[ExI] Libertarianism wins again...

[Samantha Atkins]

On 07/22/2011 01:12 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> 2011/7/21 Stefano Vaj<stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
>> 2011/7/20 Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com>
>>> And the biggest criminal of all, in any region, tends to be the state.
>> This sounds well rhetorically, but it is actually an oxymoron, because
>> whenever a State exists, "crime" is defined as the breach of (a law which is
>> part of a subset of) its rules.
>>
>> Then, individual officers can breach them, but if the "State" does, it has
>> simply changed the rules actually in force or introduced a new exception
>> thereto.

The above presumes that only the State gets to say what is and is not 
legitimate behavior and that it can arbitrarily decree what that is and 
that no one can argue against it meaningfully.  In short it presumes 
that ethics is utterly subjective and arbitrary.

> You are so used to the state acting in a criminal fashion, that you
> justify its criminality to justify your position.
>
> That is a legal definition, and laws are a product of the state. So
> almost by definition, to determine whether or not a state is, in and
> of itself, a criminal one has to go beyond law, and appeal to a moral
> foundations that law is built upon.

Legitimate laws are a codification of ethical principles.  Not whatever 
state functionaries decide for whatever reason to claim are laws.

> Socrates made good arguments that
> what is right and wrong doesn't come from God or the state, but from
> an inner state of outrage at the criminal act. So morality exists
> independent of law. Other philosophers have called it "natural law".
> Call it what you will, morality is separate from law.

Yes.  Ethics is separate from law.

> So the question basically boils down to whether the state is moral, or
> whether the state engages in immoral acts. And the state does not get
> to define morality. I think it is fairly non-controversial to say that
> some states, at some times have engaged in outrageous immoral acts.
>

Yes.  Else there is no basis for condemning, for instance, the 
Holocaust.   If ethics is totally subjective and what is right is 
whatever the state says is right then no state can do any wrong.

- samantha