Moral Government Requires Moral Choices by Citizens
Chad Karbinski
January 24, 2006
People living within the free world generally enjoy life; however, most are unaware or take for granted the fundamentals necessary for our freedom. Most of Earth's inhabitants live in absolute poverty, disease, and war. The difference is always the measure of recognition, respect and defense of man's inalienable individual rights. A citizenry may be broken by an evil government, and no good government can stand against a citizenry antagonistic to individual liberty. We, and our government, to sustain and improve our way of life have to live up to the responsibility implied by our rights: the responsibility to not initiate force against our fellow man.
The purpose of government is to defend us from any cowards that default on this responsibility. That is, the government's job is to retaliate against any initiation of force against one or more of its citizens - be it a threat, act of violence, fraud, or obstruction. Vigilantism will not do, as that is nothing more than anarchy. The government must control the use of retaliatory force via objective rule of law. If a communist or theocratic nation (where the citizenry is a slave population of the ruling elite) threatens us, government must neutralize the threat. If an individual chooses to resort to violence we necessarily send the police to find, arrest, and detain the culprit. Good government always acts with retaliatory force.
Any government legislation that launches an attack (initiates force) against one or more citizens is a bad law. The standard of good and bad is our lives -- mounting a common defense for individual rights is pro-life; failure to do so endangers our lives.
Unfortunately, we live with many legalized violations of our rights under the fist of our own governments. The legislators authorize counties and cities to legally force individuals out of their homes or force businesses out of their offices. Such eminent domain laws, when used for any other purpose than to survive a dire emergency, are government initiated attacks on one's right to own and use their property. The tourist town of Banff, Canada has a municipal bylaw requiring business owners to clean up any graffiti on their property at their own expense. The business owners will be punished with fines if they do not conform. The irony of this injustice is that the government ought to be doing a better job of retaliating against the vandals instead of threatening business owners. Such attacks are almost always justified as being for the public good. There is no public good to be gained by reversing the role of government from defender to violator of rights.
Cities all across North America have banned smoking in restaurants and bars. A common misconception is that this is a health or community standards issue. Restaurant and bar owners, innocent by virtue of not forcing anyone to be a customer or employee, are forced by the state to run their operations a certain way (namely, how to discriminate against customers) under threat of being shutdown.
Majorities or smaller groups occasionally try to use courts or politicians to shutdown establishments that cater to pornographic behavior. Whereas the lurid behavior of such groups as swingers may not be moral, in terms of upholding individual rights, it is not irresponsible. No group or individual should be targeted when they have caused no harm. State control of private property is always a case of government initiated force.
Such force constitutes a moral breach, even when sanctioned by a community's majority. We have our rights, and we have the consequent responsibility. Owing up to this responsibility precludes using government to initiate force against others. If you are attacking your fellow citizen it does not matter if you do so via a lynch mob or via your government. Using majority rule to violate another's property rights is as bad as when dictators do it -- both the majority (mob) and the dictator (man) must ignore the existence of individual rights and the morality of freedom.
The axis of initiated force and retaliatory force is an excellent tool for evaluating political issues. One only needs to judge if the government is defending or attacking its citizens when implementing any given policy or court order. We must think in principles if we are to have a long-term view and avoid short-term expediency. Good government, defending us via the rule of law and use of retaliatory force, must be reinforced and demanded. Bad government, violating rights by initiating force, must be denounced and halted.
The purpose of government is to defend us from any cowards that default on this responsibility. That is, the government's job is to retaliate against any initiation of force against one or more of its citizens - be it a threat, act of violence, fraud, or obstruction. Vigilantism will not do, as that is nothing more than anarchy. The government must control the use of retaliatory force via objective rule of law. If a communist or theocratic nation (where the citizenry is a slave population of the ruling elite) threatens us, government must neutralize the threat. If an individual chooses to resort to violence we necessarily send the police to find, arrest, and detain the culprit. Good government always acts with retaliatory force.
Any government legislation that launches an attack (initiates force) against one or more citizens is a bad law. The standard of good and bad is our lives -- mounting a common defense for individual rights is pro-life; failure to do so endangers our lives.
Unfortunately, we live with many legalized violations of our rights under the fist of our own governments. The legislators authorize counties and cities to legally force individuals out of their homes or force businesses out of their offices. Such eminent domain laws, when used for any other purpose than to survive a dire emergency, are government initiated attacks on one's right to own and use their property. The tourist town of Banff, Canada has a municipal bylaw requiring business owners to clean up any graffiti on their property at their own expense. The business owners will be punished with fines if they do not conform. The irony of this injustice is that the government ought to be doing a better job of retaliating against the vandals instead of threatening business owners. Such attacks are almost always justified as being for the public good. There is no public good to be gained by reversing the role of government from defender to violator of rights.
Cities all across North America have banned smoking in restaurants and bars. A common misconception is that this is a health or community standards issue. Restaurant and bar owners, innocent by virtue of not forcing anyone to be a customer or employee, are forced by the state to run their operations a certain way (namely, how to discriminate against customers) under threat of being shutdown.
Majorities or smaller groups occasionally try to use courts or politicians to shutdown establishments that cater to pornographic behavior. Whereas the lurid behavior of such groups as swingers may not be moral, in terms of upholding individual rights, it is not irresponsible. No group or individual should be targeted when they have caused no harm. State control of private property is always a case of government initiated force.
Such force constitutes a moral breach, even when sanctioned by a community's majority. We have our rights, and we have the consequent responsibility. Owing up to this responsibility precludes using government to initiate force against others. If you are attacking your fellow citizen it does not matter if you do so via a lynch mob or via your government. Using majority rule to violate another's property rights is as bad as when dictators do it -- both the majority (mob) and the dictator (man) must ignore the existence of individual rights and the morality of freedom.
The axis of initiated force and retaliatory force is an excellent tool for evaluating political issues. One only needs to judge if the government is defending or attacking its citizens when implementing any given policy or court order. We must think in principles if we are to have a long-term view and avoid short-term expediency. Good government, defending us via the rule of law and use of retaliatory force, must be reinforced and demanded. Bad government, violating rights by initiating force, must be denounced and halted.
Print
Email
