Thoreau and the morality of the state - secular discussion

[Mel Brennan]

Consider Thoreau:

The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to--for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well--is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

If, as Thoreau submits, the actions of the state are at most an extension of ourselves, is it, as Thoreau submits and as he lived, our duty to divest from it when it manifests behaviour we consider perfectly immoral?

What about when it does so only "sometimes?" Do you - can you - partially divest, partially engage in acts detrimental to such institutions manifesting such behaviours, or does duty extend to creating and conceiving of a different way to institute acts on behalf of (Thoreau would claim) inescapably (im)moral beings?

Discuss not only these questions but any others that spring from Thoreau's considerations of morality.

[Norsk Troll]

If, as Thoreau submits, the actions of the state are at most an extension of ourselves, is it, as Thoreau submits and as he lived, our duty to divest from it when it manifests behaviour we consider perfectly immoral? What about when it does so only "sometimes?" Do you - can you - partially divest, partially engage in acts detrimental to such institutions manifesting such behaviours, or does duty extend to creating and conceiving of a different way to institute acts on behalf of (Thoreau would claim) inescapably (im)moral beings?I actually believe it is well stated thusly:


... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

[christopher d]

If, as Thoreau submits, the actions of the state are at most an extension of ourselves, is it, as Thoreau submits and as he lived, our duty to divest from it when it manifests behaviour we consider perfectly immoral?

What about when it does so only "sometimes?" Do you - can you - partially divest, partially engage in acts detrimental to such institutions manifesting such behaviours, or does duty extend to creating and conceiving of a different way to institute acts on behalf of (Thoreau would claim) inescapably (im)moral beings?

Discuss not only these questions but any others that spring from Thoreau's considerations of morality.
So, he's saying that we have a government of, by and for the people, and that no ruler can rule except by direct mandate of the people? Agree 100%.

We leftists can be a bit whiny (ok, perhaps I've just made "understatement of the millenium" status). What pisses me off so much about this whining is that it is so devoid from action. You don't like the way your government is working? ********ing change it. If you can't change it because there are guns pointed to your head not allowing you to change it, either a) buy bigger guns, or b) work out a non-violent way to subvert the violence. In any event, don't just sit there whining.

And what goes for us as citizens can go just as well for consumers. You don't like a company's business practices? Don't ********ing shop there.

The best of all is when the whining takes this tack: Well, we can't do anything about the Gov't, because large corporate interests have stolen our vote, bought and paid for the various bodies of state, etc...

Don't patronize the businesses that get into the business of politics, and force out the politicians that get into business for themselves while purportedly "serving" your whining ass.

[Mel Brennan]

So, he's saying that we have a government of, by and for the people, and that no ruler can rule except by direct mandate of the people? Agree 100%.

We leftists can be a bit whiny (ok, perhaps I've just made "understatement of the millenium" status). What pisses me off so much about this whining is that it is so devoid from action. You don't like the way your government is working? ********ing change it. If you can't change it because there are guns pointed to your head not allowing you to change it, either a) buy bigger guns, or b) work out a non-violent way to subvert the violence. In any event, don't just sit there whining.

And what goes for us as citizens can go just as well for consumers. You don't like a company's business practices? Don't ********ing shop there.

The best of all is when the whining takes this tack: Well, we can't do anything about the Gov't, because large corporate interests have stolen our vote, bought and paid for the various bodies of state, etc...

Don't patronize the businesses that get into the business of politics, and force out the politicians that get into business for themselves while purportedly "serving" your whining ass.


What about taxes? I'm for the L.I.T.E. - Line item Taxation Exemption. I'm all for paying taxes if I can direct all my taxes away from, for example, military efforts not related to the MD National Guard's state-based duties, or some such, and direct it comprehensively toward education and health care. If you know, as Thoreau did, that your money goes in large part to fund death and misadventure that kills innocents abroad, should you - as Thoreau did - refuse to pay such monies?

There's a small but significant movement (http://www.nwtrcc.org/peacetaxreturn.htm), right now, in this area of resistance to murder and violence in our name...but the question is one Thoreau embodied...is it our DUTY to NOT pay those taxes, and suffer the consequences, or are there all kinds of other duties that come before that duty, and thus the cycle of violence is tantamount to affirmed and continues? IOW, wouldn't it TAKE all those who stand against the war to actively band together and not pay taxes, and go to jial en masse to get shifts in policy in these areas? I mean, how many people are, and always have been, vehemently against the war? 15, 20% of the nation? If one of out every five American taxpayers was willing to go to jail over not funding this misadventure, woudln't that be real? I consider that strategy among the 198 (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html) (now 250 we've developed) methods (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html)...

[christopher d]

What about taxes? I'm for the L.I.T.E. - Line item Taxation Exemption. I'm all for paying taxes if I can direct all my taxes away from, for example, military efforts not related to the MD National Guard's state-based duties, or some such, and direct it comprehensively toward education and health care. If you know, as Thoreau did, that your money goes in large part to fund death and misadventure that kills innocents abroad, should you - as Thoreau did - refuse to pay such monies?

There's a small but significant movement (http://www.nwtrcc.org/peacetaxreturn.htm), right now, in this area of resistance to murder and violence in our name...but the question is one Thoreau embodied...is it our DUTY to NOT pay those taxes, and suffer the consequences, or are there all kinds of other duties that come before that duty, and thus the cycle of violence is tantamount to affirmed and continues? IOW, wouldn't it TAKE all those who stand against the war to actively band together and not pay taxes, and go to jial en masse to get shifts in policy in these areas? I mean, how many people are, and always have been, vehemently against the war? 15, 20% of the nation? If one of out every five American taxpayers was willing to go to jail over not funding this misadventure, woudln't that be real? I consider that strategy among the 198 (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html) (now 250 we've developed) methods (http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations103a.html)...Religious groups, such as the Amish and (I believe) Quakers have been doing this for years. If I'd made any money in '05, it'd be something I'd look into. But I'll certainly send it around to my like-minded friends and colleagues. Thanks :)