Against State Authority

David Sanson

2026-10-12

Preliminaries

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Orientation: Bad Acts
3. The Argument
4. The Social Contract
5. Immigration

Announcements

• Midterm 2 is next Wednesday, Oct 21st.
• Next Monday will be a review session/open discussion.

Orientation: Bad Acts

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Orientation: Bad Acts
3. The Argument
4. The Social Contract
5. Immigration

Morality

Different ways we can evaluate actions as bad:

• self-interest: fails to advance the agent’s own goals.
• legality: breaks the law.
• culture: violates a cultural norm.
• etiquette: is impolite or rude.
• morality: is morally wrong.

Activity: come up with examples that distinguish each of these from the others.

The Argument

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Orientation: Bad Acts
3. The Argument
4. The Social Contract
5. Immigration

A Guiding Example

VIGILANTE

Jasmine discovers that some con men have set up a fake charity and are conning some people in her neighborhood. She captures them at gunpoint, takes them to her basement, and plans to keep them there for a year as punishment. Quickly realizing how expensive it is to take care of them, Jasmine goes to her neighbors and demands $50 from each of them, at gunpoint. She explains that half the money will go towards taking care of her prisoners and that the rest will go towards a community gym to help keep troubled kids off the street. Those who do not comply are locked up in her basement with her other prisoners.

• What Jasmine does is morally wrong.
• This is kidnapping and extortion.

Against Taxation and Imprisonment

Argument

• TX1. If there is no morally relevant difference between two actions A and B, and A is wrong, then B is wrong.
• TX2. It is wrong for Jasmine to extort and kidnap her neighbors.
• TX3. There is no morally relevant difference between Jasmine extorting and kidnapping her neighbors and the government taxing and imprisoning its citizens.
• TX4. So, it is wrong for the government to tax and imprison its citizens.

Morally (Ir)relevant Differences

1. I take my cheese sandwich from the office fridge and eat it.
2. I take your palak paneer from the office fridge and eat it.

---

3. A nanny is distracted by a phone call, leaves an infant unattended in the bath, and the infant drowns.
4. A nanny is distracted by knock on at the door, leaves an infant unattended in the wading pool, but the infant does not drown.
5. A nanny is distracted by knock on at the door, leaves the pizza in the oven, and it burns.

---

6. Jasmine extorts and kidnaps her neighbors.
7. The government taxes and imprisons its citizens.

• what are some differences?
• which of those differences are morally relevant?

Argument

• TX3. There is no morally relevant difference between Jasmine extorting and kidnapping her neighbors and the government taxing and imprisoning its citizens.

• in light of what we just went over, vote: true or false.

Legality

What the G does is not illegal.

Procedure

The G does not (immediately) demand taxes at gunpoint.

Elections

G officials are elected.

Public Knowledge

The consequences of not paying taxes are public knowledge.

Greater Good

Without taxes and imprisonment, we would all be worse off.

Ownership

The G owns the country; J doesn’t own her neighborhood.

Ask them to discuss each in turn. Use slides when useful.

Not Legality

• Legal differences are not moral differences:
  • Immoral things that are not illegal: cheating on partner or an exam.
  • Illegal things that are not immoral: underage drinking; jaywalking.
• What the G does fits with the G’s laws; but what J does likewise fits with J’s scheme.

• Some laws are more legitimate than others.
• Laws passed by a legitimate governments?
• What makes a government legitimate?

Procedure

• The government does not immediately demand your taxes at gun point. (It sends you a bunch of notices before doing so.)
• Jasmine could do the same thing.
• It would still be morally wrong for J to do it.
• So this difference is morally irrelevant.

Elections

ELECTED VIGILANTE

Jasmine plans to start taking prisoners and demanding $50 at gunpoint from each of her neighbors to pay for the prisoners and a gym. Zhiwen thinks it would be better to demand $75, with the additional $25 going towards hiring a nurse to provide free medical care to anyone in the neighborhood. Jasmine and Zhiwen let their neighbors vote on which of them should get to set the policies for kidnapping and extortion. Many don’t vote but, of those who do, the majority prefer Jasmine. Zhiwen accepts the results of the election, and Jasmine begins kidnapping and extorting her neighbors.

• This is obviously a bad election.
• What would be a good election?
• What if the government is us. Does that make the case different?
• What if the government is me. Does that make the case different?

Public Knowledge

• Jasmine could put up a big billboard first, announcing her scheme.
• It would still be morally wrong for J to do it.
• So this difference is morally irrelevant.

Greater Good

• We would all be worse off without taxation and imprisonment.
• Jasmine’s neighbors would all be worse off without her scheme. (Remember: the purpose of her scheme it to stop the con-men from scamming her neighbors.)
• But it is still morally wrong when J does it.
• So this difference is morally irrelevant.

Greater Good

SAINT AND SINNER

A saint and a sinner both need a kidney transplant, but there is only one kidney available. The saint refuses it and insists that it be given to the sinner. The doctor, knowing that the world will be better off if the saint survives than if the sinner survives, forcibly anesthetizes the saint and gives her the kidney against her wishes and without her consent. The saint (who would otherwise have died) goes on to live a long life and does many saintly things. (The sinner would have done many evil things.)

• the world is a better place because of the doctor’s action.
• the doctor’s action is morally wrong.

Ownership

• The government acts as if it owns the country.
• Drug dealers act as if they own the street corner.
• Jasmine acts as if she owns the neighborhood.
• But we have no reason to think that any of these ownership claims are actually true.

• What does make an ownership claim true?
• We cannot appeal to legal ownership, since that depends on laws, and of course the G makes laws saying it owns (or, at least, controls) everything.
• Might think about land disputes between countries: India, Pakistan, and Kashmir; Britain, Argentine, Falkland Islands.
• Might think about “state of nature” situations.

Ownership

LANDLORD

Jasmine owns an apartment complex and discovers that some of her tenants have been conning some of the other tenants. She locks the con men in the basement of the complex, and plans to keep them there for a year as punishment. Jasmine then demands an additional $50 from each of her other tenants, to cover the expense of caring of her prisoners. Tenants who do not comply are locked in the basement with the other prisoners.

The Social Contract

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Orientation: Bad Acts
3. The Argument
4. The Social Contract
5. Immigration

Basic Idea

• We have entered into a contract with the government.
• The G agrees to provide roads, fire departments, parks, protection.
• We agree to pay taxes and obey the laws.
• We have not entered into any similar contract with J, to pay her extorted “tax”.
• This is the morally relevant difference between the G and J.

Tacit Consent

• You have not explicitly signed any such contract.
• So, if you have agreed to such a contract, it was a matter of tacit consent.

Tacit Consent

Examples:

• Getting into a taxi; paying fare
• Ordering food at a restaurant; paying bill
• Anyone still at my party after midnight has to help clean up.
• “If you don’t want to go to the zoo, speak up!”

• accepting benefits
• sticking around
• passively accepting by not objecting
• do these also apply in the case of our consent to the G?

Jasmine Again

• Yes, we benefit from the G, we don’t leave, and we passively accept the laws.
• But the same is true of J’s neighbors.
• Either in both cases we tacitly consent but what G and J do is still wrong, or these are not really cases of tacit consent.

What do you think is different about the J case and the taxi, restaurant, party, zoo cases?

No Consent

Argument

• NC1. Someone tacitly consents to an arrangement only if (i) there is a reasonable way to opt out and (ii) explicit refusal to opt in is recognized.
• NC2. There is no reasonable way to opt out of paying taxes and following laws, and explicit refusal to opt in is not recognized.
• NC3. So, we have not tacitly consented to paying taxes and following laws.

Immigration

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Orientation: Bad Acts
3. The Argument
4. The Social Contract
5. Immigration

Guiding Example

UNWANTED VISITORS

Jasmine and her friends arrive at their neighborhood park for their weekly soccer game, only to find a group from another neighborhood already using the park for a game of their own. Guns drawn, she directs them into her van, drives them back to their own neighborhood, and threatens to lock them in her basement if they ever return without first getting her permission. Some do ask for her permission, and most of the time she refuses. Some return without her permission, and she locks them in her basement.

The Argument for Open Borders

Argument

• OB1. If there is no morally relevant difference between two actions A and B, and A is wrong, then B is wrong.
• OB2. It is wrong for Jasmine to restrict access to the park.
• OB3. There is no morally relevant difference between Jasmine restricting access to the park and the government restricting access to the country.
• OB4. So, it is wrong for the government to restrict access to the country.

Argument

• OB3. There is no morally relevant difference between Jasmine restricting access to the park and the government restricting access to the country.