What can governments justly do?
be right, due to the different experiences of each individual, and the subjectiveness of the world. Rawls’ findings demonstrated that without the surety of their position, the majority wanted to have provisions in case they were poor, but also options to use their wealth if they had it. This is important as it suggests that the state does not just exist to protect what people have, but to protect against what they do not have. This obligation, of the state to the people, can only be framed as moral, because there is not a self- interested reason for this action, and the framework set up in a Rawlsian society comes from the recognitio n of other’s needs, something previously neglected. Moreover, the state envisaged by Rawls acts as an insurance policy for every citizen, ensuring that they are not left behind if they are unable to provide for themselves, whilst allowing those who have means, to pursue their opportunities. A private entity cannot legitimately collect taxes under these conditions, as it must be supposed that they are subject to the same veil of ignorance as all other members of the society, so they must pay taxes and be subject to the laws of the state in the same way as every other member of society. Moreover, since it has no obligations, a private entity does not have to support those who are less fortunate in society, violating Rawls’s idea for a just society. So far, the arguments in favour of the state have rested upon the rights, and pursuit, of the individual freedoms, latterly bound by a moral framework that had been agreed upon in Rawls’ state. The utilitarian arguments postulate that the goal of society is to do whatever benefits the largest part of society. This leads to the steady improvement of the whole over time. However, as Hume argues, the relationship between the ruled and the rulers is still based on an obligation to one another, although the actions taken in order to satisfy this obligation are different to those established under the principle of individual liberty. A middle ground between these two methods of government can be found in Adam Smith’s work, where it is argued that the ‘ main duty of government is to protect people from violence or from oppression and injustice ’ , but the aim of government should be to enhance expected utility that will ‘ arise from following well defined moral intention ’ . 6 The options of choice within a society would be restricted in order to promote moral behaviour, which would be the behaviour which would provide the greatest benefit to society as a whole. Once again, the idea of a collective ownership of the state, and its power over the private individual leads to the conclusion that a private entity cannot justify taxes or military service. As described by Smith, the environment created by the state is crafted on a moral basis, and so it follows that it can only function if the moral ideals of the governed and governing are aligned, and there is an ability for the ideals to change over time. Considering the arguments above for the justification, and role, of the state, it is difficult to argue that a private individual could be justified levying taxes or drafting militias. An individual has no political obligations independent of the state, as any obligations are either directly to the state, or to others through the state, and so the obligations to protect the liberty and property of others justify the state itself. Therefore, since they have nothing to protect, private entities do not have the legitimate monopoly on physical force; indeed, any collection of such force would undermine the monopoly that the true state holds, threatening its ability to function correctly. Moreover, many theories suggest a collective ownership of the state, which would bar a private entity from ascending to the status of a state, as by definition it cannot be owned by the society. Overall, governments possess the ability to collect taxes and draft people into the military, while private individuals do not, as individuals must operate within the boundaries of the state and cannot act as an equal.
6 Collins (1988).
200
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software