It was a wall – guarded by armed men – meant to keep people from voting with their feet. It was a nearly impervious barrier that embodied collectivism’s sophistication (brute and brutal force) and collectivism’s ethos (individual human beings must live for the collective – in practice, for the state – and deserve to die if they refuse).
Soviet-style communism was among history’s most barbarous manifestations of humankind’s fatal attraction to collectivism. As such, it was also among history’s most honest and revealing manifestations of this attraction. The Berlin Wall was concrete, solid, visible. The armed-guards’ guns were metal, loaded, visible.
I am not among those who believe that society loses its civility and sacrifices its right to call itself free merely because the state that lords over it is more intrusive and powerful than a night-watchman state. I am not among those who believe that a state more intrusive and powerful than a night-watchman state necessarily, or even likely, condemns the citizens of the territory over which it rules to a future that can appropriately be called “tyranny” – at least as long as we have the actual historical benchmarks of the various People’s Paradises engineered by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro.
But I also am not among those who believe that just because the governments of, say, the United States and of France are not as brutal as were the governments of the U.S.S.R. and of China, that the obligations and prohibitions that Washington and Paris foist on their citizens are not properly described as manifestations of “force.”
That Uncle Sam does not use force as consistently, as openly, and brutally as did the government of the U.S.S.R. does not thereby excuse most of the force that Uncle Sam’s does unleash in his effort to interfere with people’s peaceful choices and actions. Nor does it make Uncle Sam’s many uses of force something other than of force.
These facts aren’t altered significantly by the fact that Americans enjoy (if that’s the right word) a wide franchise.
One of the many dangerous delusions that too many people suffer today is the delusion that tells them that as long as ‘their’ government is democratically elected – and as long as ‘their’ government largely refrains from using brutality openly and of the sort that was routine in 20th-century hells such as the U.S.S.R. and East Germany – then ‘their’ government is largely civilized and an agent for Good for The People.
Share
{ 104 comments }
Beautifully crafted. This should be the lead editorial in a leading newspaper. Thank you.
No it shouldn’t. It is nothing different from what libertarians have been saying from time immemorial, and to no avail. If you really want to make a difference, this is what you should say:
Taking from the rich to give to the poor cannot reduce but only increase income inequality and “social injustice.”
No one will believe that unless you provide examples or explain it through the unchanging laws of economics.
What can you possibly mean by such a blanket statement?
Nothing in economics nor history justifies this alleged rule that you keep repeating as if its truth is obvious.
Here it is again, in a nutshell, for the umpteenth time.
Taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn’t just draw money but manpower downward upon the hierarchy of production, and the manpower faster than the money. For manpower doesn’t merely follow money but anticipates it. And, with manpower and competition among the poor increasing faster than the redistributed money, they’ll be poorer than they would have been without it.
For the theory in its entirety and complete with feedback from the greatest minds in economics of recent times, including Rothard, Kirzner, and Henry Hazlitt, see
http://econotrashtalk.org/#The Forbidden Theory of Redistribution-New
The link may not take you directly to the essay, but only to the beginning of the book. In that case, click on Book Two, in blue, scroll to Contents, and click on The Forbidden Theory.
Sorry. Such reasoning doesn’t convince me, even if I find it agreeable. (And Rothbard hardly ranks as a “great mind” – of this or of any other time.)
This is meant as a reply to Prof. Boudreaux.
I rarely disagree with you, but on the case of Rothbard, I must. His monetary economics was abysmal, no argument there. But as the current subject is liberty, my view is that Rothbard was a great thinker on this subject.
You can’t make such broad statements about resdistribution of wealth. It’s like saying that anyone who gets something without working for it will become worse off economically, which simply, isn’t true.
The way to present your argument is to say that redistribution reduces the total wealth of the society which, over the long run, will make the entire society poorer, including those, in the aggregate, who received the redistribution.
Most of our redistribution is not from the rich to the poor. Seniors, for example, receive welfare in the form of medicare that far exceeds what they invested into those programs. They are better off receiving the welfare than they would be without receiving it, and the people paying for it are obviously worse off. One might try to argue that without these types of programs, perhaps in a decade or so there would be more total wealth in society and everyone would be richer than if we continue doing what we’re doing, but seniors won’t live that long to be impressed with your logic. They’ll be dead.
I think that from a long run perspective, no one will disagree with your point. We all can agree that excessive redistribution becomes a distribution of poverty, not wealth, but the long run is not something that will sell politically.
The highwayman quit robbing people when it became difficult to impossible to get away with, not because someone convinced him that his grandsons would be better off if he respected private property and honest exchange.
Seniors, for example, receive welfare in the form of medicare that far exceeds what they invested into those programs. They are better off receiving the welfare than they would be without receiving it,
The point is that they are worse off with a Social Security program than if they had kept their money in an interest bearing account.
@ Sam Grove
Now that Uncle Sam collapsed the market and tanked the economy, people probably can get more money from a social security check than from an investment.
@Don Boudreaux
So Rothbard wasn’t a great economic mind? Is his book on the Depression even worth reading? How does he differ from the rest of the Austrian school that makes his ideas so much worse than his colleagues?
tdp August 14, 2011 at 12:23 pm
@ Sam Grove
Now that Uncle Sam collapsed the market and tanked the economy, people probably can get more money from a social security check than from an investment.
NOW….but even their SS check will become worth less BECAUSE the government has been managing a general retirement program, Medicare, etc., THAN IF the government had stayed out of such matters.
jj–
The unqualified praise of the great economist MF as a champion of liberty is undeserved. The unqualified criticism of the great champion of liberty MR as an economist is also undeserved.
I agree with you.
Sorry to take so long responding, but I have been off line as well as off-nut for a while.
Prof Boudreaux,
You wrote
“ Such reasoning doesn’t convince me.”
Will you be telling us why?
To the individual who calls himself “the song remains the same.”
You wrote,
“You can’t make such broad statements about resdistribution of wealth. It’s like saying that anyone who gets something without working for it will become worse off economically, which simply, isn’t true.”
Does that mean that we should legalize bank robbery?
You wrote,
“The way to present your argument is to say that redistribution reduces the total wealth of the society which, over the long run, will make the entire society poorer, including those, in the aggregate, who received the redistribution.”
You certainly have to start out with the proposition that the process reduces society’s total net income. But, if, at the same time, the poor gain a larger proportion of it, there is still this question: would they be better off in absolute terms with the larger share of the smaller cake or smaller share of the larger cake? Mises said that there was no praxeological answer to that question. I have attempted to show that there is.
You wrote:
“Most of our redistribution is not from the rich to the poor.”
Whether the reduction of inequality is the only goal of redistribution, or even the main goal, doesn’t make a great deal of difference. It’s still a goal, and must be attacked. That isn’t to say that we should ignore the other goals, just that we shouldn’t ignore this one. Why, of all the arguments for freedom, should this be the only one never to be used?
You wrote,
“I think that from a long run perspective, no one will disagree with your point. We all can agree that excessive redistribution becomes a distribution of poverty, not wealth, but the long run is not something that will sell politically.”
My theory is that redistribution makes the poor poorer not just in the long run but right from the start.
I think the truth about America is that it was the freedom-lovers who fled Europe’s autocracies. Now I”m a Soviet immigrant, but the same principle applies!
ArrowSmith, it is good to have you as an American citizen!
It’s good to be here, comrade.
So you’re saying you emigrated from American to Russia?
Are you completely unable to understand english? I see what you’re trying to do, but really you’re just a dumbass. If I immigrated to the US from Mexico, most people would call me a Mexican immigrant. If I immigrated from Poland, most would call me a Polish immigrant. If I immigrated from Soviet Russia, most would call me a Soviet immigrant.
Dipshit.
Regards,
Ken
So you don’t know the difference between emigration and immigration.
Yes. You immigrate to and emigrate from.
The standard English usage of Mexican immigrant is an immigrant who came FROM Mexico, just as a Polish immigrant is one who came FROM Poland. You can see where this follows: a Soviet immigrant is someone who came from Soviet Russia.
Do you not understand the definitions?
Regards,
Ken
So, in other words, if we could just set up a government or a society to Don’s exacting specifications there would be no need for use of force and liberty would be maximized.
Wow! Great! I can’t wait for the next post where Don details his perfect society that would be so much better than the current ones.
George, government is necessary because people are not angels. And, because government is operated by people who are not angels, government must be limited and controlled.
Soviet leaders had very little limits on their power over Soviet and communist-bloc citizens and, as a result, Soviet and communist-bloc citizens endured poverty and death at the hands of the state. In America and Europe, the power of government is growing with fewer limits on government power. It has a nice face on it now, much as communism once did, but the result will be the same if government power is not reigned in and limited. You should be able to see Don’s point.
You should be able to see Don’s point.
No, he will not. He was struck by Stupid’s arrow.
LMAO!
Heh heh.
“In America and Europe, the power of government is growing with fewer limits on government power.” Greg Webb
I think I agree with most of what you said but the quote above is the most significant to define.
Who would you say holds that growing government power?
Statists who call themselves Democrats, progressives, and liberals. And, they use their power to control people and to spend money to help their political cronies from Goldman Sachs to the AFL-CIO. The enemies of these elitist idiots are taxpayers.
Greg, Seriously?
If the democrats hold power how come tax rates for corporations and the wealthy have not increased? How come , if anything , we are planning to sign on to MORE trade agreements rather then amend the present ones. How come no climate change legislation has passed? How come we don’t have a single payer health care system or at least a public option? How come we can’t get significant bank reform? How come we just saw cuts in spending with NO increases in revenue sources including tax write offs.
Do you really think you are being objective and intellectually serious?
George, two and one half branches of government are controlled by the Democrat Party. President Obama, a Democrat, is the President, who controls the executive branch of government and the administrative agencies. A majority of the Supreme Court are Democrats. And, a majority in the Senate are Democrats. That’s two and a half branches of the federal government. The Republicans only represent a majority of the House of Representatives. And, that is only one half of one branch of government.
Greg,
5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were put there by Republicans. They have passed one corporate favoring ruling after another. You really are not being fair here. You are clearly denying reality.
Also what ultimately matters is WHAT POLICY is passed. THAT shows you who has the power. Democrats had the majority of both houses and the presidency and were NOT able to increase corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy WHICH was and IS supported by the majority of Americans. They were NOT able to get Public Choice option in the Health Care bill because of the power of the Insurance Industry and they were NOT able to get bidding for Medicare part D to reduce drug cost because of the pharmaceutical industries power. And they were not able TOO CUT MEDICARE supplements. Something that would have REDUCED spending but would have taken away a cash cow for the Health Insurance Industry.
This line of argument discussing WHO controls power will be easy for me to prove your wrong on a repeated basis on one issue after another.
I just listed a string of HUGE legislation that was passed to favor corporations… now YOU list one…. just one that was passed to favor people and what they desire.
George, either you are being disingenuous or you are easily fooled by labels. Which one is it?
As I have said many times, Republicans have historically been big-government politicians. For example, both George Bushs 41 and 43 expanded the amount of government spending and the power welded by government officials. So, you cannot include them as advocates of smaller, Constitutionally limited government.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is a typical big-government supporter who advocates that the Supreme Court should consider modern European governing documents in interpreting the United States Constitution. Such is the typical ludicrous progressive view that reveals that Justice Kennedy is clearly in the progressive camp. And, he was appointed by President Reagan back when Republicans thought that Justices were impartial in making their decisions. It was a mistake that, at this time, swings the Court over to the progressives by a 5 to 4 margin. And, that is not to say that the 4 conservative Justices believe in smaller government, but it appears that they do, which is good.
Wow! You are being disingenuous in your arguments by focusing on what policy is passed. It is just as easy to make the opposite argument in that no legislation has passed that would abolish the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Department of the Interior, etc. Also, no legislation has passed that would reduce the size of federal government spending to no more than 10% of GDP. No legislation has passed that would simplify the tax code to minimize unequal treatment under the law. No legislation has passed that would reduce the number of our military bases around the world. No legislation has passed that would required that the federal government balance its budget each year and it not exceed 10% of GNP. No legislation has passed that would abolish the Federal Reserve System. No legislation has passed that would hold politicians accountable for unwise legislation that unfairly taxes or restricts individual liberty. No legislation has passed stopping the war on drugs. And, I could go on and on.
SO, the people who truly believe in limiting the federal government to its specifically enumerated powers are not in power. But, these are the things that the American people want and your big-government politicians are afraid to pass any more progressive legislation because they are so afraid that they will be voted out of office at the next election. You know the election in 2012.
I want the progressives to try to enact all the stuff that you are talking about. The American people oppose the progressive agenda and that is why the progressive politicians are running from their agenda. I want them to proudly show what they have done. But they won’t because it really is all about them and now they are trying to pose as moderates or even conservatives.
You mentioned that the American people want tax increases. You must have heard Obama when he said that 80% of the American people favor tax increases. Then, all the major pollster conducted polls and found out, again, that the American people strongly oppose tax increases on anybody. So, apparently, Obama misspoke or perhaps he just lied.
But, George, as a doctor, you undoubted fall into the category of Obama’s wealthy. The federal income tax is voluntary and there is no punishment for paying more income tax than you are legally obligated to. So write a check for 80% of your income and send it in. I assure you that the federal government will keep it, and you will feel better knowing that you finally paid your fair share.
“If the democrats hold power how come tax rates for corporations and the wealthy have not increased?”
Because democrats are bought and paid for by corporations and the wealthy to a far greater extent than republicans.
Regards,
Ken
And, George, don’t be fooled by silly statist rhetoric. Obama and the progressives will raise corporate tax rates if they impact only their political enemies and the competitors of their crony capitalist supporters. They haven’t done it yet because they don’t want to be voted out of office in 2012. But, if re-elected, you can be sure that they will use federal law to punish their political enemies and reward their political friends i.e., crony political opportunists like Goldman Sachs and the AFL-CIO.
Why does it matter who holds the power? Your problem with reducing government power seems to be that its too difficult to do it, given that there are some powerful and influential parties – often wealthy corporations – who benefit from and sometimes control that power.
However, I don’t see how it it’s so much easier to just elect the correct politicians, who will for whatever reason decide that doing what’s best (assuming they even know and that they can apply it) is more important than winning the next election.
We progressives mostly would agree to change election laws, change campaign finance laws and change lobbying laws.
We do not believe money is free speech, that corporations are people or that lobbying for hire is not bribery.
Fix those things and the power of the government and of corporations to rent seek will be significantly diminished. But libertarians are against any rules so you fine and complain but have NO solutions because in a libertarian rule rent seeking will ALWAYS result and government power will be usurped and increased to the desires of those corporations. Again you have NO solutions.
George, progressives work to silence opponents’ free speech rights because progressives cannot make coherent, logical arguments supported by objective, verifiable evidence to support the progressive agenda. The progressive agenda is about self-appointed elites stealing from taxpayers and restricting the liberty of individuals in order to reward their political cronies and businesses that cannot compete and run to government for protection from competitors and bailouts when those businesses fail anyway.
Pete, it does not matter which party is in power because, as Lord Action so wisely said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Or, to paraphrase James Madison, if men were angels, government would not be necessary and, because any government will be run by men who are not angels, then government must be limited and controlled. The progressives let the genie of unlimited federal government power out of the bottle, and to save the Republic, we have to put it back in its bottle where it belongs.
“Progressives” (collectivists with left stripes) support free speech…until someone speaks against them.
Government is indefensible because people are not angels.
The use of government force should be reserved to repel illegitimate force and fraud, not force the passive to do it’s bidding.
And pigs should fly.
Muir, the whole point is that there ARE no specifications. Just freedom and respect for rights.
Oh…. OK then… well lets just do that then. HEY EVERYONE… nothing but freedom and respect for rights from here on out. OK? Got it? Freedom and respect for rights… nothing else.
There you go Kirby, that should fix everything. Thanks for your advice… problem solved!
Often the most simple things in life are the most difficult to achieve. A government that secures the basics of freedom and private property may be simple in thought, but nearly impossible in practice. As you’ve no doubt noticed, government is a black hole that tends to draw power into it, no matter who is in charge.
I’ve noticed you like to say progressives know the right way, but when you look at the facts, progressives are no different than any other power hungry group – and that includes right wingers, too.
However, it takes a twisted train of thought to try to say that libertarians want people to suffer, want to provide more advantage to this group or that, or do not like poor people when libertarians merely want to grant everyone the same equal protection under the law. That means no benefits to this group or that. It means if a poor person’s right to private property is violated, it’s equally offensive as if a rich person’s rights were violated.
I can think of no other way to champion the poor person than to put him/her at the same level in the eyes of the law and grant him/her the same freedoms and private property rights as a rich person.
Bill in a libertarian society the poor will have NO property and no means of production. All property will be monopolized leaving the poor with no options but indentured servitude. Libertarianism + Serfdom….. that’s why every since the Dark Ages we’ve decided NOT to pursue such a dreary form of government.
Seriously tell me how in a pure libertarian society there would NOT be many left with NOTHING once all the land and property and productive capacity were monopolized.
“in a libertarian society the poor will have NO property and no means of production. ”
This shows how little you understand property rights. Property rights are far more important for poor people than for rich. The purpose of these rights are to prevent rich people from arbitrarily confiscating the property the way the government does today (see abuses of eminent domain).
“All property will be monopolized leaving the poor with no options but indentured servitude. ”
This again showcases your absolute idiocy. Say I alone owned all the land in the world (something that could never happen in a free market), I still couldn’t force anyone to work it and I wouldn’t leave the bulk of it unused. As a standard human being I would want more than what I can produce. I would allow others to work it, but they would only work it I paid them to. I’m sure some would only work for land ownership rather than anything else I could offer them (if I could offer payment in anything else besides land).
Soon enough both of us would realize how much more each of us have by trading land for goods. Of course, being standard humans, all who witnessed this would start trading with me an all those who trade with me. I no longer monopolize anything.
“that’s why every since the Dark Ages we’ve decided NOT to pursue such a dreary form of government.”
Of course you display yet again, your complete ignorance of history. As everyone knows, the Dark Ages were a time of absolute monarchies, kings and queens, princes and princesses, and serfs. In other words the Dark Ages were decidedly NOT libertarian.
“Seriously tell me how in a pure libertarian society there would NOT be many left with NOTHING once all the land and property and productive capacity were monopolized.”
Because with EVERY economic liberalization taken by any country at any time has always resulted in better living standards for everyone and more equality before the law and economically. Trade and money are the great equalizers. Anyone who can add value, can make money. In libertarian societies, no one can be prevented from adding this value, hence they will make money. Nothing can be monopolized.
One of the most libertarian segments of our society is the internet. In your hopelessly wrong world view, this would mean almost no one has access to it and only a few would monopolize it. Of course, no one monopolizes it and more and more people, including poor people all over the world, are gaining access.
Regards,
Ken
Excellent, Ken, just excellent! George, you can do better than silly socialist talking points. Hint: Give up socialism. It has failed every time it has been tried.
Muirgeo says; “Seriously tell me how in a pure libertarian society there would NOT be many left with NOTHING once all the land and property and productive capacity were monopolized.”
In the company I work for, the executives monopolize all the land, property, and productive capacity. That is, they have complete control over how these resources will be applied. But they still pay me a reasonable salary. Why do you suppose that is? I’m thinking its because they realize that specialization and trade create far more wealth than monopoly.
The South is getting uppity again.
And if you haven’t seen it already, _Der Tunnel_ (i.e., The Tunnel) is a very good movie based on the real story of one group’s heroic efforts to get people out of East Germany by tunneling under the wall. http://bit.ly/qOmly9
An even better movie that better illustrates the atrocities of the collectivized state in East Germany is _The Lives of Others_. http://bit.ly/qFHuua
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. -H. L. Mencken
Yep.
Well then what we need is for all the decent men to set up a proper government… but they won’t… they’d rather sit and complain about guns held to their heads.
As much as I like Mencken I don’t think he had put forth any better alternative.
I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. – H. L. Mencken
Yup…all you can do is keep “applause”-seeking politicians fighting one another instead of working together to fleece taxpayers and restrict liberty for individuals.
Well that’s just stupid because indeed we fought a revolution and DID improve our government. Not recognizing that fact is stupid.
Nah, George, it’s a good quote from Mencken. Some governments are better than others, but because governments are operated by people who are not angels, all governments can do great evil and harm.
Yeah governments can do harm.
No society exists with out a government.
Some governments are better than others…some much much better.
There is no evidence or existence of a successful libertarian government.
The best governments ever have been the modern day social democracies.
Those are the facts. Mix them up any way you want to draw your conclusions. My conclusion is that a true government of and by the people is the best way to go and that pushing towards a more libertarian state has only allowed bad actors to fill the void that left when good governance is removed… thus the reason we have a dreary and bleak future except for those unscrupulous people willing to profit from the greed favoring non-productive policies now entrenched in our society.
George, as Thomas Jefferson said, “Government that governs least is government that governs best.” It was true then and it is true now. It is time for the United States to return to its libertarians roots and re-establish the Constitutional Republic by pushing back the progressive agenda. And, given the stellar conduct of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, I think a political movement has started to do just that.
Societies create government to serve the citizens because people are not angels. But, because people are necessary to run the government, limitations on governmental power are included in the Constitution. It is time to put the progressive evil back in Pandora’s box.
Yes, those wonderful social democracies that, in times of crisis, led to tyranny, poverty, and death for citizens. Yes, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany. Don’t you statists ever learn from history?
George, you said, “There is no evidence or existence of a successful libertarian government.” Though not called a libertarianism, the Founding Fathers intended to establish a federal government with limited powers as enumerated in the United States Constitution, which is essentially a libertarian form of government. It was hugely successful! So, successful in fact that the United States became wealthy beyond all big-government countries. Then, wars were used by unscrupulous statist politicians to implement the idiotic progressive agenda. Now, we are having a fight between those who want to return to our founding principles of a free people and free markets vs. those who want to return to mercantilism, monarchy, and serfdom.
Muir,
The revolution was not an effort to improve the governance of England. It was to throw off that government and replace it with self-rule – aka freedom. Since that time, our government continues on a path to tyranny, and improvement is small, temporary and soon reversed. Please try harder to not be stupid.
Outstanding HLM quotes!
Huh? WTF?
“I am not among those who believe that society loses its civility and sacrifices its right to call itself free merely because the state that lords over it is more intrusive and powerful than a night-watchman state. I am not among those who believe that a state more intrusive and powerful than a night-watchman state necessarily, or even likely, condemns the citizens of the territory over which it rules to a future that can appropriately be called “tyranny” – at least as long as we have the actual historical benchmarks of the various People’s Paradises engineered by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro.
But I also am not among those who believe that just because the governments of, say, the United States and of France are not as brutal as were the governments of the U.S.S.R. and of China, that the obligations and prohibitions that Washington and Paris foist on their citizens are not properly described as manifestations of “force.””
Are we to believe that if the man isn’t actually clubbing us he isn’t using force?
If I have you and two of your friends in front of me, my automatic shotgun in my hands, and my cotton fields behind you, I hand you hoes and command you three to go hoe cotton. You resist, throw down you hoe and flat refuse. I blow your stomach out your back, and point the gun at your friends and tell them, “now go hoe the cotton.” Are you telling me that I am not using force on your friends?
Coercion is applying the threat of force previously demonstrated, and the official USA has demonstrated over and over again it will not shrink long from the application of force. In short coercion is force.
The people of the USA have been long enculturated to run from confronting the official USA in any serious manner.
Now as for society losing civility and its right to call itself free, I think you mistake again. Society in the Soviet Union did not lose its civility, that was brutalized out of the people by the official application of deadly force to anyone who resisted. Everyone came quickly to suspect everyone else. Hard to retain civility in that atmosphere of distrust, fear, and possible advantage.
You think you are free, sir Don, yet you also think that a government can and has made a law that can compel you to work for it.
Which is it, Free, or slave? If I can not make all of my agreements freely, willingly, intentionally, and voluntarily, if all my associations are not based on those same things, then am I free? If government can impose an obligation on me in absence of my agreement or contract, am I free or am I slave?
Shake your head real good, Don, and break free.
Vidyohs: I don’t believe that we’re in disagreement. With respect, I believe that you’ve misread my post.
Perhaps I did, sir; but, I have reread it multiple times and I still do not see it in the words. I believe your intent, but in my eyes the words twist back on themselves and I come away with a different understanding than perhaps you intended.
I accept you at your word that we are in agreement. For my sake I will work at them until I see it.
Tks
@vidyohs I don’t think you really are in disagreement with Don. He is, after all, at pains to point out that there are nuances only between governments that have “democratic legitimation” and those who are openly tyrannical. I submit that Uncle Sam’s (or any Western-style government’s) iron fist is insidiously sheathed in a velvet glove…most of the time.
“countless lives been sacrificed in an effort to prove that one form of government is better than another; but few seem seriously to have considered the proposition that all government rests on violence and force; is sustained by soldiers, policemen, and courts; and is contrary to the ideal peace and order that make for the happiness and progress of the human race.” http://bit.ly/qXDFAX
However, there is one major reason that the government is better at certain things like police: accountability. Having ONE group enforce ONE set of rules with ONE court system is infinitely better than the warring warlord type of government we see in Afghanistan.
Perhaps you can lay out the logic of it.
Oh, yeah, the “one size fits all” argument. There’s probably a lot of Afghanis that are just fine with their “warlord”, or, as they probably call him, “Dad, uncle or cousin”. They might feel that administration of justice by someone that they perhaps know personally and is accountable to them, is more important than having ONE court system for everyone. They might even feel that their “warlord” is more concerned about their own personal success than some democratically elected politician hidden away in a capital somewhere. It’s typical of statists to derisively dismiss anything that doesn’t fit the state scenario.
Hope I do not cross a line n this extra line of reasoning, but…… Even, God promotes individuality and in scripture has not taken a one-size-fits-all approach to people. God spoke to those who he asked to things in a wide array of different ways.
The animal kingdom is not one size fits all, from size, color, habitat, food, etc.,…..
My point was that if we had 20 different police groups with 20 different court systems (or even 1, doesn’t matter) it could get ugly.
You don’t see ugliness in the monopoly system imposed on us?
I think that line of reasoning was part of the underlying scheme for the original set up of the US: Many local jurisdictions with their own police and legislators who were very close and therefore more accountable to their people, but with higher levels that could be appealed to in necessity. It seems that over time power seeped up from individuals to local governments to states and over all to the Federal level. Now we seem to have one over reaching Federal level, with States wielding most of what is left.
Then again, many municipalities are entirely unaccountable as well, seemingly operating mainly to generate revenue in the forms of fines, permits and the like simply to continue their own existence instead of serving the people, so who knows. One could attribute their current sins to the slipping of the rule of law and individual rights in our society, but whether or not the governments themselves have pushed for those in the people is something Vikingvista probably has a lot of good ideas about.
That’s your either-or?
That was amazingly well-written, thanks.
No it wasn’t. Don has written amazingly well on many occasions. A great deal of his work is the best that has ever been done. That recent piece of his describing democracy was the best I have ever seen. But this was ordinary, strictly ho hum.
Come on, this ‘muirgeo’ is just playing with us right? In another year he’ll publish a book of all of his prank posts, right?!
I can see muirdiot and his muirpidities are mucking up this web site again. Ugh.
Powerful post, Don.
Of course, majority rule is a moronic justification of anything. Hitler was elected democratically, Socrates was put to death democratically, etc. The list of (moral) crimes of majority rule is pretty long.
However, I’m not so sure about the “collectivism” tag. There is no such thing as the collective (or society, another “god”). Rather, it makes much more sense IMO to point out that according to non-libertarian political ideologies some individuals can impose their will coercively on other individuals. Sheldon Richman had a couple of good posts on “individualism” vs. “collectivism”:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/social-cooperation/
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/the-goal-is-freedom-individualism-collectivism-and-other-murky-labels/
Regards,
RC
All governments are exactly alike in that those who control them use the maximum power available to them to enrich themselves through the enslavement or quasi-enslavement of others.
The only difference between democracies and dictatorships is that power is more broadly shared in the democracies. When Obama & co. consolidated their power, they rammed their agenda up our behinds. If the electorate would have backed them, he would be another Chavez if he could get away with it. If you recall, Chavez was elected too, on the same platform as Obama.
Don’s post is right on target. He is saying that we need to be watchful regarding the consolidation and abuse of power in our own country. The liberal/left agenda, which a few posters here seem to embrace, is at its core based upon a violation of the unalienable rights upon which the nation was constitutionally established. To them, civil rights do not include the once inviolable right to property, or to engage in contract and exchange without interference from the state. They sneer at those who intellectually battle to preserve the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor.
What the left doesn’t get is that all the rights that they cherish are derived from the right to property. Once property is up for grabs, no one can be responsible for themselves. Anarchy and social disintegration aren’t far behind.
Just what does the left value? The right to free speech? Privacy? These rights mean nothing without the right to keep what you earn. If the state can rob you, it can take away your privacy and your rights to speak your mind. Even the right to life is compromised when the state diminishes your ability to preserve it through theft of your property.
But the left would prefer to outlaw vice. They hated it when the religions did it, but its all they really do. They won’t let you discriminate, even to p[rotect yourself from harm. If you want a housekeeper, you can’t even place an ad for a ‘woman’. If you own a bar, you can’t stop gays from taking it over. If you want to rent out a room, you can’t describe the type of person you’d like. Now they want to tell you what to put in your body–food, smoke, drinks, etc. In short, the left is your mother. The left is the new religion. They’re going to improve you, whether you like it or not.
Everything the left advocates is in violation of your liberty over yourself, where your actions hurt no one, but it’s your lucky day if you extend your liberty to limits that actually harm others, for if you commit a crime, they will then rush to your defense to make your your civil rights are crushed by the society who caused you to commit the crime.
RE: JS
You hit the left hard and they are guilty as charged. But the Republicans have also used their power to restrict individual liberty and foster crony capitalism. It appears to me we should set up limits on all governents – but then the founders thought they were doing that very thing.
Republicans are almost entirely leftist, and in areas where they are not leftist they are mercantilist. There are virtually no classical liberals left in Washington. They all have fallen under the conceit that one class (the political class) knows best how to tell the other, lower classes how to conduct themselves.
A good segment of the Rebublican party is more libertarian oriented, so I don’t by into the moral equalivalent argument. The entire democratic party is about Big Brother Socialism, which translates into crony capitalism, since everything is regulated.
Republicans are guilty of Big government too, but not as their main ideology.
Of course you are correct, the left is the government of Leviathan and Republicans are the government of Moby Dick’s smaller brother.
What happens to the Federal government when Republicans are in charge?
Only a tiny sliver of the Republican party could be described as “more libertarian oriented” using the most generous interpretation.
Don, I couldn’t agree more. Reading through the comments, it’s clear that most of your readers miss the point. The mistake we always make is that somehow there is a possibility of a system, any system, to do good. It’s a shame that we don’t first seek a fundamental understanding of these systems we call government, or free markets for that matter. They are simply systems devised to assist in providing organization and incentives for human action. Systems simply cannot be moral or contain virtue, and the lack of understanding this is what gets us into trouble. I think we could apply Mr. Robert’s explanation of incentives, which do in fact matter. The only real difference between government and the free market, and everything in between, is the resulting incentives. These incentives either bring out the moral and virtuous in us, or they bring out the natural tendency to the contrary. What appears to be unique, at least with the early system of government, in the Union’s voluntary agreement is that it was designed to create incentives which worked to secure the virtue resulting from men acting freely in concert. This truly appears to be lost on the defenders of the so called “moral” obligations of a government system. The left claims a moral obligation to social welfare, while the right claims a moral obligation to spread the system. It really is a shame that these fools are starting from a false premise. Oh well, I guess that’s what you’re here for. Keep up the good work and I hope you’re enjoying Vegas, Baby!
The early system of government allowed the owners of the country to exploit where it was possible to exploit. Once the national apparatus was set up, greater exploitation became possible. The founders weren’t superior humans. They were wealthy aristocrats and merchants whose interests largely collided. Power was decentralized, and therefore equalized, that allowed for a more libertarian structure to take root. Nothing was designed or done ‘for the common good’. Federalism served to destroy libertarian incentives more than inspire them.
Study how the open land was distributed to the ‘founders’ and then tell me how noble they were.
JS, If you’re referring to the establishment of the colonies, which were still under British rule, then you are certainly correct. I am not sure how that is relevant to my point. I wasn’t saying, and would never say, that government systems are designed “for the common good.” In fact I said the opposite, that systems can’t be virtuous. Only people can be virtuous. That’s the fatal mistake that anyone who proclaims a role for government as a moral representation of human action and interaction. In fact, I would say that of the free market, as well.
These systems merely create a structure of incentives for people to interact. The spectrum, I believe, is characterized by the degree to which the interaction is voluntary. In the context of the founding of our (US) federal government, i.e., the Articles of confederation, the system of government could be largely characterized by a voluntary agreement between already established republics. It wasn’t until the Constitution was derived that the system of governing began to move quickly towards centralization and federal control over these once sovereign entities.
Listen, the problem of human interaction is that we always have to devise ways to coordinate resources. And if you can convince enough people that the only effective way to do that is through force, then you get what we have today in our country. Tyranny.
Systems at their best make it difficult for people to do evil to one another and avoid hindering people’s ability to do good.
I’m not in theoretical disagreement with you. I was making a nuanced point about human motive.
Every social conflict ends with a settlement, The resulting distribution of power finds its equilibrium point. This does not mean that power in the society is shared equally, but that no one can increase their proportionate share against others. That is where we find equilibrium, or peace.
The truce that brings forth peace, is eventually put into law and customs evolve to respect it. It becomes the “ideal”. Future generations are then educated to believe that the conflict was fought in order to establish the ‘ideal’, which is false. The ‘ideal’ is rarely the reason for the outburst of conflicts, but usually its byproduct. The victorious people of every conflict establishes the ‘ideal’, the ultimate settlement, as what they fought to win for everyone, such as how we now view Lincoln, who fought to free the slaves, etc., when the reality wasn’t anything close to that.
The same logic has to applied to our founders. They didn’t purposely ‘construct’ society for anyone’s benefit but their own. It just so happened that power was decentralized in such a way that made for a libertarian platform that encouraged economic growth through liberty. Our founding structure was an accident. The central power over our colonies was removed suddenly leaving a vacuum. The colonies had realtively equal power vis a vis one another, so one or a few could not dominate the rest. This fact was an accident too, but it led to political agreements between the colonies that were more liberatarian in scope, due to the equality of power that prevailed.
Your post implied that the incentives that were built into our early structures were ‘designed’ or intended to be put into place because of the utility they may have forseen. My point was that positive outcome was not the result of intentional deliberation.
JS, your thoughtful reply has quite a bit in it. First, I do not believe most of the ‘founders’ attempted to purposely construct society. In fact, society was already well established. While some of the designing men involved in the creation of the original forms of government were certainly trying to mold society in a particular way through a centralized government, many of the debates involved most of the founders fighting to restrict the growth in the tendency towards centralized government power. In this sense, they were extremely deliberate in their attempts to create an ‘ideal’ balance between the voluntary and involuntary. Many of them, even the aristocrats, were students of history and had pretty good ideas about which forms of government would lead to the desired goal of self-determination. Read the Federalist AND Anti-Federalist papers. You will quickly see that there was great intention in the debate.
The interesting thing about the ideas surrounding liberty, and perhaps this is its greatest deficiency, is that liberty does not require intention or designs. It simply requires self-interest AND virtue. The fight in the beginning, as it is now, was a fight against the designers and the liberty lovers. It’s the eternal fight, and until we understand the fundamentals that make liberty the ideal approach to designing our systems in society, the battle will never be won. Thus, the starting point is to understand that the “Good” or virtuous, can never be found in a system, but rather morality and virtue is a pre-requisite required in the people working together in coordination. Once we understand this, the conversation about liberty and the promotion of its advantages as the ideal foundation for our systems of interaction and coordination will be more successful. Until then, we’ll just keep arguing about who’s system is more virtuous, never realizing that our premise is flawed.
Had the opportunity to see said wall before it came down, and ventured into East Berlin and East Germany.
The contrast was absolutely remarkable.
State-run everything, including state “tour guides” (propagandists) who had to think quickly to redirect attention from the 3 block long meat lines frequently visible. Everywhere there was heaviness, despair, and decay.
Everyone should be exposed to life under such state oppression, as it changes how you view ours.
The way I see it, the Republicans and Democrats are 2 sides of the same statist-coin. Our only way out is to form a 3rd non-statist oriented political party.
ArrowSmith, I do think that is possible given the nature of humans to seek “applause” and control others. The only way to improve things is to keep the factions fighting because the worst thing that can happen is further bipartisan action. For taxpayers and individual liberty are threatened when Democrats and Republicans work together for the greater good, which means themselves.
The fact that something exists; does not make it a necessity, certainly does not make more of it desirable.
Looking out my window at the Rio Casino, small world.
At least they didn’t beg for their wall like so many Americans ask for with Mexico.
No need for violence when you’ve such willing livestock to live off of.
I think America will be looked at in the same way someday.
How many people do you know that are sucked into some kind of statist vortex or other. Its got to be near 100 million if you count tax problems, domestic violence, child support, HOAs, divorce, vehicle issues, collections agencies, and immigration.
We’re a nation of criminals, increasingly.
the song remains the same: “Seniors, for example, receive welfare in the form of medicare that far exceeds what they invested into those programs.”
Sam grove: ‘The point is that they are worse off with a Social Security program than if they had kept their money in an interest bearing account.”
Sam, the comment to which you replied referred to medicare, not Social Security.
I’m not going to argue that the seniors are better off with medicare. But I’m pretty sure that the real dollar value of Medicare benefits for seniors as a whole currently exceeds the real dollar value of what they contributed to that specific program over their lifetimes.
I will agree that Medicare has greatly distorted the market for health care. It is possible that the U.S. would have developed a free market solution for senior health care which would have been superior to Medicare. What is uinclear to me is why such a solution did not emerge in the twenty years prior to 1965, when Medicare was passed.
what they invested into those programs.
What are those programs?
What is uinclear to me is why such a solution did not emerge in the twenty years prior to 1965, when Medicare was passed.
When did government begin interfering in the health/medical sector of the economy?
Aaagh!
what they invested into those programs.
What are those programs?
What is uinclear to me is why such a solution did not emerge in the twenty years prior to 1965, when Medicare was passed.
When did government begin interfering in the health/medical sector of the economy?
Surely at least when employer provided health insurance was made tax deductible.
When did state government begin prohibiting selling medical insurance across state lines?
When did governments begin mandating coverage plans?
sam grove: “When did government begin interfering in the health/medical sector of the economy? … Surely at least when employer provided health insurance was made tax deductible.”
Are you suggesting that private medical coverage for seniors was inhibited by the favorable tax treatment of employer-based insurance plans? Why would that have prevented the emergence of private medical insurance for seniors?
What prevented private insurance companies from providing medical insurance to retirees was the high cost of their care and the very significant problem of adverse selection.
Regardless of the tax treatment of employer-based medical insurance plans, the major factor for insurance companies in promoting this form is the elimination of adverse selection.