JubalDiGriz

"Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as 'murder' in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be 'Using deadly weapons inside city limits', or 'Creating a traffic hazard,' or 'Endangering bystander,' or other misdemeanor." -Robert A. Hienlein, Time Enough for Love

In principle, is this a good idea? To whom is the state (any state) obligated to protect and serve? Are there differences between different types of government, like a hunter-gather society or socialist a la China? Just as arguably a tax evader should not have access to libraries, roads, or the fire department, should those who reject the security of a state also reject state-sponsored protection?

To expand upon that, if you pay less taxes, are you logically entitled to less state services?

-Aside: Before anyone calls me a "fascist" or the like (with good reason!), I do not subscribe to the above idea. I merely thought it was interesting and worthy of discussion.

BDS

The reasonable correlary to Heinlein's position is that neither is the anarchist to be subjected to the rule of law. If we are to prosecute anarchists for murdering citizens who DO support the rule of law, why should we not prosecute supporters of the law if they murder anarchists? The position makes no sense. If anything, it is the anarchists who should not be prosecuted, if, as the Declarations says, the legitimacy of the Government depends on the consent of the governed. Why do those who support the rule of law deserve to avoid prosecution?

DougP

Like what was said, if they dont support the state, and the state wants to be able to kill them with not legality issue, then they should not have to abide by any laws. Seems fair to me.

-Doug

JubalDiGriz

While what both of you said has merit, I think the point is that the anarchist has removed themself from the law, and more than that, is not willing to protect the state. Law can be suspended if the state is at great risk. The anarchist, or pacifist, rejects the state, and the laws the state exists by. By rejecting the state, the individual has become a threat to the integrity of the state. Rebellions are put down by the military, so shouldn't this be reduced to the individual?

A scenario: An anarchist attends a demonstration with the intent to incite a riot that will lead to the destruction of property, as an expression of his contempt for ownership and rule of law. Police stop the riot and shoot to death the anarchist, intentionally.

Did the anarchist have a justifiable right to a trial under a system that he rejects and actively seeks to overthrow? Or were the police within the law to kill an obvious threat to the state and law that they protect? Is the anarchist entitled to protection and rights of a citizen when he is not fulfilling the responsibilities and discretion that the state instructs?

anthrosciguy

Who's to say just when one is not supporting the state? When you refuse to go to what you consider an unjust or stupid war, for instance, are you not supporting the state, or are you actually supporting the state far more than one who goes?

NearNihil Experience

The "state" as it were is on the level of legality and scale in no danger from an anarchist or pacifist. Its a ridiculous dichotomy, especially with a pacifist.
And with an anarchist, he is not an active enemy of the state, he's a non-participant. So, yes he shouldn't be shuffled through the courts or be given mush special exception above what human dignity requires. But to suggest killing one for non-participation??? I see Mr. Heinlein can't distinguish an enemy from a non-combatant.Neither does it seem like he can see the bold line between what we call freedom to choose,participate, enlist etc. and his idea of freedom only if you sign on the dotted line...fuck that...thats just towing a line and pandering to save your ass. If you want to live in a hippie commmune or anarchist camp or in a fucking tree its your right as long as its your tree or camp.

An anarchist is not necessarily an enemy of the state. Most I have seen don't give a hoot one way or the other about a state that numbers them and sends them through life chasing the cheese. They just want to be left alone. There are the active nut bags with all the black clothes and the loud mouths and the need to burn stuff. "No Donnie, nothing to fear here. These men are just Nihilists."

It makes me laugh to even think how a pacifist can be such a threat. I swear, people who absolutley refuse to kill you, let alone anyone else,are that dangerous!

Anarchists do, in my opinion, opt out of alot stuff...especialy the isolationist types. I mean, no taxes, no state roads with state maintainance. No post office. Etc...But I bet you, if someone came invading the USofA, the anarchists would be there to help...automatic weapons, beef jerky and all.
But I don't see how a pacifist couldn't be a productive member of the state. He pays taxes, abides by the law, etc...he just has the volition to opt out of one of the grossest human tragedies. Thats probably what pisses Heinlein off so much. Anarchists and Pacifists aren't "tools" by nature of definition.

BTW, very much not a pacifist. Just think Heinlein is an asshole.

Dhaeron

This is frankly bullshit. The state has the responsibility to defend the citizens against crimes, and punish criminals because it strips the citizens of the right to do so themselves. If he wanted to allow anarchists and pacifists to carry weapons and defend themselves against criminals he might have a point, however it has nothing to do with citizens defending the state against and outsider threat. To take that thought further, he might also have a point if he says the state is not obliged to defend anarchists and pacifists against an invasion force, but intranational and international violence/crimes are two completely different issues.

As mentioned above, it very much depends on the things those citizens reject. Yes, it is agruable that tax evaders should not profit from tax funded things. However pacifism and crime are not in the same way related as paying taxes and receiving tax funded benefits.

This could be a very long discussion. Basically, the actual society decides if this is case, and if absolute or relative taxes are to be considered.

The question about the taxes is certainly an interesting one, however the first qoute contains a big, dry, strawman.

I second that.

Alonzo Fyfe

The state is a manufactured tool.

It is the tool's job to serve the interests of the toolmaker.

It is absurd to say that it is the tool maker's job to serve the interests of the tool.

BillyTheKat

From having read a number of Heinlein's books, I don't think I'm too far off the mark in suggesting that Heinlein would only consider the consent of those willing to support and defend the state to be of worth. For instance, IIRC, in Starship Troopers he differentiates between citizens; people who have "earned" the right to participate in elections and such by having been in the military, and civilians, who haven't, which is handily circular. However, in Heinlein's writings the state typically always acts in a fair and just manner, apart from when it's the villain (see The Moon is a Harsh Mistress for instance) and AFAIK has never dealt with the moral complexity of how those willing to support and defend the state would deal with less than just state activities (IMO, Heinlein was never that good a political theorist).

fast

Disagree.

Whether a single individual or a group, people act -- they do things. Some of what they do are accepted by others, and some of what they do are not. Who may I ask fails to support 'all' actions of another? Can I not support my protections and all the while not support other political actions? Sure I can.

In the minds of some, I’m sure. Entitlement! for something less...what a concept.