| Having justified individual rights, can we now justify the state? At first glance it would appear that the state has no right whatsoever to operate as we know states to operate. They claim the right to tax, which is confiscation of the property of innocent men, and the right to tell citizens what they can and can’t do, without regard to those citizens’ rights, as we have begun to describe them here. Can this be justified, or are all states unethical? | 個人権利を正当化したところで、政府を正当化できるのか？一見したところ、拙者が知る政府見たいに行動する政府には存在する権利がない。政府は無罪である個人から所有を奪うと等しい課税する。個人の権利を無視して恣意に独裁する。これらの正当化が可能なのか？それとも、政府自体が不正なのか？ |
| As it happens, it can be justified. I’ve alluded to the process before, while discussing the choice between ethical individualism and ethical socialism. In short, the state is justified if, and only if, its citizens consent to its operation. | 結局、正当化が可能でござる。倫理的な個人主義と社会主義を選択する時には一瞬触れた。政府の作動が正当化するために被治者が同意しなければならない。 |
| If individuals have rights, they can waive those rights, conditionally or unconditionally. So, a group of individuals might propose to institute a state amongst themselves, and with everyone’s consent, that state will be justified. This is not to say that every individual has to sign the new state’s constitution, or even to have read it. Some of the individuals might delegate the decision to others, placing their rights in the hands of people they trust to judge the proposed state well. With enough iterations of congregation and delegation, even a world government could be justified. | 個人には権利があれば、その権利を放棄できる。で、個人の集団が政府を設けることを提案して、全員の同意でその政府が正当化される。被治者が全員、憲法に署名する必要も憲法を読んだ必要もない。員の部分が信頼する判断を持つ他人を選択権の代表として派遣することもある。 |
| Due to the a priori economic proof that government is destructive of prosperity, establishment of such states is economically unwise in the extreme. Further, the existence of obstinate individualists in various locations basically dooms the “ethical state” from the outset. | 政府は繁栄に破壊的であることが前知の経済学で証明されている故、経済学的に政府の設けが非常に愚かなことでござる。また、頑固な個人主義者の存在でこんな「倫理的な政府」は最初からありえないでござる。 |
| To my knowledge, this process of securing individual consent — through delegates where individuals see fit to do so — has never justified any state larger than some village-sized experimental communes. These communes were doomed to one of two fates: to collapse and scatter when individual consent dwindled, or to consolidate into a typical state that doesn’t rely upon unanimous consent (and thereby lose ethical justification). If states-by-consent are not inherently impossible, it seems clear that they are not tenable under any circumstances they have been tested in to date. | 拙者の知識上では、このような個人同意で政府を正当化したことが村の規模の試験コミューンに限られている。そのコミューンには二つの運命が待っていた。個人同意が果たした後、破局して散らす運命と個人同意を捨て強固する運命でござる。同意上の政府自体が不可能じゃないなら、今まで試した条件では適わぬ。 |
| All states but these experiments are ethically unjust. They are all more or less reliant upon imposition of their dictates on individuals without their consent. Where any state exercises sovereignty over even one man without his consent, that state is unjust. This is true of all forms of state, even democracies and republics, despite any popularity they enjoy. One man’s dissent is all it takes. | この試験以外、政府各個が倫理的に不正でござる。各個が多少で同意なしに個人に独裁する。政府が一人の不同意者にも主権を強いれば、その政府が不正でござる。政府の形状には関係がない。人気である民主制でも共和制でも関係ない。一人の不同意だけあれば、不正になる。 |
| No historical state of significant scale has been just, no present state of significant scale is just, and the future prospects of a just state are bleak. | 歴史上の正である大規模な政府はない。現状では正である大規模な政府はない。未来に正である政府が現れる見込みがほとんどない。 |
On the Justification for The State
Bookmark the permalink.