As Negal points out, states don’t just serve the purpose of
allowing all people to mutually benefit. Instead, states act coercively and often
impose societal laws on their citizens that are at odds with citizens’ desires
and benefits, though citizens have the obligation to follow these laws
regardless of the fact that these policies may be detrimental to them. As Negal
indicates, “Insofar as those institutions admit arbitrary inequalities, we are,
even though the responsibility has been simply handed to us, responsible for
them, and we therefore have standing to ask why we should accept them” (129). So
why should we accept these laws, according to Negal?
For Negal, the answer to this question falls on the fact
that the “will is inseparable from membership in a political society” (128). Whether
we like it or not, “we are both putative joint authors of the coercively
imposed system and subject to its norms" (128). We must follow the laws of our society, regardless of whether our
option for policy is incorporated into the government’s actions or not, and as
long as we actively follow these laws and conform to the society’s norms, “we
are all participants in the general will” (128). If we follow the law, we display active engagement, thus giving governments the legitimacy, in Negal's view, to exercise coercive power over us. So my problem with
this account is how can we not actively engage in the society in which we live?
By following laws, Negal argues that we conform to the general will and that this in turn gives government coercive
power over us. But to me, his account of legitimating government coercion seems
problematic. People follow the law all the time not because they agree with the
general will of society, but because they have no other choice. If they do not follow the law, the state can take coercive acts against them for breaking the law and this has negative impacts not just for that one individual, but for everyone around them.
I do not believe that Negal can then fall back on this double role as joint authors to the governing system and subjects to it to justify involuntary membership. Just because one actively cooperates and follows laws should not mean that the government is justified in acting coercively towards that person because that person's alternative would be to pay the fines for breaking the law and all of their dependents would be forced to suffer. Negal seems to assume that individuals have a choice not to actively engage in a political system, but I am not even sure what this would look like. Does he assume that all who do not actively engage have the ability to protest the laws and the government, and that otherwise all consent to involuntary membership?
I do not believe that Negal can then fall back on this double role as joint authors to the governing system and subjects to it to justify involuntary membership. Just because one actively cooperates and follows laws should not mean that the government is justified in acting coercively towards that person because that person's alternative would be to pay the fines for breaking the law and all of their dependents would be forced to suffer. Negal seems to assume that individuals have a choice not to actively engage in a political system, but I am not even sure what this would look like. Does he assume that all who do not actively engage have the ability to protest the laws and the government, and that otherwise all consent to involuntary membership?
Hi Bria,
ReplyDeleteIn response to your last point, "Negal seems to assume that individuals have a choice not to actively engage in a political system," I think Negal may not agree. When discussing arbitrary inequalities on page 129, Negal admits that we truly may have "no choice but to live under the existing regime" (129). Negal furthers this point when he notes that the will that is "inseparable from membership" is "not the will to become or remain a member, for most people have no choice in that regard" (128).This would seem to indicate that some people do not have the choice to refuse to actively engage in their political system. However, for Negal, this lack of choice is not purely coercive because as a society we nevertheless have the ability to "request justification." For Negal, this societal ability to request justification holds sufficient moral weight to avoid pure societal coercion.
However, I think you are pointing to a tension in Nagel's writing between the will of the society and the individual. On the one hand, Nagel notes that the "required active engagement of the will of each member of the society in its operation is crucial," (129) which appears to be focused on individual relationships with a society's institutions. However, his understanding of what is not coercive seems to demonstrate that each individual will not be able to chose their engagement with a society, and that this choice is instead significant only on a societal level.
Bria,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I also had concerns about this "involuntary membership" distinction. For me, claiming that all citizens are "joint authors" presupposes full voting participation, voting rights, and enfranchisement in general. Shelby County v. Holder (2013) overturned a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which held that "requiring certain jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to submit any proposed changes in voting procedures to the U.S. Department of Justice or a federal district court in D.C. – before it goes into effect – to ensure the change would not harm minority voters" (Brennan Center for Justice). Nagel's assumption that we are all authors of the law denies the realities of the gerrymander today. Vote dilution seems to me an urgent problem within nation-states, and his proclamation that we are "responsible for them, and we therefore have standing to ask why we should accept them” (129)--the laws, he means--denies how minorities, in particular, African-Americans are not responsible for the law, and are actually the targets of discrimination through those same laws.
For more on the amicus brief from the Brennan Center on Shelby: https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/shelby-county-v-holder-amicus-brief