The Declaration of Dependence

That's the question, isn't it. Personally, I'm not so easily frightened. And I'm pretty sure that good neighbors with well stocked gun cabinets and a few feet of rope would solve most of the problems you mentions at far lower cost.

Posted by: Randy | Jan 23, 2009 1:57:18 PM

There is a difference between active patrolling of the streets and a defensive posture inside one's neighborhood when the guns are locked away. You don't always have time to:

a) recognize the threat

b) retrieve weapons and be effective

That's why we have police patrolling in good neighborhoods, because perps are always on the offensive.

John Dewey,

"That has already been decided long ago."

So what? For centuries the princes of Moscow paid tribute to the Mongols. History isn't over.

Randy: "All I'm saying is that if they want it they can pay for it."

Paying taxes is not voluntary in this nation under this constitution. Never has been. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense"

You can argue all you wish about what is meant by "provide for the common defense". That has already been decided long ago.

Martin,

"Can't someone belong to both classes at the same time?"

Yes, it would be possible, even ideal, for the political class to be productive, its just that they can't prove that what they do has value while they are using force to collect the revenue. In fact, the use of force is strong evidence that what they do has no value.

"Doesn't practically everyone belong to both?"

In our highly politicized world, its hard not to engage in political behavior on occasion, but productive or political behavior is still a moral choice.

"...we simply find every entitlement labeled "productive".

To the productive class, an entitlement is earned by fullfillment of the terms of an agreement. That is, a real agreement - not some bullshit social contract.

"is a mother "productive" insofar as she raises a productive child?"

Yes. And even if she raises an unproductive child. She is producing something of value - even though it is not necessarily a value for which she will be compensated.

"Is government coercion protecting a yield of her productivity legitimate?"

Sorry, not following. Do you mean is it legitimate for the government to protect the child from parental exploitation? Or do you mean is it legitimate for the government to exploit the child?

"If you say "no", aren't you just another politician constructing entitlements to exploit the productive class?"

Assuming you mean the latter above, no, because neither the government nor the parents have a right to exploit the child. Certainly there are moral codes (propaganda) that preach otherwise, but there are moral codes (propaganda) that preach the validity of all kinds of exploitation.

sam grove: "Gangs usually exist due to enforcement of certain laws, such as in the case of drug prohibition."

I disagree:

"Historians know that gangs have been part of civic life at least since the Roman Empire when the capital city was often racked by violence between groups of mostly poor citizens fighting for turf, food or in support of political factions within the Senate."

Gangs date to the Roman Empire

"The word thug dates back to India in the year 1200 AD and it refers to a gang of criminals (Thugz) that roamed the country pillaging towns in their course. These Thugz had their own symbols, hand signs, rituals and slang."

Natural Gang History

PAOLO VACCARELLI (aka Paul Kelly) formed the Five Points Gang in Manhattan long before alcohol and drug prohibition laws.

The Monk Eastman Gang, composed of low income Jews, was likewise formed before such laws.

You may wish to argue that all of these gangs resulted from governmental restrictions on their "liberty". Fine. But please know that the criminal mind has a very different definition of the word "liberty" than you have.

Please do not be naive, Sam, about the tendency of humans to ignore the rights of property and rights of life of other humans.

sam grove: "2. Serial killers are exceedingly rare, but quite newsworthy."

Victims of serial killers are quite rare precisely because we have law enforcement professionals who remove those serial killers.

sam grove: ""terrorists" Please, terrorism is always a response to some government policy"

Please! back at you.

We rarely disagree, Sam. But I think you're not being practical in this case.

In the 19th century North American fronteir, and in countless parts of the globe before, civilized peoples were terrorized. Perhaps the Native Americans had cause for the lives they took and the property they destroyed. Perhaps their actions were in response to some government policy. Regardless, their actions clearly meet the definition of "terrorism". Settlers on the fronteir gladly engaged the services of law enforcement to reduce the threat of such terrorism.

Randy,

The political class exists only because the productive class exists.

So what is the boundary between the political class and the productive class? How do I know who belongs to which class? Can't someone belong to both classes at the same time? Doesn't practically everyone belong to both?

Government coercion is legitimate to the extent that it is a method of production - to defend the productive class.

In this formulation of the "proper role of government", we simply find every entitlement labeled "productive".

Government coercion is illegitimate to the extent that it exploits the productive class.

So is a mother "productive" insofar as she raises a productive child? Is government coercion protecting a yield of her productivity legitimate? If you say "no", aren't you just another politician constructing entitlements to exploit the productive class?

Are you certain your life and your health are not being protected by police and military? If police had not reduced the threat of serial killers, drunk drivers, terrorists, gangs, sexual predators, and bullies, can you be certain your life would be unchanged?

1. The police also enforce laws that limit our ability to protect ourselves.

2. Serial killers are exceedingly rare, but quite newsworthy. also, see #1

3. Gangs usually exist due to enforcement of certain laws, such as in the case of drug prohibition.

4. "terrorists" Please, terrorism is always a response to some government policy; in our case, bases in other countries and covert actions such as the CIA prompted installation of the hugely unpopular Shah of Iran.

etc.

John Dewey,

I have no problem with taking up a voluntary collection and hiring a marshall and a few deputies. I might or might not contribute. It would be a cost/benefit analysis. I don't personally have a whole lot to protect, and nothing that an insurance policy wouldn't cover. And if we had to hunt down some scoundrel I could sign up for the posse. I don't shoot as straight as I used to, but I can still hit center of mass.

"I'm confident you will find very little support among U.S. citizens..."

I'm sure you're right about that. After a century or so of progressive propaganda to create a culture of dependency, not a whole lot of rugged individualist sentiment remains. All I'm saying is that if they want it they can pay for it.

Randy,

I agree with you completely. I was trying to reason with Trumpit(which is a dumb idea) that making "the rich" pay for everything is bad idea if he wants everyone to pay their "fair share". However, I should have been more specific. In my last paragraph I was trying to show how subsidizing and taxing externalities often goes too far. I think it is important to sometimes strive for marginal victories in arguing our points (even though it will never happen with the trolls on this board).

Randy: "I'm pretty sure that good neighbors with well stocked gun cabinets and a few feet of rope would solve most of the problems you mentions at far lower cost."

Perhaps you are sure of that. I am not willing to entrust the safety of my family to untrained neighborhood watches and vigilantes.

The good citizens of Texas possessed firearms and rope when they settled here in the early 19th century. Based on what I've read, I'd say they were as independent as any population anywhere. Yet they quickly agreed to pay for law enforcement protection after settling here.

I'm confident you will find very little support among U.S. citizens for your position that publicly-funded law enforcement is not needed.

John Dewey,

"Are you certain..."

That's the question, isn't it. Personally, I'm not so easily frightened. And I'm pretty sure that good neighbors with well stocked gun cabinets and a few feet of rope would solve most of the problems you mentions at far lower cost.

Let us be thankful that government does not work, because if it did none of us would have any freedom at all.

Quotes from U.S. Presidents who seemed to get it:

George Washington: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Thomas Jefferson: “"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves"

James Madison: “"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."

Woodrow Wilson: “The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it."

John Kennedy: “"And so, my fellow americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.”

Ronald Reagan, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.’”

Ronald Reagan: “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!”

Bill Clinton, January 27, 1996: “The era of big government is over”

And the quote from our current president, who has almost zero experience:

Barack Obama: “"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works"

God help us.

Randy,

Are you certain your life and your health are not being protected by police and military? If police had not reduced the threat of serial killers, drunk drivers, terrorists, gangs, sexual predators, and bullies, can you be certain your life would be unchanged?

Jesse Rouse,

"Say I'm super wealthy and have my own private police force. Shouldn't I not have to pay taxes for police any more??"

No, you shouldn't. And the other end of the spectrum applies as well. If I had a choice, I wouldn't pay for police protection from the government. Because they don't protect me. What protects me is that I don't have much to protect, and that I have insurance on the few things that might be worth stealing. In fact, the only people who actually do steal from me are the very people I'm forced to pay the protection money to.

"Shouldn't I (or the government through a transfer) be able to tax my free riding neighbors??"

The idea of a free rider problem is propaganda. The whole point of political activity is to exploit, that is, to create a selective group of free riders. The idea of the political class saying they do what they do to avoid free riders is sublimely absurd.

sTrUmPiT wrote:

"To think that the rich are protected by the police who don't make a particularly good salary and risk their lives every day is absurd. To think that their enormous quantity of property is protected by a miltary whose members make a junky salary and may lose a limb or worse is outrageous."

Shouldn't the rich only have to pay their "fair share" ie the same proportional amount of wealth as everyone else. If I $40,000 in property, someone else has $10,000,000, and the cost of defense and police is 10% of GDP. I should pay $4,000 and he should pay $1,000,000. But you argue for a progressive tax where it really should be proportional.




But should it be proportional, could it be regressive? I doubt the I value my life proportionally less than a wealthy person values his life. No one wants to be killed, invaded, raped, or enslaved. So let's say every life is worth the same amount (which I assume is something you agree with.) If a life is worth $10,000,000 then the rich person (10+10=20 million) should only pay about twice as much for police and defense as me (10 mil + 40k = ~10mil.)

One step farther. Say I'm super wealthy and have my own private police force. Shouldn't I not have to pay taxes for police any more?? What if I have my own missile defense system. Shouldn't I (or the government through a transfer) be able to tax my free riding neighbors??

Quote from Mezzanine: "Maybe it's just me, but honestly I wish the trolls be gone so that he rest of us could discuss the finer point of Hayekian economics. With them here, our entire focus gets diverted to their nonsense."

I guess it depends on what you really want from this blog. Is it to be an echo chamber or preaching to the choir, or a principled discussion of different points of view based on facts with logical reasoning? I think I would be more interested in the latter.

Unfortunately, I agree that several posters seem quite incapable of doing anything more than spout political rhetoric and attacks wholey supported by opinion and anecdote.

While I think discussions with these people is a waste of time (you can't defeat emotion and feeling with logic and reason), I think its illustrative of the long road ahead and the tremendous obstacles that are in the way.

Trumpit asserts:

I have no problem with small government if that is what the people want. I just want the rich to pay for it no matter what size it is.

And what will you do after you've looted the rich of all their earnings or after they've fled to another country where looters such as you can't get to them? What's your economic game plan for the day after the rich are no longer around?

Oh Hio,

"To claim that capitalism exists free of coercion is untrue..."

I disagree (changing the terms on you, but the concept follows). The political class exists only because the productive class exists. Without production there is nothing to steal and nothing to defend. Government coercion is legitimate to the extent that it is a method of production - to defend the productive class. Government coercion is illegitimate to the extent that it exploits the productive class. To this definition, the form of government is irrelevent. A Democracy that exploits the productive is no different than a tyranny that exploits the productive.

Mezzanine,

I'm with dg lesvic on this one. I think the "finer detail" posts are awesome too, but I've noticed that the trolls don't hit those as hard. What really brings them out is when Don or Russ post anything approaching an expression of freedom or individualism. It brings them out because they have been subjected to intense propaganda by a political class that is threatened by any true expression of freedom or individualism. The enemy is the propaganda and the propagandists - and if you think that these will be swayed from their objective by truth and reason, then you don't understand their nature. I say fight fire with fire.

Mezzanine,

Since our fight is not with Hayek's finer points but with the nonsense of which you speak, it is not the nonsense but those finer points that are the diversion.

Maybe it's just me, but honestly I wish the trolls be gone so that he rest of us could discuss the finer point of Hayekian economics. With them here, our entire focus gets diverted to their nonsense. If anyone agrees, please say so!

First, Trumpet,

To put it simply, you want to take from the rich to give to the poor, presumably to make the poor richer.

But that won't make them richer; it will make them poorer.

Ohio,

You wrote:

"...I believe that governments should reduce as much as possible the amount of coercion they carry out..."

Does that include "coercion" against our "terrorist" enemies and other criminals?

If so, by how much do you think our "government" ought to reduce the amount of "coercion" it carries out against our deadly enemies?

Are the "coercion" that a criminal exerts upon you and that which you exert upon him in self-defense fundamentally the same act; are they both crimes, for which you should both go to jail?

If not, if they are fundamentally different, why confuse them, why use the same term for both?

Why do we always get the worst trolls? Really 2009 should have ushered in a better brand of troll. Instead it's same old, same old.

Pareto writes “But it is in precisely these times that we should not shy away, for it is in these times that our liberties are at the greatest risk of being curtailed. It is all too easy to push these concerns onto the back burner in a frantic attempt to deal with immediate issues, but when all is said and done, temporary changes become permanent and we have taken two steps back before we know it.”

Absolutely! And that is precisely why we have to discuss serious all issues with the other side and not just badmouth it just in order to look good in front of those we can win easy applauds from.

As we've seen, in unsettling circumstances people sometimes assert that we should be quiet about concerns surrounding things like governmental size and scope. But it is in precisely these times that we should not shy away, for it is in these times that our liberties are at the greatest risk of being curtailed. It is all too easy to push these concerns onto the back burner in a frantic attempt to deal with immediate issues, but when all is said and done, temporary changes become permanent and we have taken two steps back before we know it.

I forgot to properly add "HARPO" to the ditty, in honor of Oprah's production company. Please add that to the new and improved pledge.

I have no problem with small government if that is what the people want. I just want the rich to pay for it no matter what size it is. To think that the rich are protected by the police who don't make a particularly good salary and risk their lives every day is absurd. To think that their enormous quantity of property is protected by a miltary whose members make a junky salary and may lose a limb or worse is outrageous. I want Social Security revamped so that the rich pay for it all and make it solvent into the foreseeable future. I don't want to make the rich poor just less rich. There's enough fat on Oprah's billionaire thighs to see her through both a famine and a Russian winter. She can cough up her last meal and give it to the needy without doing herself any visible harm. Her self-respect may grow as her over-stuffed wallet shrinks. In honor of Oprah's chubby hips and our dipping into her over-sized fortune, we can call my economic recovery plan Lipo-hippo-dippo-robo-cop-a-lot-2-pay-for-what-not. It can become our national jingle to replace the Pledge of Allegiance.

@ dg lesvic:

That's exactly what I'm saying. While I believe that governments should reduce as much as possible the amount of coercion they carry out, property rights and freedom from violence require coercion. An apartment gets water and a roof and sturdy walls because of competition, spontaneous order, free trade, and property rights. Someone has to enforce property rights or the whole thing falls apart.

To claim that capitalism exists free of coercion is untrue - it simply requires less than other systems (which I feel is desirable).

Steve writes “It's unfortunate that Per Kurowski believes that "incredible amounts of suffering" should stifle dissent.”

Read! What I hold is that "incredible amounts of suffering" merits a serious dissent… not just some other politicking.

brotio says “Almost all of the extraordinarily difficult times facing the world (at least the economic ones) are the fault of excessive government. Why would I want even more government?

As you must surely know by now I agree with that more than most of you, who where nowhere to be seen or heard when governments instructed the financial sector to follow the credit rating agencies…

and I am one of those who have been warning the most about the Stimulators that are endangering the little stability left in the financial system, namely the current role of the dollar…

but that does not turn me in a just-another-chávez-but-on-the-other-side suggesting Obama implied "all men are endowed by their government with the unalienable right to be taxed, subsidized, regulated, lectured, scolded, herded, harassed, and otherwise ruled in whatever ways work."

By the way chávez is also crying because the Obama discourse was too peaceful so as to allow him to rally his forces.

Ohio,

You wrote:

"any government's prevention of theft, murder, invasion, fraud, etc. requires police officers, judges, and armies, all of which exist...because of...a state strong enough to coerce and collect taxes...any tolerable legal system relies on coercion at some point."

You might as well say that any apartment building's supply of water, electricity, heat, and a roof to keep the sun and the rain off exist because of a state strong enough to coerce and collect taxes, and that any tolerable apartment building relies on coercion at some point.

How about rent?

Adam, that rimshot made my evening.

Once again, when a post is made in defense of liberty, Mierduck is the first to object.

PK,

Almost all of the extraordinarily difficult times facing the world (at least the economic ones) are the fault of excessive government. Why would I want even more government?

Oh Hio,

"Perhaps government should limit is size as much as possible..."

Why would it? Government is in the exploitation business. More is better.

It's unfortunate that Per Kurowski believes that "incredible amounts of suffering" should stifle dissent.

There is no connection between the amount of

suffering and the efficacy of Obama's policies, or of government in general.

Per, seriously, get a grip.

First of all, let's drop the hysterical rhetoric about our situation. We may be in a recession, but it's far from the end of the world, and it certainly isn't another depression yet.

Second, this blog post is at least as useful as *praying* for government that works, and certainly not as obnoxious.

* perhaps government should limit *ITS* size

I applaud doctors Boudreax and Roberts' commitment to the cause of freedom and limited oppression. However, I think they would do well to remember that any government's prevention of theft, murder, invasion, fraud, etc. requires police officers, judges, and armies, all of which exist (as far as I know) because of government revenue and a state strong enough to coerce and collect taxes. Perhaps government should limit is size as much as possible while still upholding the rule of law, but any tolerable legal system relies on coercion at some point.

It's not just the 'complexity and dynamic nature of the world.' It's the fact that government just doesn't work. It isn't set up to work. In the government, decisions are made for political reasons, not based on what will work. Employees are not motivated to make things work, they are motivated to keep things the same. Additionally, there are no feedback loops. How many cases can you identify of a poorly functioning government program (I know, that's redundant) that is shut down? They get expanded! Because it doesn't matter if they work, it matters if the pols can tell their constituents they are 'doing something.' (That's what the stimulus is all about, by the way.)

That's the fundamental disconnect in the beliefs held by Obama and his supporters. They seem to actually believe the government can work - despite centuries of experience to the contrary.

Obama is swearing in when the USA and the world is beginning to face extraordinary difficult times that will bring on incredible amounts of suffering, and when most people of your fellow citizens sincerely pray for a government that works; and all you can come up with is this? Sad. It seems you would almost prefer having your President to say really bad things so that to make it easier for you to rally your forces. Sad.

Shouldn't we be revolting or something?

You already are.

Rimshot

What Obama said was a statement based in complete pragmatism that I doubt Jefferson would have disagreed with. If you don't want a government that works what other alternative is there except for some pie-in-the-sky idealistic Utopian anarchist society. This post simple underscores the difference between idealism and pragmatism... nothing more.

It must be miserable living in such an oppressive society. Shouldn't we be revolting or something?

It seems simple to me. Given the complexity and dynamic nature of the world, including the market, it is impossible for a government to work well. And the possibility of it working well shrinks in direct proportion to its size.

Declaration of Dependence. Very good.

Being a fan of pragmatism, I focused in on the word "works". What works is dependent on an objective. So what exactly is the objective of the Progressives if not to create a culture of dependency?

Quick disclaimer, this is not a pro or anti Obama comment. That having been said, I did take issue with that statement of his in particular. It seems to me to be a pretty simple and clear fact that if the government is too small, it won't work and if the government is too large it also won't work. It's kind of like saying "from now on we're not going to worry about whether someone is hyperventilating or not breathing at all but whether or not they're healthy." Well, if they have either condition you better fix it quick or else they won't be healthy for long.

Hilarious Clips from the Inauguration

To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

(P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson