“In terms of morals there is no such thing as ‘state.’ Just men.”
Robert A. Heinlein stated this in his 1966 novel Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. He claims that moral responsibility belongs solely to individuals rather than governments, corporations, associations, etc: abstract entities. While he specificially identifies the “state” it applies to anything that is not a truly conscient, self-aware, entity.
This is a concept that The Price of Liberty believes is valid. It is in agreement with what we find in the Bible, with what we see in history, with what we believe the American Founding Fathers understood to be the truth. We believe that the full spectrum of “classical liberal” (libertarian) thinkers is pretty much in agreement: from von Mises and Spooner to Ayn Rand and Rothbard, Woods to the Pauls. (Folks, tell us if we are mis-classifying you or others.)
Of course, as so many point out, Heinlein’s (and our) perspective contrasts with so-called “classical political philosophy,” which is claimed to be the origin of current systems of acceptable “liberal” and “conservative” govenments. Therefore, this idea is contrary to that of, say, Thomas Hobbes and Samuel Pufendorf. In their view, we are told, the state or nation is a compound moral person or a collective entity with their own duties and agency. Looking at the various “states” we are familiar with, TPOL argues that these may be immoral entities but the actions (and therefore what is construed as their duties and agency) are those of individual humans. Perhaps acting in concert, but still individuals. Individuals we label as evil.
We also note that mobs can also be described as a “compound person” (immoral, not moral). Still, mobs are made up of individuals. It is individuals, whether acting completely independently under the concealment of the mob or in cooperation with other members of the mob, who actually attack others and inanimate objects, scream hatred, and break in and steal. Individuals.
To TPOL, these traditional arguments of Hobbs, Pufendorf, and others are merely justifying the lumping people into groups. Creating a “collective” that can be held accountable for the outcomes of those governments and societies and their action. While Heinlein argues that “just men” are the only moral actors, other traditions suggest that societies function as unified bodies where the collective can be held accountable for moral outcomes.
That, we find as disgusting in concept as it has been demonstrated in history. We can see what that accountability amounted to throughout history. Consider virtually any war, but especially how Germany’s and Japan’s populations were attacked and punished by the Allies for the deeds of their rulers. The populations of both Ukraine and Russia. Or how Iran’s, Gaza’s, Lebanon’s, and Israel’s people are “collectively enjoying” the present war.
But that sickening attitude is not limited to war and combat. Every law, even those which address actually evil acts, impact on those who are not guilty of, or even contemplating, some unacceptable act. (Trivial example: try sending your young teenage daughter or granddaughter around the corner to the hardware store to buy a can of spray paint!)
It is individuals who make moral choices. Even if they have been brainwashed by society, schools, or even parents, it is still ultimately their choice whether to act or refuse to act. Even if they are enslaved, assured of several punishment for disobeying their master(s), it is still a personal, individual decision. Organizations, even governments, have no morals of their own. However, wonderful the words of their founding and guiding documents may be. It is the people, the individuals, who control that organization who have the power to make moral choices. And all too often, the choices are immoral: evil.
Which is a reason, a very good reason, to limit the power of any and all organizations: from neighborhood committees figuring out the details of a community potluck picnic to the gang that plots on a daily basis in DC and those in Fifty State capitols.
The Price of Liberty 
The evolution of governments into aristocratic forms
Frank Herbert, author of the well-known Science Fiction universe of Dune, was a keen observer and student of human societies and history. Certainly as great or greater as Isaac Asimov or Robert Heinlein.
Let’s consider this statement:
We certainly see this as an accurate summation. And a reason to oppose mandatory human government in all its forms. A simple way of looking at it is Acton’s dictum: power corrupts. Government is corrupt and grows more corrupt with time and increased power.
Of course, there are always people who view it differently. One correspondent told us,
Continue reading →“I think he’s actually wrong. Pharaonic Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Chin Dynasty China, Greece, Rome – they all started as monarchies or dictatorships. That’s actually the first form of government on earth. Only when a group of people succeeded in kicking out the kings did any republic start.”