Publisher’s Note: Jesse pens an interesting perspective. Often folks will ask how a someone employed by the government can philosophically be opposed to its very existence yet still draw a paycheck. The answer is deceptively simple. We are all government employees now (that should be what the Time magazine articles should have been about in their “We Are All Socialists Now” issue). Whether you are a drone at the local DMV or the President, if you were to quit and open a private business in any state of this great tax jurisdiction of ours, you would have to surrender 50-60 cents out of every dollar to some government entity and not even be reimbursed for the collection service. In essence, we have no choice unless we are in the underground economy. -BB
Within the anarchist and minarchist (small government) communities there is a running debate regarding the severity of various state paid enforcer roles, for some the military is a necessary evil while for others the military is no different than the police? This of course brings to the forefront the role of the military contractor, justice employee and more.
The police as we well know strong arm the role of the government in enforcing its laws, passed by “leaders” elected by less than half of the real population at any given moment. The military generally forces the states desires over-seas, regardless of how we attempt to explain away the excess’s and murder initiated and carried out by our military as an institution the truth is simple. Domestic and foreign “intervention” has been and remains morally wrong; the use of initiated aggressive force is force regardless of the covering or approach used.
It can be argued that not one conflict of the last 200 years has been real “self-defense” and more so the recent “conflicts” and wars since 1960. In fact, with a little work one can easily see that in every circumstance of “conflict” our nation has in fact instigated the action through covert and provocative action of its own.
So the question is, is there any difference between military and police? I would say that morally there is none, in fact, per capita the military (institution*) has murdered over 1000/1 innocents (noncombatants) versus the police. Now this of course brings up the philosophical question: is working for the system in a contractor or support role any better than working in the justice system, and profiting from the loss of life and liberty that occurs as a direct result of the implementation of these institutions?
The short answer is no, how can supporting the very thing that murders and incarcerates be good. For some, however, there may be extenuating circumstances. For instance, there is the shortage of employment in the United States, destined to reach higher than the 13+ percent it is now. There is a matter of ability and what are some able to do. There is also a matter of necessity, when one has a family sometimes caveats in their ethical approach becomes necessary.
I myself work “in” the system to some degree, while I do not take a salary as a result of what I do yet, I hope to someday make a living instructing. It can be said that as an teacher I will literally be able to change others’ lives and approaches or at least help influence their perceptions. I agree with this, the power of a teacher is amazing especially in a statist world, very rarely does one see fellow students questioning the approach or curriculum that is taught and when it happens many times people do not understand the need.
Contracting, to be honest for purely financial reasons, I would if physically able likely take a temporary contracting assignment, the money to be made is extreme. However, I once worked for a corporation that preyed on people’s consumerism and circumstances, and I quit working for them for that reason. The money was the best I ever made; however, sleeping at night was an issue. In the end, it really comes down to the individual’s decision, however, for me I am unable to cross certain ethical lines at this point.
*I use the word institution as there are individuals in the police and military who desire real change, and or have not seen the “light” yet. I refer to the three percent movement, small in size but large in impact (and others).
Side note: I am currently on SSI; over the course of my life I have paid over 250,000 dollars into the system- at the current rate of payout I have seven more years of reimbursement or the government can simply cut me a lump sum check and I will gladly leave.
Jesse,
>I myself work “in” the system to some degree, while I do not take a salary as a result of what I do yet….
Will you ever take a salary in this system?
I think its important that, yes, while we are all “government employees” to some degree(the logic I do take umbrage with) the salaries of government employees are paid with stolen funds.
I do pay into this system, but I am paid with private money. This part of the comment was more pointed in Bill’s direction in regards to his preface, Jesse.
If my property is stolen to fund “protection” known as the military, or law enforcement it’s extortion, pure and simple. The difference only lies in degree. Brass, and medals do not change the FACT that these folks are paid with stolen money.
Nothing to be proud of here, guys.
The “system/matrix” views us all as its property. Slaves would be a more apt description but for my illustration I’ll use the word “property”. This actually explains a lot about how this country, and I’ll assume others, operate. You, citizen/slave, because you belong to them cannot ingest whatever you desire because this would impact your ability to “produce”. Much like a cow is only allowed to eat certain things, is not allowed to wander off the farm without explicit permission, and when the time comes may even be put down “for your own good” and the health of the herd. Those who work within the organs of this beast do so for a multitude of reasons but I’m certain the chief one is that they believe they’re doing their part, that this is the way things are, and it will always be this way. So how does someone live within this framework knowing its innards? Kent makes mention of one way and I’m of the mind that if you’re clever enough you can work the system to your advantage without undue attention nor breaking any laws.
Taxation is not participation, no more than being a physical slave on a plantation was the same as being the slave owner. I personally do several things that allow me to (approach the) generation of an income “off books” unfortunately, these are not approaches I can publicly announce as they would cause severe problems from the thugs working with the IRS to local LEO involvement, the larger purpose of the police to be enforcement of tax law and spurious traffic ordinances.
I take offense to anyone who would call me a collaborator because I am being robbed, it is a ridiculous approach to take in my strict opinion. Does the person being robbed at gun point have a choice at the moment? Does the person VOLUNTEERING to join and work with the military, government and police have a choice?
While I understand the issues in translation here I think it is important to call a fish a fish and a bird a bird so to speak. One cannot expect the slave to be able to do much whereas one should expect the owner (i.e. government and its employees) to be able to.
Kent is right, and I do this daily, more and more frequently in fact if I were able to purchase my fuel for the vehicles from an avenue where I did not have to pay DIRECT taxes on my purchases I would.
Regardless it is an interesting introduction and article (as well as comments)
I do not plan on taking a salary from the system, though I do work with individuals who may take a salary from the system, I wonder, does this by default and the use of daisy chain styled mapping mean I support the system?
You’re not a collaborator because you’re not intending to help. It’s still the case that we all financially assist Govco in some way, directly or indirectly. Find me the guy who’s never paid sales, fuel or telephone taxes.
Everyone who works is likewise getting paid something by Govco, directly or indirectly. There’s not a business in the country, not making some of its sales to customers who are themselves dependent, one way or another. And so it goes, across the economy.
There are a zillion ways to draw the lines between helping, resisting and abstaining. I figure the only one that counts is intent.
So the unwilling slaves of taxation collaborate by default?
I understand intent, I do, however, if an individual works directly for the government via police, military or contracted service than their labor goes directly to support the “effort” in war, or at home- both ways they are assured that their support through direct labor regardless of intent goes to the very system they detest. What I cannot understand is how so many continue to say that the unwilling participants in tax slavery can also be called collaborators.
1. Some of us cannot financially move/depart this country.
2. Some of us are and do everything we can to separate.
How does our coerced/forced taxation/slavery mean we are collaborating?
I and others like myself are not collaborating we are doing, I am apart of the SMART network with ISU – (google it no link here or go back to kents article)
I have been forced into the position I am now, this does not mean I cannot do- and this is why I continue to DO- I just don’t understand how myself and others who do not work to support through government jobs this government can be seen as collaborators –
I would venture a guess that those who believe this are also those who have or currently do work as military, police and or government employees – thoughts?
And yes I would agree Jim- intent matters but is it all?
It may not be all that exists, but it’s all that matters…at least with regard to judging a person’s actions. Indeed, I don’t know what else you could possibly judge it on, without abandoning the idea that “we’re all created equal.” Obviously we’re not equal in ANY respect, let alone all of them. Further, a person does what he intends to do, period. What else could possibly matter in this regard?
However, what if I do not believe I have been created. What if I do not believe in equality or rights in the same way that most now do?
I believe that rights as they are defined commonly by modern persons require something or someone to have granted them, and yet I also believe that I am an individual. I do not need “rights” because I do not require them; I simply wish to be left alone.
So while I understand intent, and your approach with regards to that, I think it is important that we separate intent from fact. In the legal world when a person claims intent or when the word intent is used the definition is, “The determination or resolve to do a certain thing, or the state of mind with which something is done.”
However, when addressing individuals using the word intent is discarding facts for the sake of a person’s word as to their state of mind or hidden desire. Now as someone who has dealt with and continues to deal with persons of all stripes, I do not wish to deal in “intent” so much as fact.
The fact is, a person has voluntarily committed to and is pursuing employment with the United States government, their intent may be any one of a hundred things, but the fact is they are employed with the government directly-
The fact is, individuals in the United States regardless of employment are “taxed” i.e. their money is stolen from them at gun point.
The fact is the private sector employee or business owner is working or running to provide for themselves and to gain wealth.
The fact is the direct employee of the state while looking to provide for their family is also contributing to the downfall of the individual by directing their labor to the benefit of the state. Unless a state employee is using their position to ensure the demise of the state the fact is they are contributing directly to its abilities.
Intent means nothing here because intent cannot be measured except by the individual themselves. It can be “judged” but let’s be honest, the modern criminal justice system is a farce, and we all know for a fact that “intent” cannot be judged in any meaningful way. After all, I have not known a single case where an “officer” who was “sworn” to uphold the law and testify has done so without lying, for that matter there is not a single witness who has not inadvertently told a lie as well. Their intent may be to “promote good” but the facts are in almost every instance different.
(More on witness testimony and its serious flaws later)
Do you understand what I am saying here, I am not denying that someone’s intent may in fact be good, I am simply relating the facts versus the ethereal idea of “intent?”
Great article, Jesse..
Mainly, you’re creating a dichotomy where there is none. Intent is a fact and it is misleading to act as if it’s not. I wrote a long and rambling comment, but scratched it because my point is simple.
This was my concluding sentence: “As a matter of fact, rationally judging a person MEANS judging his intent.” That’s all I’m saying. A cop pulling you through a car door to arrest you is wholly different than one doing the exact same action if the car is burning. I’m not here to defend rogue cops or murderers or even dupes who go along to get along.
I’m here to defend one idea…”I see nothing out there except individuals.” I’m not about to judge ANY individual except on the only thing that matters with regard to the judgment of individuals, which is their intent. Your dichotomy is a false one—there has never been an instance of what you’re calling a “fact” of human action, that was caused by anything other than intent. Not one, not ever…at least not any that could be judged. So I judge that which deserves to be judged; that’s all.
Jim,
I like the way you have broken it down. Ultimately this comes down to degrees and not differences between active participation and collaboration. The distillate for me is what is your personal tolerance of moral cowardice. I freely admit to mine because I am not willing to be alone after my Spartacus declaration.ma
“The distillate for me is what is your personal tolerance of moral cowardice.”
I try not have any of that myself, but at this stage of societal evolution, I can tolerate pretty much any moral anything. That doesn’t mean I like it all, or would sanction it all, but we’re in a life-and-death scenario IMO and I just don’t have the focus to waste on all the moral idiocy that’s out there. It’s too wide and too deep in too many ways for me to be able to afford a drop of my time trying to fix it in others. I offer what I see as the truth, but even that’s more to check myself than it is believing it’ll help others. If it does, great; if not, then forward ho anyway.
Now when moral idiocy turns into physical idiocy, then that’s a different story. If that’s what you’re asking, about all I know is that I wouldn’t count on the absence of cowardice in pretty much anyone else (except those I know closely), all the tri-testicular talk on the net notwithstanding.
How would I tolerate it? As well as I could, I guess, but I just can’t worry about the cowardice of others. I’m rather busy enough keeping myself on solid moral ground, and fear and cowardice very rarely help. I don’t pretend to be a tough guy because I decided long ago that I’ll best be served by not pretending anything, period. So far it’s worked pretty well, and has even reduced fear and cowardice. I’d prefer there weren’t these man-made things to be afraid of, but there are and so I deal with them the best I can. Plus, it happens that after you face a lifetime of challenges, you turn out pretty tough anyway.
Everyone’s looking for a magic bullet, but reality has only metal ones. One by one, we either decide to set ‘em down or we don’t. Maybe that’s the answer for this thread topic—the agents of the State can go first!
I see that and also see only individuals, hence the reason I hav friends who labor for the state. Honestly, I am simply unable and unwilling to accept that they “intend” good when they knowingly contribute to the bad. And I discuss this with them regularly, as bill said, it is a form of “moral” cowardice as it were. With that being said, you realize my article specifically address’s that, I am simply attempting to tell those “soldiers/contractors/ex-soldiers etc.” that they are no better than the police, which is why we should promote more individualism and less out of hand hatred of the person versus the entity.
“Honestly, I am simply unable and unwilling to accept that they ‘intend’ good when they knowingly contribute to the bad. And I discuss this with them regularly, as bill said, it is a form of ‘moral’ cowardice as it were.”
Okay…so how do they defend themselves against that charge, either to you directly or in their own minds? I’m guessin’ most would say, “Hey, I gotta work,” which is a pretty strong defense. No, I don’t think that’s morally correct in this instance, but I can see how other people can believe it is.
As with most things of this nature, I’d say it’s a question of moral incorrectness more than moral cowardice. Once the educational system was locked up, the brains turned to mush, unable to distinguish moral right from moral wrong. But then, I’d say most reasonable people are just as guilty of that!
Jim, I once worked for (two -both the top) companies that preyed on the under 25k range in the United States, regardless of what may think a family of 4 making under 30k annually in this nation is as bad off as a family making 25$ a month in India.
My sole job was to entice them into purchasing on long term contracts expensive non-essentials, we as a company charged 500-600% over normal RETAIL on this merchandise. I worked my way up to middle management, and was GOOD very good at my job- I took the lowest selling, profiting store in the Southwest region (over 200 stores) to the third largest, highest selling, best rate of collections and rising profitability within a year.
I made thousands in bonuses, received the top raise available every quarter and had over 10,000 shares of their stock (not such a great thing but it felt good)
My store received store of the month 6 out of twelve months, went from less than 200k annually to a million dollar store (again first year) – long story short- I woke up one morning after cajoling someone into foregoing their rent to make a payment and realized I was a terrible person for doing this.
My “intent” originally had been to make a good salary, my INTENT had been to provide for my girlfriend and her baby (at the time) MY INTENT was originally “profit driven” and then I woke up- my restitution has been volunteering to help those in the same situation today with legal problems and more FOR FREE- I have FACED my moral COWARDICE and I admit to it, I do not back down from a personal issue and will always take the time to address it and then address those I may have wronged- (I never see that from anyone, and yeah that upsets me- but they are only human)
Jim, my problem is not that people work for these entities, which will happen, the problem I have is that people like you and others UNDERSTAND the wrong that exists as a result of the support you give it- and want to “avoid” moral responsibility and call it “intent”. MY problem is that the individuals who claim some sort of moral superiority to all others working for these entities and then proceed to do the same thing, that’s my problem.
YOU ARE an individual, make your decisions, you are an adult, ACCEPT your shortcomings and either embrace them or change them but stop hiding behind some attempt to use “advanced” language in writing. Intent or not, IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE WRONG and you continue to work for them than your intent becomes far darker- or you are simply a coward.
Again, I have grown in leaps and bounds since that career choice, and I also now understand that each person is an individual. However, as an individual myself, IF YOU work for the military, government or police directly AND IF YOU claim to be an agorist/individual anarchist/ liberty minded individual/ 15%’r etc., don’t EVER give me crap about living on SSI (which the very government YOU volunteered to WORK for ensured I MUST be on)
I did the right thing 10 years ago, I quit, I took a 20,000 a YEAR pay cut BECAUSE I knew what I was doing was WRONG- I began paying for a PRIVATE insurance, both disability and physical etc., the government YOU and or others directly SUPPORT through your labor ensured I HAD to apply for SSI- and unfortunately for me, I ACTUALLY HAVE AN ISSUE large enough to where they approved everything in FIVE months- I paid into private programs and savings accounts and more, why, because I WANTED TO SEPARATE even than- though I was still a “small government” person at the time.
And btw- keep saying things alluding to my “cowardice, stupidity etc.” you do not know me, even those who believe they know me don’t really know me-You know what you have said, I am no internet “ninja” I actually back up what I do daily, ask others involved here – try viewing your own moral issues- than come at me, after all, I have no problem admitting my many faults, and I also have no problem admitting and FIXING most of them- I am still waiting to see that level of maturity in people older than myself, I am still waiting for many I know to do more than simply talk, after all I can only do so much myself…
And I did not mean 15% I meant 1%’r
typos!
Wow, Jesse. Let’s deal with this in reverse order.
>>> And btw- keep saying things alluding to my “cowardice, stupidity etc.” you do not know me, even those who believe they know me don’t really know me-You know what you have said…
No, I don’t. As with your other screed in the forum, I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about. I mean, not the slightest. I haven’t alluded to any sort of cowardice or stupidity on your part, not at all. If you bring forth a cite where you took it that way, I’ll quickly apologize and retract. Maybe I wrote something ambiguous, but I know what I mean, and I haven’t meant anything about cowardice or stupidity on your part whatsoever. Hence, for now, I’m putting this off to delusion or medication.
Now to the topic, because you have clearly misunderstood me about this as well. You seem to think I’m saying one can just make up rationalized intentions to excuse bad actions. I’m not saying that at all; nothing excuses bad actions, period. But putting a uniform on to protect a neighborhood or territory is not, in and of itself, a bad action. Neither is being ignorant of the larger scheme of things, necessarily. We’re all ignorant of many things.
I’m saying what I’ve said since the first day you read me—that NOTHING causes an individual to act EXCEPT his intentions. Period, that’s all. Without physical force, no action is EVER taken by ANY individual, save for what his intentions were. I don’t know any other way to put it. In this thread, I’ve just been mentioning that therefore I think the intentions ought to be judged, not merely the actions as sundered from any intent behind them. This is because there’s no such thing as human action sundered from intent.
I thought that was pretty clear with this…
“…there has never been an instance of what you’re calling a ‘fact’ of human action, that was caused by anything other than intent. Not one, not ever…at least not any that could be judged. So I judge that which deserves to be judged; that’s all.”
Do you disagree with that? If so, why? If not, then what’s the problem? I also offered this…
“I just don’t have the focus to waste on all the moral idiocy that’s out there. It’s too wide and too deep in too many ways for me to be able to afford a drop of my time trying to fix it in others.”
As you should know by now, I care about knowledge of facts, and that includes in the moral realm. Further, you should know that I see it as a fact that a cognitive creature ought to use his mind for his own survival and flourishing. Your error in the job you held was a MISunderstanding of moral facts…a ranking of money over how you handle yourself and what you do. And you gained this knowledge along the way, and changed things. This is how humans operate and how they should operate. I still don’t know with what you disagree.
You’re making my point for me. You didn’t have knowledge of certain facts when you were younger, but you gained them later on in life. Well, that’s the case for everyone, including those who wear uniforms. What do you find so wrong about that?
What, you didn’t catch this…
“As with most things of this nature, I’d say it’s a question of moral incorrectness more than moral cowardice.”
How much more clear could I be, and why in the world do you think I’m talking about you?
I’d appreciate it if you could keep in mind that I write mainly about principles and rarely about particular individuals. So whatever it is that you keep seeing as some sort of personal attack on you by me, you are mistaken as to MY intent, which for what /I/ do is the only thing that matters. Q.E.D. my point in this thread, and chill already, willya? You’re directly saying false things about me and I’m lettin’ them blow over, while I’m saying nothing about you even though you see much of what I write as some sort of personal attack on you. At some point the scale might get tipped so much that even I’ll have to try and steady it. Neither of us would prefer that, I’m sure. This may come as a shock, but I know how to write impolitely as well!
BTW, Jesse, you wrote this…
“IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE WRONG and you continue to work for them than your intent becomes far darker- or you are simply a coward.”
I think that’s exactly correct and I don’t disagree with it a bit. The thing is, a whole lot is carried with the “IF” there, which is why you rightfully capitalized the clause. There are zillions and zillions of public employees, in uniform and not, for whom this antecedent is denied. I’m not a mind reader, and neither are you.
Well okay…I’m pretty close!
Jim,
I know of at least one way a persons body will act outside of intention. Grab on to an arcing spark plug wire! 30,000 volts makes my body act in ways I do not want it to! LOL!
Other than that, I’d say your right on the money, my friend!
I have no problem accepting that I may be reading what is written incorrectly, though as someone who writes a great deal academically, paid and here this is rarely an issue of that- however, I am willing to admit as I tend to do that I may be wrong and will drop the tertiary issue re. assumed inference- and will gladly apologize:)
However, with the rest possibly we are simply attaching different meanings to the same or similar approach…
We agree that if a person understands and vocalizes that and still remains apart of said system they are at fault as much as the system correct?
> We agree that if a person understands and vocalizes that and still remains apart of said system they are at fault as much as the system correct?
Sure. I’ll give you even better than that—it’s ONLY their fault, since “the system” consists of nothing but them. “I see nothing but individuals out there.”
Well put as usual my friend!