National Collective Responsibility

[Carinthium]

When checking some of the Famous threads on this site, I've seen references to the idea that people are morally responsible for actions simply because nationals of the same country have commited them- even if they weren't alive at the time. I have not, however, seen a justification for this. Could somebody explain to me what the moral reasoning behind the idea is?

[Spoonist]

Care to provide links to posts as examples of what you are addressing?

[Carinthium]

First saw it here:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8&start=25

Broomstick's post, near the top-middle. I assumed it was a common view on the forum because as far as I can tell Broomstick is high-status (being a moderator and all that). The view went unattacked.

In addition, I've seen the view in the idea of an apology to "stolen generations" and similar, the idea (admittedly somewhat discredited) of German holocaust guilt, and other places.

Was I mistaken, or is this view actually commonly held?

[Broomstick]

When checking some of the Famous threads on this site, I've seen references to the idea that people are morally responsible for actions simply because nationals of the same country have commited them- even if they weren't alive at the time. I have not, however, seen a justification for this. Could somebody explain to me what the moral reasoning behind the idea is?

First saw it here:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8&start=25

Broomstick's post, near the top-middle. I assumed it was a common view on the forum because as far as I can tell Broomstick is high-status (being a moderator and all that). The view went unattacked.

Strictly speaking I am a mini-moderator - that's rather limited status.

In addition, I've seen the view in the idea of an apology to "stolen generations" and similar, the idea (admittedly somewhat discredited) of German holocaust guilt, and other places.

Was I mistaken, or is this view actually commonly held?

Perhaps I should elucidate since it was apparently my post that prompted your question.

In that thread I was referring to an on-going, current situation - how the Australian Aborigines are treated in the present day by the present government and society of Australia. Without re-hashing the other thread, if Australia treats today's Aborigines badly that is, indeed, the fault of the Australian government. Whether or not an individual citizen is culpable depends on that person's actions, including whether or not that individual is capable of seeing the collective wrongs of their nation or denies their existence.

With regards to past actions, in prior generations, it would (to my mind) be unjust to hold the current generation responsible. For example, it would not be just to hold a 20 year old from today's Germany responsible for the horrific actions of the Nazis in WWII. It would be unjust to hold a 20 year old Japanese responsible for what Imperial Japan did in WWII. There is a difference, however, in that the German government and society has admitted the wrongs of the past and have attempted to atone for them and take actions to prevent their re-occurrence. Current Japan is a very different nation, it's unlikely that they would repeat the same mistakes as their society has changed in some significant ways, but the nation (that is, government and society) seem unwilling to fully admit their role in starting and continuing WWII.

This is, of course, complicated by the factors like all nations being highly imperfect and committing wrongs, and the fact that today's generations inherits the problems of the past, some of which either aren't correctable or would take generations to solve. On top of that, different society's have different notions of right and wrong.

[Simon_Jester]

I would argue that while governments can be held responsible on collective-responsibility terms if there's continuity, individuals cannot.

This is because governments lay claim to be representatives of the collective of their population. The French government speaks on behalf of the French people, and claims to a (theoretically) eternal existence independent of who is in the government and who isn't. This means that I have every right to try and hold the French government accountable for the actions of the French government in the past- because while it's not the same people, it's sure the same government.

Exceptions occur in situations where the government has done its best to make amends, where a roughly accurate accounting of the damage is impossible, where who is truly at fault is unclear, or where the government itself no longer has continuity: Russia is not responsible for what the USSR did, nor was the USSR responsible for the actions of the Czars.

Broomstick's post, near the top-middle. I assumed it was a common view on the forum because as far as I can tell Broomstick is high-status (being a moderator and all that).

This is generally not a good assumption to make on SDN, just for the record. Some of the people whose names are green and therefore appear to be mods are in fact mods of obscure subforums, or just the head of some little private-membership club within the forum that gives them no power over the public forums whatsoever.

The board is not responsible for the opinions of the mods, and for any given mod you can probably find prominent members who think they're crazy, or at least insanely unreasonable.

But then, it could be worse, you could have come to this conclusion while reading one of Shep's posts.

[Bedlam]

I don’t think that governments should have responsibility for previous actions in perpetuity although I can’t think of a specific statute of limitations for previous crimes. It does seem unfair to for instance hold the current UK government guilty for the crimes of the Empire a century ago despite there being continuity.

Also how would you define a continuity of government, obviously a violent revolutions would count the Czar to communist change in Russia but do less violent changes count like the communist to current system change in Russia, it seems to me that a good proportion of the previous government stays in place during those changes.

[K. A. Pital]

It does seem unfair to for instance hold the current UK government guilty for the crimes of the Empire a century ago despite there being continuity.

Why? The Empire's government was continous and was, for quite a while, a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. So not only can the government be held accountable without any doubt, but as democratic mechanism seem to be functioning well enough in Great Britain, the question of popular responsibility for the actions of duly elected leaders also arises.

When checking some of the Famous threads on this site, I've seen references to the idea that people are morally responsible for actions simply because nationals of the same country have commited them- even if they weren't alive at the time. I have not, however, seen a justification for this. Could somebody explain to me what the moral reasoning behind the idea is?

Although in most cases I would say collective responsibility does not exist, there are venues for moral reasoning here - say, if one tribe enslaves another and a hundred years later the first tribe is basking in riches while the latter are destitute and poor, isn't it reasonable that the nationals of the first tribe benefited from the cruel act of their ancestors? And if they enjoy the benefit from a crime, they should also hold some responsibility. The above-mentioned British Empire and its offshoots are a good example - do the people of Britain really owe nothing to the colonized and often imperiled, if not outright destroyed, nations? I wouldn't say the question is as clear-cut as "no, they don't because the colonial Britain is a thing of the past".

[Simon_Jester]

Why? The Empire's government was continous and was, for quite a while, a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. So not only can the government be held accountable without any doubt, but as democratic mechanism seem to be functioning well enough in Great Britain, the question of popular responsibility for the actions of duly elected leaders also arises.

I disagree strongly with that last bit. When you talk about popular responsibility, you must be able to walk up to individual members of The People and say "you had a hand in this, and you and you and you."

The government may be responsible for an act long after every individual who had a hand in it is dead. The government's responsibility may involve payments and taxes levied on people not responsible for the event. But you cannot hold people not in a position to do anything when a crime happened personally responsible.

Put this way: The German government can take up accountability for the Holocaust as a (theoretically) immortal representative of "Germany in the abstract." But only Nazi war criminals can take up accountability personally. When all the Nazi war criminals are dead, there will be no one left alive in Germany who bears personal responsibility for Nazi actions, and there will be no sane sense in which "popular responsibility" for the Holocaust can be defined separately from the government's responsibility.

[Carinthium]

Seems I made a bit of a misinterpretation- people here at the very least aren't that unreasonable. However:

Although in most cases I would say collective responsibility does not exist, there are venues for moral reasoning here - say, if one tribe enslaves another and a hundred years later the first tribe is basking in riches while the latter are destitute and poor, isn't it reasonable that the nationals of the first tribe benefited from the cruel act of their ancestors? And if they enjoy the benefit from a crime, they should also hold some responsibility. The above-mentioned British Empire and its offshoots are a good example - do the people of Britain really owe nothing to the colonized and often imperiled, if not outright destroyed, nations? I wouldn't say the question is as clear-cut as "no, they don't because the colonial Britain is a thing of the past".

It's possible you simply reject pragmatic considerations (a respectable view as far as I can tell) but wouldn't that make almost everybody responsible for something? (Displacement of various peoples by Arabs, for example) Or is there some sort of implicit statute of limitations in your moral view?

[K. A. Pital]

I disagree strongly with that last bit. When you talk about popular responsibility, you must be able to walk up to individual members of The People and say "you had a hand in this, and you and you and you."

The government may be responsible for an act long after every individual who had a hand in it is dead. The government's responsibility may involve payments and taxes levied on people not responsible for the event. But you cannot hold people not in a position to do anything when a crime happened personally responsible.

Put this way: The German government can take up accountability for the Holocaust as a (theoretically) immortal representative of "Germany in the abstract." But only Nazi war criminals can take up accountability personally. When all the Nazi war criminals are dead, there will be no one left alive in Germany who bears personal responsibility for Nazi actions, and there will be no sane sense in which "popular responsibility" for the Holocaust can be defined separately from the government's responsibility.

So a person who voted Hitler, supported the NSDAP all day long, but didn't personally pull the trigger in any concentration camps or shuffle any papers in the Gestapo has no responsibility for what happened? *suspicious* I understand the level of responsibility is much, much less here than that of the person in charge and responsible for top-level decisions, but how does this remove all responsibility from the supporters? Let us say the dissenters are blameless alltogether, to make it more clear.

And to make it more clear, let us once again exchange Germany with Britain, where the democratic mechanism did not fail. Truly, I cannot hold Indians accountable for the acts of the British, because those had no voting rights and were subject to arrests and terror campaigns. But the British citizens with electoral rights, who supported, en masse, the policy of the Empire, have no responsibility? Neither personal, nor collective? *shakes head*

It's possible you simply reject pragmatic considerations (a respectable view as far as I can tell) but wouldn't that make almost everybody responsible for something?

You asked about moral reasoning, not whether pragmatism allows this reasoning to be put into effect (although it does - witness the reparations demands by former colonies to their masters long after the colonial government ceased to exist). I provided a logical chain which explains how said responsibility arises, not whether it is necessary to pursue a world of complete justice where every and each person will be punished for the misdeeds he or his ancestor had a small hand in.

Moreover, there is another line of separation here - that being the claim of continuity and the desire to benefit continously from previously commited crimes. If a nation strongarms another into an unfair position and later on its people continue to reap the benefits and express desire to maintain the position they achieved, certainly it is a different situation than, say, said people recanting and then paying heaps of reparation money to the folks they were opressing (e.g. Germany paying reparations to the Russians, Jews, Poles, etc.).

[mr friendly guy]

Current Japan is a very different nation, it's unlikely that they would repeat the same mistakes as their society has changed in some significant ways, but the nation (that is, government and society) seem unwilling to fully admit their role in starting and continuing WWII.

One can hold current Japanese responsible for the historical revisionism they preach about their role in WWII.

One could also hold the current government responsible for any "debts" Japan has accrued. This not only refers to financial debts, but also things like clearing left over WWII weapons (occasionally they turn up in China) and dare I say it, compensating the victims who are still alive (even though the current crop is not responsible, they still have to pay off the debt so to speak).

[Broomstick]

One can hold current Japanese responsible for the historical revisionism they preach about their role in WWII.

True. They are not responsible for the war crimes but they are responsible for how they speak about them, whether admitting them or lying/covering them up.

One could also hold the current government responsible for any "debts" Japan has accrued. This not only refers to financial debts, but also things like clearing left over WWII weapons (occasionally they turn up in China) and dare I say it, compensating the victims who are still alive (even though the current crop is not responsible, they still have to pay off the debt so to speak).

I can favor compensation to direct victims... but not to their descendants. This applies not just to victims of Imperial Japan in WWII but also those who survived Nazi camps and so forth. However, the child or grandchild of a survivor of some historical wrong is not entitled to compensation as they were not directly harmed.

[Broomstick]

It's possible you simply reject pragmatic considerations (a respectable view as far as I can tell) but wouldn't that make almost everybody responsible for something?

Yes. That is indeed the case. To one extent or another everyone's hands are dirty. Some are just dirtier (and bloodier) than others.

[Serafina]

Okay, my views on this are basically this, depending on their category:

-A nation carries responsiblity for it's actions, whether past or present. If a nation makes a mistake (whatever that may be), it carries the responsiblity to rectify that mistake. That includes stopping the mistaken behavior and trying to repair the damage that has been done. This will of course only be limited based on circumstances and time passed. If a current government is genuinely trying to fix their past mistakes, even if that only includes remembering it and trying it's best to avoid doing the same mistake in the future, it still carries responsibility but no longer any guilt.
Germany is IMO a good example here. Nazi Germany obviously carried the responsiblility for it's actions, the actions of it's leaders, soldiers and citizens. The successor state(s) of Germany still carried that responsibility, but since they tried to fix the damage they amended themselves. If they had not done that, you could not blame them for the actions of the Nazis, but you could blame them for their failure to make amends. Right now, Germany carries the responsiblity to never again make the same mistake.

-A change of goverment, no matter how radical, does not rid a nation of it's responsiblity. Again, you can not blame new leaders for past mistakes, but you can blame them for not fixing the damage. If you have a series of smaller successor states, then the individual parts still carry the responsiblity to fix the damage in their own territory and sovereignity.

-A nations citizens are responsible insofar as they could have prevented the mistake. Therefore, citizens in a democracy are more responsible for their leaderships actions than citizens under a brutal dictatorship. And of course, they are responsible for their own actions, even if done under orders, depending on how realistic avoiding the order (including not serving in that particular position) is.
As such, germans who were egligible for elections when the NSDAP rose to power carry a collective responsiblity for the eventual actions of Nazi Germany. Likewise, soldiers entangled in atrocities are responsible for their actions. They are more responsible when they voluntered for a certain position (such as SS-units), less if they had little choice in it.

-As an extrapolation of the above, those citiziens with more influence carry more responsibility than those with less influence. Children would carry very little influence, powerful individuals more of it.


Basically, it all boils down to this:
The more you could have done in order to prevent a mistake, the more responsiblity you carry for it. The greater your capability to fix damage by such a mistake, the greater your responsiblity for doing so. In addition, you always carry the responsiblity for avoiding such a mistake - more so than if you had never made it in the past.
This applies to nations, their government and their citizens equally, but their individual positions tends to make some of them less responsible than others.
The ability to prevent a mistake makes your responsible for doing so, the greater your ability the greater your responsiblity.

[Bedlam]

An interesting thought occurs to me, so far we have only been considering blame but how about praise? Should the same rules be applied to the good things countries have done. Should a country continue to be praised for its past actions as long as there is continuity of government and should the government / nation be considered the ones responcible for the good deeds rather than specific individuals?

[Serafina]

An interesting thought occurs to me, so far we have only been considering blame but how about praise? Should the same rules be applied to the good things countries have done. Should a country continue to be praised for its past actions as long as there is continuity of government and should the government / nation be considered the ones responcible for the good deeds rather than specific individuals?

At least for me, the difference is that, in a case where blame is appropriate, then we can assign responsiblity to fix the damage to the later generations, since there is damage to fix.
This is not the case with praise, since there is no damage to fix.

Now, we CAN assign something else - trust. It's certainly warranted to trust a country based on past good deeds, unless contradicted by current actions.
However, this is still very different from the mechanism that occurs with blame. A countries responsiblity to uphold it's good reputation is based on it's responsiblity to avoid mistakes. At best, we can assign a responsiblity to uphold the reputation based on self-interest, but that is already a given when judging anyones actions.

Thus, assigning praise for past actions is justified, but vastly different from assigning blame for past actions.

[Carinthium]

Okay, my views on this are basically this, depending on their category:

-A nation carries responsiblity for it's actions, whether past or present. If a nation makes a mistake (whatever that may be), it carries the responsiblity to rectify that mistake. That includes stopping the mistaken behavior and trying to repair the damage that has been done. This will of course only be limited based on circumstances and time passed. If a current government is genuinely trying to fix their past mistakes, even if that only includes remembering it and trying it's best to avoid doing the same mistake in the future, it still carries responsibility but no longer any guilt.
Germany is IMO a good example here. Nazi Germany obviously carried the responsiblility for it's actions, the actions of it's leaders, soldiers and citizens. The successor state(s) of Germany still carried that responsibility, but since they tried to fix the damage they amended themselves. If they had not done that, you could not blame them for the actions of the Nazis, but you could blame them for their failure to make amends. Right now, Germany carries the responsiblity to never again make the same mistake.

-A change of goverment, no matter how radical, does not rid a nation of it's responsiblity. Again, you can not blame new leaders for past mistakes, but you can blame them for not fixing the damage. If you have a series of smaller successor states, then the individual parts still carry the responsiblity to fix the damage in their own territory and sovereignity.

-A nations citizens are responsible insofar as they could have prevented the mistake. Therefore, citizens in a democracy are more responsible for their leaderships actions than citizens under a brutal dictatorship. And of course, they are responsible for their own actions, even if done under orders, depending on how realistic avoiding the order (including not serving in that particular position) is.
As such, germans who were egligible for elections when the NSDAP rose to power carry a collective responsiblity for the eventual actions of Nazi Germany. Likewise, soldiers entangled in atrocities are responsible for their actions. They are more responsible when they voluntered for a certain position (such as SS-units), less if they had little choice in it.

-As an extrapolation of the above, those citiziens with more influence carry more responsibility than those with less influence. Children would carry very little influence, powerful individuals more of it.


Basically, it all boils down to this:
The more you could have done in order to prevent a mistake, the more responsiblity you carry for it. The greater your capability to fix damage by such a mistake, the greater your responsiblity for doing so. In addition, you always carry the responsiblity for avoiding such a mistake - more so than if you had never made it in the past.
This applies to nations, their government and their citizens equally, but their individual positions tends to make some of them less responsible than others.
The ability to prevent a mistake makes your responsible for doing so, the greater your ability the greater your responsiblity.

This seems to greatly contradict the commonly held idea that people are free to live their own lives- are you saying that anybody (including, presumably, non-nationals who could have influence on the decision if they put enough effort into preventing it) is obliged to spend their lives preventing such things if they can?

Also:
-Why should people be obliged to fix the mistakes of their ancestors? They didn't cause their actions.
-Not all Germans (for example) were intelligent or insightful enough to realise that electing Hitler to power would lead to the Holocaust at the very least- if they had no way of knowning or didn't realise due to lack of intelligence can they really be held responsible?

You asked about moral reasoning, not whether pragmatism allows this reasoning to be put into effect (although it does - witness the reparations demands by former colonies to their masters long after the colonial government ceased to exist). I provided a logical chain which explains how said responsibility arises, not whether it is necessary to pursue a world of complete justice where every and each person will be punished for the misdeeds he or his ancestor had a small hand in.

Not really- to use a few examples from memory the descendants of the Germaniac tribes that invaded the Roman Empire, the Arabs and Turks who conquered the Middle East, the Scots who conquered the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons who conquered the Romano-British, the Vikings who gained a significant amount of plunder from the Anglo-Saxons, people around an area broadly in modern Poland or the Baltic States who displaced the ancient Prussians, the Maygars who displaced a few native peoples etc have all benefited from the immoral conquests of others.

[Thanas]

-Not all Germans (for example) were intelligent or insightful enough to realise that electing Hitler to power would lead to the Holocaust at the very least- if they had no way of knowning or didn't realise due to lack of intelligence can they really be held responsible?

Germany as a nation is still responsible and paid restitution, which in effect was paid by all nationals regardless of guilt.


Basically, in a democracy, if people elect leaders despite knowing that they committed war crimes or other illegal stuff (Bush and the USA) then the people can and should be held responsible.

[Carinthium]

-Not all Germans (for example) were intelligent or insightful enough to realise that electing Hitler to power would lead to the Holocaust at the very least- if they had no way of knowning or didn't realise due to lack of intelligence can they really be held responsible?

Germany as a nation is still responsible and paid restitution, which in effect was paid by all nationals regardless of guilt.


Basically, in a democracy, if people elect leaders despite knowing that they committed war crimes or other illegal stuff (Bush and the USA) then the people can and should be held responsible.

1- Just because somebody is held responsible doesn't mean they are.

2- Arguably those people who voted for the candidate should, but I assume we both agree those who voted against them shouldn't even if they didn't take any other action relevant to the issue?

[Thanas]

-Not all Germans (for example) were intelligent or insightful enough to realise that electing Hitler to power would lead to the Holocaust at the very least- if they had no way of knowning or didn't realise due to lack of intelligence can they really be held responsible?

Germany as a nation is still responsible and paid restitution, which in effect was paid by all nationals regardless of guilt.


Basically, in a democracy, if people elect leaders despite knowing that they committed war crimes or other illegal stuff (Bush and the USA) then the people can and should be held responsible.

1- Just because somebody is held responsible doesn't mean they are.

That is pretty much a non sequitur - if the principle was applied in the past, why should it not continue to be applied?

2- Arguably those people who voted for the candidate should, but I assume we both agree those who voted against them shouldn't even if they didn't take any other action relevant to the issue?

No, we disagree. In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. If you disagree with Bush, you are still an American and thus you can still be held responsible. It is the very definition of being a citizen in a democracy. A nation is not something you can cherrypick the good and just leave the bad to "other people". Unless you actively fought against it with every ounce of your willpower, you cannot chose to take the good and the benefits of a policy and just leave the rest. Democracy and popular sovereignty change the game in that regard.

[Carinthium]

That is pretty much a non sequitur - if the principle was applied in the past, why should it not continue to be applied?

The obvious exception is if it should never have been applied in the first place (e.g.- slaves have a moral duty to serve their masters). My point (admittedly poorly made) was that the idea of collective responsibility was such an idea.

No, we disagree. In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. If you disagree with Bush, you are still an American and thus you can still be held responsible. It is the very definition of being a citizen in a democracy. A nation is not something you can cherrypick the good and just leave the bad to "other people". Unless you actively fought against it with every ounce of your willpower, you cannot chose to take the good and the benefits of a policy and just leave the rest. Democracy and popular sovereignty change the game in that regard.

In the modern world, people have no choice but to be a citizen of one country or another (unless you advocate statelessness). I presume you are advocating that people who do not want to held responsible for the actions of others should move to dictatorships to avoid it?

(If you do, you would also come into the situation of having to accept dictatorships as a moral necessity)

[Thanas]

That is pretty much a non sequitur - if the principle was applied in the past, why should it not continue to be applied?

The obvious exception is if it should never have been applied in the first place (e.g.- slaves have a moral duty to serve their masters). My point (admittedly poorly made) was that the idea of collective responsibility was such an idea.

But why?

No, we disagree. In a democracy, the government is elected by the people. If you disagree with Bush, you are still an American and thus you can still be held responsible. It is the very definition of being a citizen in a democracy. A nation is not something you can cherrypick the good and just leave the bad to "other people". Unless you actively fought against it with every ounce of your willpower, you cannot chose to take the good and the benefits of a policy and just leave the rest. Democracy and popular sovereignty change the game in that regard.

In the modern world, people have no choice but to be a citizen of one country or another (unless you advocate statelessness). I presume you are advocating that people who do not want to held responsible for the actions of others should move to dictatorships to avoid it?

(If you do, you would also come into the situation of having to accept dictatorships as a moral necessity)

That is a pretty poor rebuttal, actually. People who do not want to be held responsible for the actions of their nation should fight it in every way, including getting involved in politics (no, just voting does not count), using their resources (like money) to combat the policies etc. If you tolerate or ignore actions by your representatives, how are you not responsible? And if you profit, why should you not be held responsible as well?

[K. A. Pital]

I agree with Thanas. If you did nothing to prevent something from happening, there is still responsibility arising. There is "criminal neglience which caused damage to property/death of people" in the criminal codes of nations. This principle is not groundless. If you see a brick about to fall on a person and kill him, and do nothing although you could, it means you share some of the guilt.

On the other hand, if you tried to stop the brick from falling but it still fell, you are not guilty.

[hongi]

I can favor compensation to direct victims... but not to their descendants. This applies not just to victims of Imperial Japan in WWII but also those who survived Nazi camps and so forth. However, the child or grandchild of a survivor of some historical wrong is not entitled to compensation as they were not directly harmed.

Mmm...I don't know, I'd really like to see the descendants of those who were murdered or survived Unit 731 get something. The emotional trauma visited upon the families has to be worth something.

[Carinthium]

I can favor compensation to direct victims... but not to their descendants. This applies not just to victims of Imperial Japan in WWII but also those who survived Nazi camps and so forth. However, the child or grandchild of a survivor of some historical wrong is not entitled to compensation as they were not directly harmed.

Mmm...I don't know, I'd really like to see the descendants of those who were murdered or survived Unit 731 get something. The emotional trauma visited upon the families has to be worth something.

There is a case for that only if they were actually traumatised- if they lost a father when they were very young, for example.

But why?

Interferes with individual freedom by creating responsibilities that the individual did not choose and which they cannot opt out of.

That is a pretty poor rebuttal, actually. People who do not want to be held responsible for the actions of their nation should fight it in every way, including getting involved in politics (no, just voting does not count), using their resources (like money) to combat the policies etc. If you tolerate or ignore actions by your representatives, how are you not responsible? And if you profit, why should you not be held responsible as well?

What I trying to demonstrate is basically what I summed up above- unless your position is as I claimed it presumably was, your idea interferes with individual freedom by creating responsibilities that the individual did not choose and which they cannot opt out of. The term slavery might be somewhat strong, but it is close to it.

What if somebody doesn't want to be represented by a democratic government in order to avoid moral blame? Because of the way the modern world works, they are forced to be a citizen of a country after all. If they intend to leave, renounce citizenship and ignore "their" country's actions, how can they be blamed for immoral actions their country has done whilst they are in the process of doing so?

As for individuals who profit, it depends how they profit. If somebody directly recieves plunder (land, goods etc), I agree that they should give it back and recieve blame if they recieved it knowing where they came from. But what if a company profits by charging high prices to repair the damage of an immoral war? If they didn't cause the war, how are they guilty for the war itself?

If you did nothing to prevent something from happening, there is still responsibility arising. There is "criminal neglience which caused damage to property/death of people" in the criminal codes of nations. This principle is not groundless. If you see a brick about to fall on a person and kill him, and do nothing although you could, it means you share some of the guilt.

This appears to be the crux of the disagreement. I'd argue that this stance is incompatible with the commonly held idea (if you dispute it we can get into that) that human beings should be naturally free.

Also, I assume your stance is that whether somebody is a national of a country or not does not affect guilt unless it affects how able they are to prevent the immoral act? At least in dictatorships?