Moral Responsibility for Finland
Frank Chodorov
[Originally appeared with the title, "Responsibility
for Finland." Reprinted from The Freeman, January, 1940]
A political entity cannot be described as either moral or immoral.
Ethical standards apply only to persons, for they are based upon the
behavior of individuals living in the social order. To speak of Roman
cruelty, for instance, as if it were a characteristic of the empire
and not of Romans, is nonsensical. For the State, or any other
collective entity, is a man-made robot, without sentience; and
therefore without will, Hence, it is impossible to apply standards of
conduct to the State per se; judgment on acts ascribed to it must be
reserved for the individuals whose will is reflected in these acts.
Indeed, it is often the desire of individuals to escape moral
opprobrium for their behavior that prompts the formation of legal
entities to which the responsibility for their unsocial acts can be
directed. Corporate bodies -- no matter how they may be justified as
Commercial expedients -- have been found quite difficult to deal with
in matters of moral behavior; merely because of the principle of
limited responsibility. The expression "a corporation has no soul"
illustrates the point.
Nor has a State any soul. The essential of any definition of this
idea-entity is that it consists of a group of men who decide upon acts
which affect the environment of the people living within a given
political subdivision of the globe. Such acts may be moral or immoral,
according to prevailing standards; but judgment cannot be made on the
State, which is merely a dialectical convenience, a handy word to
describe a concept which has no objective existence. Those who must be
judged for the results of acts are the individuals in whom resides the
to initiate such acts.
That theory is involved in the idea of democracy. When the
environment created by the acts of politicians in whom power
temporarily resides proves unsatisfactory to the electorate, judgment
to that effect is recorded in the ballot box and the individuals who
composed the State are removed from power. Responsibility is placed on
individuals! The failure of democracy is not due to any weakness
inherent in its method, but only in the ignorance of the electorate;
we actually get the '"kind of government we deserve."
AS the State grows in size, as it assumes more power, its
responsibility to the electorate must correspondingly become less. For
since the electorate consists primarily of workers whose main
occupation must be the production of things to satisfy their desires,
watchfulness over the politicians becomes more difficult as the scope
of their activities becomes wider and more complicated. The
individuals constituting the State also seek satisfactions, including
that of their own vanity, and find that these satisfactions are more
pleasantly obtained by taxing production than by producing. Therefore
they strive to perpetuate and strengthen their position by enlarging
their range. The moral responsibility of the politicians for their
acts is conveniently ascribed to the State. Sometimes it is called "the
system."
Eventually the power of the State - that is, of the politicians --
becomes so great that it ceases to be responsible to the electorate.
In the totalitarian states this inversion results in the disappearance
of the electorate, and the politicians become responsible only to
themselves -- or rather to the one politician whose personality
typifies their corporate power. Moral responsibility then resides in
one person -- but by the time he appears, the electorate has
disappeared. He is not answerable; he is the power.
Stalin -- not communism -- is the man who is murdering the Finns.
Stalin -- not stateism -- is the man who would rob them of their homes
and their possessions. Stalin -- not a system -- is responsible for
the destruction visited upon a peaceful, industrious people. Stalin
and his gangsters are the culprits.
But Stalin and his confederates are the State. The abysmal ignorance
of the Russians, together with their abject poverty and the moral
degradation resulting from Centuries of stateism, made possible his
quick usurpation of power.
In America it would take a long period of increasing decadence before
a Stalin could appear. But the process whereby the power of the State
increases at the expense of the people has set in. Unless the cause
for poverty - and, which is more demoralizing, the fear of poverty -
are eradicated, the process will be accelerated. For a poor people
becomes a hopeless people, and a hopeless people becomes easy prey to
the cupidity of political adventurers.
|