I've been studying the language of libertarians and anarchists and have adopted some of it. The main idea around these ideologies is that government represents force, violence, theft, and most importantly, control.
While this sounds extreme and I've been called a nutcase before for using this libertarian language (and some libertarians and anarchists are definitely a bit bonkers), I believe this mindset is at least worthwhile to consider in the realm of ethics and the size of government we deem to be appropriate.
Force
So this idea of the government being this violent and forceful entity was alien to me when I was younger. I simply didn't think much about it.
I wanted to be a good citizen, keep my head down, pay my taxes, and vote for things I'm in favor and vote against things I'm against personally.
Yet what happens when we fail to comply with the government? What happens if we refuse to pay taxes or stab someone with a knife? This is when we face the mighty force of government: the "big guns" who will lock us up or potentially kill us if we don't comply.
Anarchy
Some people take on a very cynical view of government upon this realization and turn into full-blown anarchists, seeing any form of government as absolute evil.
I'm not quite that extreme. I see a limited form of government as a "necessary evil" to protect the liberties of individuals.
After all, without the threat of violence and force, what's to stop any one of us from just stabbing each other and trampling over each other's rights?
Only force can protect against those who intend to inflict violence, unfortunately, and this is the primary role of government as I see it. They provide the necessary force to protect our individual liberties.
Theft
Taxes are, in effect, a form of theft. This might sound extreme but it is not through voluntary action that we pay taxes. Of course the government is expected to provide services in return. However, the services may not always benefit those who pay the taxes.
As an example, take social security. How does paying for social security benefit a 30-year old man who has a chronic illness that gives him only a life expectancy of ten more years? He's basically being forced to pay a hefty sum for a service he will never benefit from receiving. In general social security tends to benefit the wealthiest people with the longest life expectancy at the cost of people like this unfortunate fellow.
This is basically theft as I see it. It's hardly different from a band of thieves collecting protection money and then using it to support something completely different.
It's again a necessary kind of theft in certain cases to protect people in society, but I think it's helpful to see it as "theft" even if we determine it to be a "necessary theft". That can certainly change our mind in terms of what services we want the government to provide, as many of us will be paying for them whether we want them or not.
Large Governments
As we expand and expand the size and control of governments, we increase and increase its incentives for "theft", to tax us as they see fit and spend as they see fit. Even in the idealistic presence of a benevolent government consisting of its share of noble politicians whose power is well-balanced against those less noble, that isn't guaranteed to be a lasting condition for decades and centuries to come.
Far more guaranteed as government expands its size and influence, however, is that it will remain large. It is far more difficult to shrink government than to expand it.
Ethics
So what does all this imply in terms of ethics?
Let's say we're against marijuana use for whatever reasons in an area where marijuana is legal even for recreational purposes. However, we also have some friends who smoke marijuana whose lifestyles we don't approve of very much, but we don't necessarily want to harm them.
If we vote to elect enough government officials who are strongly against marijuana use, they may pass a law to criminalize it. What did we accomplish exactly as far as our friends go?
We just basically voted to point the "big guns" at them and lock them away or kill them if they refuse to cooperate. Is that really what we wanted? Was this the most moral course of action even for those against marijuana use?
Furthermore, we just expanded the size and control of the government with such a law against marijuana use which is going to be very difficult to repeal. The government must now dedicate more of their budget towards seeking and locking up dealers and users through the threat of violence.
The increased size of the government means there's going to be more government spending and therefore higher taxes unless budget cuts can be made elsewhere to compensate.
For those who aren't used to thinking this way about government, it really makes quite a difference in how we think about ethics. I had my mind blown when I first encountered this style of thinking.
Anti-Force
The same applies for any controversial subject: legalizing narcotics, euthanasia, abortion, etc. We don't necessarily have to be in favor of any of these things to vote to legalize them.
We only have to be against:
1) Using the threat of violence against people who commit these behaviors of which we disapprove.
2) Forcing people against their will to conform to what we personally believe is right.
3) Expanding the government.
Power of Persuasion
If we don't have the power of force and violence to coerce people against actions we disapprove of, what power do we have left?
We have the power of persuasion. If there's someone whose behavior we disapprove of, we each individually have the ability to attempt to persuade them peacefully against such actions.
This is less guaranteed to produce results than using force and the threat of violence, but I consider it superior from a moral standpoint provided that what they are doing will not infringe upon the liberties of anyone else.
Charity
Charity is a complex subject. Is it our duty as citizens to take care of the poor and disadvantaged? Furthermore, do we need the threat of violence to force us to comply and be charitable?
I tend to lean towards "yes" knowing my personal tendencies. I have contributed some share to the homeless, including handing a hundred dollar bill to a homeless woman, and I have helped my close friends and family financially in times of need.
However, I definitely could have given more. I definitely could have made more sacrifices towards this cause, and a central government could potentially help distribute the funds in a more effective way.
In this sense, I might call it a "necessary theft" to force us to all contribute our fair share towards those in need. Nevertheless, I prefer to limit the size and control of government towards this cause without extraneous services.
This ensures that less money is taken out of the poor people's pockets by bureaucrats. The charity can become more efficient this way and transfer more wealth directly from our pockets to the hands of the needy.
Conclusion
In any case, I wanted to offer this view of government. It might seem extreme, but it's worth considering things in this light when it comes to ethics and the desired size of government.
Unfortunately the size of the US government has expanded and expanded. Thomas Jefferson would most likely be horrified by the complexity and size of the government today. However, it's not all doom and gloom. If enough American citizens are invested in reducing the size of government and elect the appropriate officials, the size will shrink.
It's far more tempting to expand government, however, than to shrink it. Expanding the government can seem like a quick fix to all sorts of problems, including economical ones.
It can also be tempting to be offended by all sorts of things other people do and reach for government to try to control everyone's behavior.
Historically there must have been great incentives to expand and expand government, or else they wouldn't have these tendencies to grow and grow.
Most Helpful Opinions