Government is a human institution. All human action comes at some finite but real cost. Even a minarchist government needs funding . There is a cost to maintain and supply a military, a court system, a police force, and the other necessities of state action, no matter how privatized those entities may be. And monetary funding is not the only requirement for the existence of a government. If no person is willing to fight for the military of a state or serve in the police force, there can be no government. Police and military and even judges and legislators are not altruists. They do not work selflessly, nor under self-sacrificial circumstances. The right to life you imagine you have is not a claim on theirs.
When designing a government it must serve the interests of the governed. But it must also serve the interests of those who govern — and in two senses. Those who govern are humans. They must not be expected to work for free, or at a loss, or counter to their own self interests. And they must have the tools necessary to their professional interest in protecting rights, which itself must be rational and attainable and not self-defeating.
If, for example, the police are to fight force, they must be allowed to use force. The military must be given clear goals and cannot be given impossible goals. They cannot be told to defeat an enemy without upsetting anyone. To ask people to serve in a voluntary military as ill-equipped pawns who will be deployed in a surge only to please one faction then be brought home whether or not their task is accomplished in order to please another faction is to ask them to be sacrificial objects to fickle whims. To ask a politician to leave successful private life and serve as a state governor only to face maliciously brought harassment lawsuits to be defended against at her own expense is to expect only power mad altruists to hold public-office.
Those who protect us from others who threaten us with force must get paid for their services. This was as true during the dimmest of the Dark Ages as it is now, and as it was before the pyramids were built. Amongst savage palaeolithic tribes the men went to war as needed and the women folk supported them. During the Middle Ages the peasants fed the lord and his horses and the lord, presumably, fought to protect the manor. Peasants and savages paid for their protection in kind. Now we pay for our protection in money, which is better for all concerned. But some still pay in kind and are in turn rewarded in kind with pensions and honor and scholarships and citizenship. And there was nothing wrong with the fact that once, according to their circumstances, all men paid in kind.
Our modern military is supported by the most sophisticated system of trade this world has ever seen. No foe can beat it and its backers in a fair fight. It is only when we fail to provide for its other proper professional interests, like a clear plan to follow, and a free hand to fight, that it falters in its mission. In the days when there were wars but there was no money, such self-sabotage was much more rare and the needs of war were known direct. Imagine, if you will, the fate of the peasant, who, when the Mongols were at the gate, said, "You cannot expect me to fight for the state, it would be altruism! You may be lord, but I am no slave!" Were he somehow to live, and were the barbarians repulsed, what do you think his fate would be next time he was caught outside the gate when the horde attacked? Would not his peers refuse to provide the aid he himself held back the day before? Would they not tell him this? "We cannot risk raising the gate. Good luck! And fend for yourself."
The modern state depends upon payment in money from its citizens for the protection that some men offer others. It also requires that those who serve with their labor do so with honor and integrity, which normally they do, at least those in uniform. But it also requires other things from all of us, whether we pay taxes or we serve in the armed forces or not. We each of us must testify honestly in court if called. We must pay attention to the issues at hand in an election, and the integrity of those for whom we vote to put in charge of the men with guns. And, in addition, we must also, so far as we are able and would not ourselves be put in harm's way, report crimes or otherwise act as reasonable first responders when the situation warrants.
This is the necessity of a free state. If we wish to benefit from the protection of the law, we must pay for it, in money or in kind. The need for us to report crimes and to take other reasonable actions is a necessary prerequisite of the police and others doing their jobs. We cannot expect the police to fight crimes we do not report. If you can look out the window when you hear a woman's screams, can you not call the police to (one hopes) prevent a murder? If a car crashes into a tree on your lawn, is it unreasonable for you to take the initiative to turn off the ignition key so that when the police and ambulance arrive they do not need to call for the fire brigade to extinguish an otherwise easily preventable blaze before they act?
If you opt not to act in such situations, perhaps you have not initiated force yourself. But have you not refused to pay in kind for the sort of protections you yourself would want? The state must not initiate force against you. Not even to punish you actively for your inaction. But if you refuse to pay your taxes, do others still have a responsibility to labor to protect you? Are they your slaves? If the legislature determines that in order to redress crime, one must, as a rule, report crimes when one sees them, not under threat of jail, but under threat of reciprocal withdrawal, is this not a reasonable expectation of payment in kind? Does it not warrant a warning that refusal to pay comes with termination of services?
Of course there are details. That is why we have wise judges and cautious legislatures and fifty state laboratories in which to work out, in the real world, how best to implement our principles. One of our principles is that the police are not our slaves. If refusal to report a crime is made grounds for the temporary withdrawal of police protection (in lieu of payment of a fine if you want that protection to remain interrupted) then does the person who refuses to act have grounds to complain if others refuse to aid him in return? Is the withdrawal of services unpaid-for the initiation of force? Of course the alleged conscientious objector's actions cannot be arbitrarily judged. The benefit of the doubt would have to go with the supposedly negligent party. But there are those who would shirk their responsibility to support the state that protects them. Some people undoubtedly do hold themselves apart from the law. And in respect for them as persons they should be treated as they wish, as outlaws.
|
