Ethics in Government

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Ethics in Government

Post by Philosophy Now »

Richard Baron tries to be good in government.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/54/Ethics_in_Government
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethics in Government

Post by RCSaunders »

Philosophy Now wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 4:22 pm Richard Baron tries to be good in government.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/54/Eth ... Government
Ethical government is an oxymoron. Government is a criminal enterprise.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Ethics in Government

Post by mickthinks »

Much of the popular objection to government is of the "Aw, mum, why should I clean my room?" kind—immature, self-centred and uncomprehending.

Given that government authors the laws that define criminality, very little of its activity can fall under the term "criminal". Care to develop this idea a bit, RC?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Ethics in Government

Post by RCSaunders »

mickthinks wrote: Sun Jul 11, 2021 7:42 pm Much of the popular objection to government is of the "Aw, mum, why should I clean my room?" kind—immature, self-centred and uncomprehending.

Given that government authors the laws that define criminality, very little of its activity can fall under the term "criminal". Care to develop this idea a bit, RC?
Start here:

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT

Here's how I put it (a few years ago) in "The Autonomist's Notebook" comment on government:
Government is the only human institution that makes a profession of those things which when committed by amateurs are called crimes.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

For those who occasionally vote (for the right reasons)...

Post by henry quirk »

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Ethics in Government

Post by mickthinks »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 12:58 amGovernment is the only human institution that makes a profession of those things which when committed by amateurs are called crimes.
I don't know about that. I'm thinking of Demolition, or surgery, and I'm sure you can think of others if you put your mind to it.

But this misses the point, which is that where there is no government there are no courts nor prisons and therefore no such thing as crime, but all the things we would want to call "crimes" would happen anyway, and probably in far greater numbers.

As for DEATH BY GOVERNMENT; yes indeed, some governments are worse than others.
Last edited by mickthinks on Mon Jul 12, 2021 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
mickthinks
Posts: 1495
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: For those who occasionally vote (for the right reasons)...

Post by mickthinks »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 2:32 amIf he [or she] doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life ...
I prefer to live in a society where there's a reasonable assumption that I won't have to, ever. And here in Europe, that's is exactly how we live.

Your Mr. Smith* would have us elect only politicians who pledge to tear up our freedom and recreate the Wild West. In whose interest would that be? Oh ... I know! ...

Smith* & Wesson and Sturm Ruger.


*No relation, I presume
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Ethics in Government

Post by FlashDangerpants »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Jul 12, 2021 12:58 am
Government is the only human institution that makes a profession of those things which when committed by amateurs are called crimes.
Dentists have entered the chat.
Post Reply