ON THE MORAL LEGITIMACY
OF A SINGLE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT
AND OF VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS
2/3/78
If you and I am sharing the same domain
then each of us has a moral right to a say
in how that domain is administered. Thus, it
logically follows that in a single geOgraphical
area all the residents are entitled to a
say in how that area is run. By "say", of
course, we mean participating in the making of
decisions on an equal footing with any other
resident. This is the meaning of the word
"government": consultative action by all persons
in an area to meet their common shared needs.
Thus, all persons in an area are to be considered
in the administration of that area. Furthermore
since many of the common shared needs are matters
of life, health, and safety of people in the area
then no subgroup has any moral right to dissociate
itself from the other residents in order to
follow their own desires in meeting those needs.
One only has to cite fire protection, sewerage
systems and waste management, and restraint of
violent persons as examples of such life, health
and safety matters in which all residents of an area
have a shared need. And insofar as the actions of
any person or group impinge on other residents, then
that is also a matter of common need and concern.
This does not mean, however, that such a unified
government to meet such needs may legitimately
coerce the residents into any kind of service for
that government. In order to maintain such services
as it provides, a government may legitimately require
from all persons who benefit from those services
some form of tax, fee, or donation. But conversely
it may not legitimately require any such fee, tax
or donation from any who do not benefit from
those services, even if they reside in the same
area. Neither may it conscript its residents
into any kind of involuntary labor whatsoever
without the express assent of each resident so
conscripted, no matter what need is asserted.
This follows because involuntary servitude is
slavery and the only moral service is that
which is freely given. And it is worst when
the labor for which residents are conscripted
involves the perpetration of violence on any
persons, within or without the community. To
claim that each resident has an obligation to
"fight" for the territory is to claim an obligation
which does not exist, unless each resident expressly
assents to that obligation for himself or herself.
However, within an area or a territory residents
may voluntarily associate for any purposes which
they share as individuals, save where such purposes
would conflict with the life, health, and safety
matters being managed by the unified government. Such
associations are not "governments", however, they are
associations for the purpose of achieving some
preferential goal not shared by other residents
in the area. Some associations may arise because
of concern that the unified government is failing to
accomplish its purposes, and if a government is in
fact failing to accomplish its purposes then it has
no claim over any of the residents in the area or
domain. But associations which form out of merely
a preference for doing things differently have no
moral value over the unified government if that
government is either accomplishing its purposes or
is endeavoring honestly to meet its goals.
Now it should be noted that the government
exists and functions for the purpose of meeting
particular needs, and has no moral authority for
doing more than meet those needs. Its authority
for its functioning stems from its involvement
of all residents and its organization to deal with
shared common needs in matters of life, health
and safety. But the individuals in an area are
morally free to pursue their own lives without
interference or regulation other than in matters
of life, health, and safety for the protection of
other residents; and also in matters affecting all
residents such as streets and street lighting
exploitive use of land or humanpower, and commerce
and transportation.
It should also be noted that governments
create regulations over people's affairs
in areas other than direct matters of
life, health, and safety because individuals
generally do not see all the consequences of
their actions which either harm or adversely
affect other residents. Only a joint or unified
government of all persons in an area, in which each
resident has a say, can possibly be aware of all
such adverse consequences. No separatist group
intermingled within the territory can be counted
on to so be aware and to deal with those consequences
and whenever they were it would still be necessary
for them to confer with other residents not part of
their association to handle the problem. Thus no
purpose would be served by creating such a separatist
association.
(originally published under the name of John Fitz)