condemning' of homosexuality, or a sudden moral 're-condemning' of women who are no longer a virgin.

Nor will there come a time when people will suddenly think of slavery as morally acceptable again.

For our ethical standards evolve as we evolve. In which direction do they involve?

Definitely toward more individual freedom, but also toward more empathy.

This ethical evolvement of humanity gives me a lot of hope for the future, despite all the problems we are currently confronted with.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Xray

[syrakusos]

Allow me to point, first, to my posts here on OL Ethics on the distinction between morality and ethics.

I said there:

When I decided to pursue an associate's in criminal justice, the first class I had was "Ethics for Law Enforcement." ... completing my master's, I had a class in "Ethics in Physics" and a seminar in teaching ethics to students of counseling and as a result, I gathered several Codes of Ethics from professional and technical societies. None was called a Code of Morality. Morality is personal. Ayn Rand finally removed morality from the social sphere by explaining Robinson Crusoe's need for morality. Ethics was irrelevant to his situation.

I point out that for the Heroes of Atlas Shrugged, the situation was somewhat contrived. Ragnar had John Galt's invisibility screen which blocked or whatever all wavelengths. Also, his ship arguably had Galt's engine because apparently his automobile did. So, basically, he had a destroyer with the speed and maneuverability of a PT boat and it never needed fuel - "except a few drops of oil for the converter." Like a good highwayman, he only attacked unarmed ships and ran from the military, speed and invisibility being of value there. Also, in Ayn Rand's day, relief ships were plainly marked.

Today, they look like this:

You might know the shipping schedules, of course. Ragnar fenced the goods because he had networks of buyers offering gold. He knew where to distribute the gold because he had insiders at the IRS. (Dagny was paid on the taxes of her salary as VP Ops, not the profits from the stock she held.) So, you would need your own sources of information, as well.

All of that seems like details to the deeper question, but in fact, they outline the considerations because what is "moral" is defined by your self-interest. Suppose we had a looter state (I mean, you know, just hypothetically), and you decided to "do something" about it. You would have to identify and weigh all of the variables in order to know whether or not to carry out any particular action.

Your deeper question is whether or not the time has come to forcibly resist the state. Objectivists pretty much think it has not. The basic institutions of political freedom - press, assembly, etc. - are all in place, only that too many people have all the wrong ideas. Bringing better ideas is the path to changing society, not robbing relief ships (of which there are few, anyway).

Edited June 27, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

1) Women wearing miniskirts in public was quite a revolution in that field. Wearing this garment way

before it finally became accepted in the mid-sixties would have violated the moral standards of 'decent dressing' of the preceding decades.

2) A woman's losing her virginity before marriage is no longer considered as "immoral behavior".

3) Homosexuality is no longer condemned as "immoral".

Considering the distinction between morality and ethics, I think that these are ethical issues. Objectively, morality does not change, because it cannot. Morality is tied to human nature. If human nature changes, then morality must, as well, but as long as all men are mortal, Socrates must choose to think.

Homosexuality has come and gone and is now returned in western culture. Likewise, when the archaic Greeks came into the Mediterranean, clothing was only for keeping warm. Tired of being harrassed, women took to covering up and pinning their draperies with weapons. Men still went about naked until classical times and even about 200 BCE, in Rome Cato the Elder was considered virtuous because he worked naked in the fields with his slaves. The miniskirt was only a logical progression. After World War I much of a lot of things was removed; In the generation before, men appreciated unclothed women in context.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Xray]

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

1) Women wearing miniskirts in public was quite a revolution in that field. Wearing this garment way

before it finally became accepted in the mid-sixties would have violated the moral standards of 'decent dressing' of the preceding decades.

2) A woman's losing her virginity before marriage is no longer considered as "immoral behavior".

3) Homosexuality is no longer condemned as "immoral".

Considering the distinction between morality and ethics, I think that these are ethical issues.

The problem with the terms morality and ethics is that are often used interchangeably.

I use "ethics" more often (but not always) in the sense of moral philosophy, where it is reflected about moral standards, their change etc.

In TVOS, imo Rand makes no clear distinction between the two terms either.

Objectively, morality does not change, because it cannot. Morality is tied to human nature.

It is true that every human society has its moral standards, but what do we make of the fact that these standards have changed? If you feel more comfortable using "ethical" instead of moral here, no problem on my part - I don't think the terminology is that important here.

If human nature changes, then morality must, as well, but as long as all men are mortal, Socrates must choose to think.

Must one "choose" to think?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

Every discussion about morality is about moral standards, and moral standards are subject to change.

Just take a look at what was generally considered as moral (or immoral) a few generations ago in our society and you will get the picture.

Angela:

In "our society" you mean what?

In this context, it was to be understood as 'our modern (Western) society'.

Second, define "moral standards," please.

What it says in 1) and 3) here regarding the definition of "standard" fits it quite well:

stand·ard

1.

something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

2.

an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.

3.

a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/standard

A moral standard would therefore be a basis of judgement from which behavior is classified as moral or immoral.

Finally, once you answer that, can you give me three (3) examples of specific changes from then to now.

1) Women wearing miniskirts in public was quite a revolution in that field. Wearing this garment way before it finally became accepted in the mid-sixties would have violated the moral standards of 'decent dressing' of the preceding decades.

2) A woman's losing her virginity before marriage is no longer considered as "immoral behavior".

3) Homosexuality is no longer condemned as "immoral".

Also interesting to observe is that there seems to be no falling back to a previous stage.

From this one can infer that we won't see e. g. a sudden moral 're-condemning' of homosexuality, or a sudden moral 're-condemning' of women who are no longer a virgin.

Nor will there come a time when people will suddenly think of slavery as morally acceptable again.

For our ethical standards evolve as we evolve. In which direction do they involve?

Definitely toward more individual freedom, but also toward more empathy.

This ethical evolvement of humanity gives me a lot of hope for the future, despite all the problems we are currently confronted with.

Angela,

Do you believe the ethical evolvement towards empathy had everything to do with the relaxing of certain stupid 'mores' and prejudices?

You do know that they can easily be dismissed by rational morality, don't you?

But you contradict yourself. Somewhere else you stated that the world is in a mess; here, that empathy will bring us out of it.

Have you not considered that you have the cause and effect reversed?

Empathy, treated as a prescription, a doctrine, and advocacy - is what has made the mess. Instead of leaving this otherwise fine instinct to each person's volition, it has been forced on the world, by guilt where necessary.

An orgy of empathy (real, or faked) has got us in the mess.

You don't believe me? Visit South Africa, and see first-hand the progression of politically correct 'empathy', to 'human rights', to widespread 'entitlement', and to savagery. (Xenophobic killings, as one example.)

Please understand, it is one thing to live in a wealthy European country with mixed economy, the checks and balances of State contra a powerful industry, a solid work ethic, with stoical, self-disciplined and reasonably self-responsible citizens ... and preach empathy. It probably makes one feel ever so moral.

But you hopefully will not see the true logical outcome of what you preach, in Germany. (Though Greece did.)

Be careful what you wish for...

And you use "individual freedom" and "empathy" in the same sentence! An objective standard, coupled with a subjective feeling.

In the sense you utilise it, at least call empathy by its real name - altruism.

Tony

[syrakusos]

Considering the distinction between morality and ethics, I think that these are ethical issues.

The problem with the terms morality and ethics is that are often used interchangeably.

I use "ethics" more often (but not always) in the sense of moral philosophy, where it is reflected about moral standards, their change etc.

In TVOS, imo Rand makes no clear distinction between the two terms either.

It is true that every human society has its moral standards, but what do we make of the fact that these standards have changed? If you feel more comfortable using "ethical" instead of moral here, no problem on my part - I don't think the terminology is that important here.

I stated as succinctly as I could why I differentiate the terms "ethical" and "moral" in this post. Moreover, this is not unique to me. I read a book on ethics in engineering, and the author made a similar distinction: morality is wider and more permanent; ethics are social rules that can change. Do you claim that morality is subjective? On a law enforcement board I visit there is a discussion of an 8-year old girl in Afghanistan who was used to carry a bomb. How many votes make that moral? If it is immoral - and I believe it is - then it can never be ethical.

On the other hand, moral actions may be unethical. For instance, we have a case here where a master's candidate in counseling refused to counsel gays. As a Christian, she excused herself. She did not counsel them against their lifestyle, she merely withdrew. She was expelled from her academic program. She sued. Her action was moral, but not ethical, because she joined a program whose code of ethics mandates that she counsel the clients who come to her without prejudice. It is the same as applies to a public defender in the courts.

Objectively, morality does not change, because it cannot. Morality is tied to human nature.

... but as long as all men are mortal, Socrates must choose to think.

Must one "choose" to think?

Yes. First of all, not everything that runs through your head is thinking. Thinking requires focus. Focus is volitional.

The opposite of that is suppression and its habit, repression. As avoidances, they are not focuses but the failure to focus. In Gone With the Wind when Scarlet says that she will think about it tomorrow, that is not the same thing as an engineer stacking up tomorrow's drawings before closing her desk for the night. Scarlet is avoiding choice; the avoidance of choice is not a choice. When you touch a hot pan, your reflex is not choice.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Frediano]

I think it could be acting consistent with your ethics, and thus, moral, but it depends on an analysis of the ethics involved; the ethical consistency of your actions depends on the morality of the government you are responding to, and the ethical consistency of its actions. I think your question really is, do you have an ethical obligation to follow the laws of a government that acts outside of ethical constraint, and are you moral when you break those laws? IMO, that can't be answered without examining the government as an actor in this conflict.

I regard ethics as our analytical foundation, which exists outside of actors as instances of entities which either act or do not act with morality-- an adherence to ethical standards. So morality is an attribute of some actor, while ethics is the analytical study of our foundation of morality.

We exist in a political context. In our specific instance, we clearly benefit from the special nature of that collective political context. This is a criticism of Rand's assertion in AS that 'Galt's Gulch' had been 'paid for' by Midas Mulligan with gold or whatever. That was only true within the definition of an expensively obtained political context, the true cost of which was 16 million Americans in uniform leaving 400,000 of themselves in a meatgrinder, and the sacrifices of their families in a nation less than half our present size that borrowed the equivalent of 3T dollars to stand up their own version of soft fascism -- the Arsenal of Democracy -- in a do-or-die confrontation with meat eating totalitarian alternatives. It had to be done. Hitler and the Third Reich was not going to be faced down by a pirate and six of his sharp shooting friends sailing the world in a Hinckley yacht masked by miracle rays. Had the German's shown up in Galt's Gulch, they were not going to be appeased by Midas Mulligan's receipt for the land that he had 'paid for.' His receipt was only worth anything in an expensively established and maintained political context.

This can be warped into a kind of paradox of freedom, but it is not. It is true, this nation did embrace totalitarianism -- in the face of totalitarianism -- in a do-or-die act of existential necessity. The paradox is, or should still be, that the people of this nation join together and form a government dedicated ultimately to our mutual right to live free from each other. For that tribal purpose; to deliberately fetter the concept of "tribe uber alles," unless and until threatened by outside tribes claiming "tribe uber alles." It is a principle that in principle can be supported by gays, straights, PETA, meat eaters, businessmen, artists, etc. living under a paradigm of free association,... except for the inevitable still remaining emperor wannabees that erupt from time to time imbued with their really good ideas that require forced association. The difference today is, increasingly, the threat to freedom is internal. The result, I think, of decades of attack across open borders and open campuses by global totalitarian leaning adversaries. We've been over-run with the mid 1800's German philosophers inspired freedom eating disease. For fully half of America, individual liberty is the enemy these days. The attack on freedom no longer unites this nation, as it did in WWII, it divides it. Make no mistake, freedom was academically attacked; a nation that cannot define freedom cannot defend freedom. Freedom ultimately is, freedom from each other, though under clear peer based principles of freedom; freedom is not the right to sprint headlong across the public sphere without regard to the existence of other's freedom. Freedom is the freedom to navigate that public square, mindful of the freedom of others. As peers, living under a model of free association. We ask each other, we don't tell each other. That is, until we are overcome with the trueness of our own religion, be it Social Scientology or any religion, and revert to the urge to grab the guns of state to tell others that "S"ociety is the true God, the state is its proper church, and America must become a theocracy under this religion and run 'The Economy' for the benefit of The "S"ociety, as divined by the elite priests speaking for this latest totalitarian 'it.'

We still benefit from our always going to be imperfect political context, and for as long as we do, and for as long as and that extent that it is supportable(ie, acts morally, under ethical standards), we have an ethical obligation to obey its laws. So what are our ethical choices when confronted with the imperfections of our political context, and our ethical disagreements over the actions of our tribe in this political context? What are our ethical choices when we disagree with the actions of the collective/state in our political context on a particular issue?

1] We can act politically to change the political wind on the given issue of disagreement, even as we continue to largely receive benefit from and pay for our political context and obey its laws.

2] We can accede. Pick our battles. Move on. Even as we continue to largely receive benefit from and pay for our political context. Surrender the issue(one of hundreds of issues). Do you take it to the streets on every issue you don't get your way on, or do you pick and choose? Not your only choice. It is entirely possible to say, "I do not agree with everything this state does, and so, I will regard the taxes I pay as paying only for the things that it does that I agree with" and call it a day, and get on with our lives. Because to believe otherwise is to attempt to elevate myself as emperor over what other peers of mine in freedom do agree with and do support with their tax dollars. (Which admittedly has a flaw, if what they agree to is to eat me, but that would be violating a required principle of peer based freedom and would quickly move such an issue further down this list.)

3] Leave. www.privateislandsonline.com. I'm not impressed by 'I can't afford it arguments.' Are you impressed by 'I can't afford it arguments' when someone uses that as an excuse to take what they want? Because, in this political context, it is in fact possible to afford it. That is one of its offered benefits.

The above are the ethical choices within (or about to politely leave) a given political context. And, I would argue, the slide of America towards socialism is being fought in the above ethical framework-- even if the politics include lies, deceit, fraud, and propaganda.

4] Scofflaw. Go for it. Stay, accept some benefits, but don't pay for them, in protest of other issues. Self immolation, as protest. Be a pirate. (The existing political context is not going to be handing out Get Out Of Jail Free cards. It is still there, after your protest. Maybe moved to change, and maybe moved to grant itself greater powers. Depends on the nature of the protest, doesn't it? If by a bunch of cranks who've come to the end of their short ropes, then this goes one way. If goaded by their political opponents to half-baked actions, then the political outcome can easily be 180 degrees from their intent. Like, Schumer in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, freshly targeting the Caymans with renewed vigor and greater government powers(McVeigh's effective legacy.)

In the face of a sufficiently egregious issue, one that cannot be tolerated, there is one more choice which is beyond political ethics(ethics within a given political context) and in the realm of pure ethics. Depending on the principles being fought for, the pure ethics are subject to analysis, but not the outcome; the outcome is determined by brute force.

5] Megapolitical overthrow. Revolution. Be an effective pirate. But, no half-way here. It's all in, all or nothing. A revolution that rolls the boulder 99% up the hill is a failure; it has to go over the top, and prevail, and establish a new political context with a new ethical foundation requiring defense from those who disagree.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

I included a hint in 2] at an interpretation of our present political context which suggests a more formal model based purely on free association. But it is immediately somewhat accessible simply with an attitude shift. Imagine if taxation were not only purely voluntary(and thus no longer strictly 'tax' but let's use that as a shorthand)but as well, 100% specifiable as to use. You would imperfectly voluntarily contribute to common government, and could, if you wish, imperfectly direct what your tax dollars were used for. Or, you were free to contribute as 'unspecified' and the same imperfect representative process would imperfectly direct use of those funds as occurs today. In addition, this being a free nation of free people based on free assocation, you were free to, or not, use as the basis for discrimination of your socius(for commerce or fraternity or whatever)knowledge of your socius voluntary contribution of state funding. You would also be free to not require this of your commerce, fraternity, as would those seeking it. If you chose to -- up to you, it's a free nation after all--, you could base your commerce or fraternity on your personal analysis of your socius support or lack of support for any public issues you considered important.

Such discrimination may severely restrict your opportunities for commerce or fraternity, but this is a free nation and that is your choice.

In this purely hypothetical, you would have recourse to restrict your commerce and fraternity, for example, only to those who either supported or did not support state funding for abortion. If you felt that strongly about that issue, you would have recourse to severely restrict your support of and socius with that portion of the state in total that diasgreed with your position. You could apply this to as few or as many public issues as you wished, life is choices and you live with them. Lather, rinse, repeat.

In that purely hypothetical world -- your taxes support only public issues you support, and your socius can be restricted to only those who sufficiently(defined by you)align with your ethics -- would it ever be moral to be a pirate and attack the shipments supported by others who freely disagreed with you?

What if the issue is human slavery? We know what happens. The issue is ultimately decided by prevailing via brute force, not ethics. But, what happens to a nation when that same issue is conflated with an orthogonal issue -- slavery to the state? Only one side prevailed in the Civil War, with less than perfect outcome, because those issues are orthogonal but related, and one side championed human slavery, while the other side championed slavery to the state. The Civil War in this nation is not over. We've resolved the issue of human slavery, and are still wrestling with slavery to the state. So there yet may be opportunity to be an ethical pirate.

But for sure, as America flirts with its own flavor of totalitarianism, there are increasing ethical opportunities to avoid and finesse laws which are themselves outside of an ethics based on individual freedom and liberty, and fight them with every fiber and resource we have. In this lingering civil war, there is a reason that our economies look more and more like a giant middle finger raised at each other.

regards,

Fred

Edited June 29, 2011 by Frediano

[BaalChatzaf]

reply to Frediano:

I hear the Ring of Truth.

Ba'al Chatzaf