Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Government Must Be Abolished
LewRockwell ^ | 12-08-03 | Brad Edmonds

Posted on 12/09/2003 2:03:18 PM PST by Cathryn Crawford

Why Government Must Be Abolished

Readers frequently fail to recognize my fundamental position, and are shocked when I say such things as "the US Constitution is an irrelevant, ineffective mistake" and "no, we shouldn’t be bombing villages in Iraq and Afghanistan." Readers sometimes accuse me of being a communist of one sort or another when I say something contrary to their Republican Party or neo-conservative assumptions.

First, one thing needs to be made clear: Republican representative democracy is not the opposite of communism. Under our system of government in the US, everyone is encouraged to vote for what he wants. Then, government aims its guns at the minority who didn’t agree with the majority, and forces the minority to pay money (or do more) to support the outcome they didn’t want. This is a perversion of justice. It is fundamentally wrong. Even in our early days, when senators to the US Congress were not popularly elected, but were appointed by state legislatures (therefore, ostensibly, appointed by the best and brightest), our form of government was just a dressed-up version of mob rule.

The real opposite of communism is anarcho-capitalism, under which there is no forcible government, and no adult is ever forced to do anything he doesn’t agree to. This extends even to criminal justice. The empirical data supporting my claim that this sort of civilization would be more peaceful and prosperous than anything we could forcibly impose spans every year of recorded history, and is found in every civilization we can name. For empirical evidence, I refer the reader to anything he can find on LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, and Amazon.com, searching for authors Lew Rockwell, Mary Ruwart, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Bruce Benson. If you follow my advice here, and read everything you can find by those authors, in six months you’ll have a new library, a mountain of empirical evidence to refer to, and a conviction that forcible government must be abolished.

In the meantime, the terse reasoning why government must be abolished needs only two supporting statements: Forcible government is a moral wrong, and forcible government is always a practical failure.

Forcible Government is Morally Wrong

For traditional, forcible government to accomplish anything, it first must tax. This requires stealing, at gunpoint, money (property) from everyone under its rule – even the people who don’t want done what the government is going to do. This is theft. There is no more fitting term for it. Government gets away with this, first because it has more guns than any individual it’s taxing; and second because the population has usually been convinced, lately through years of government schooling, that such stealing is necessary for civilization.

Hand-wringing philosophers are invited to write me to disagree, but I hold that it’s self-evident that there is no good act that can be performed that requires first the commission of an evil act. As an example, "killing the few to save the many" has never in human history found a practical application outside war, which always involves governments imposing their wishes on each other. There is no natural emergency or shortage of resources that requires first committing evil in order to bring about a good. Bringing about a good never allows beginning with an evil.

Government Never Works

There has been found no domain of activity in which government action is as effective or efficient as solutions provided by entrepreneurs in the market. This extends obviously to schooling and medical care; even the general public knows this. It is less obvious (except to students of history) that this applies also to roads, justice, and military defense. For empirical evidence of these claims, search for the names I listed earlier.

There are two reasons government never works in practice: First, 100% of government employees operate under distorted incentives. No government employees face only the incentive to serve their customers, while 100% of entrepreneurs do.

Elected government employees have incentive only to serve the most, and this must come at the expense of the few. The way this works is for the government to steal as much as possible from the few to provide free goodies for the most.

Appointed and career bureaucrats have as their incentive expanding their territory and pleasing their bosses. If their bosses are elected – see the preceding paragraph. If their bosses are career bureaucrats, the incentive of subordinate bureaucrats is to spend all of the money in their budgets, so they can claim they need more next year. Thus, their goal is inefficiency – the opposite of what serves the customer best.

Finally, rank-and-file government employees are union members. Unions always work to serve employees, and always at the expense of customers. The only thing that is in the best interest of customers is for each employee to be judged and rewarded individually, based on how well the customer is served. Unions work to the opposite goal, always striving for greater rewards for lesser work. This is what the union members pay their dues to accomplish.

The second reason government never works is its creation of laws that are applied by force to an entire population. First, government laws can – almost always do – have unintended consequences: Minimum wage laws always result in higher unemployment and crime; "equal employment opportunity" laws always result in people being hired based on the color of their skin more than the content of their character; the Americans with Disabilities Act has resulted in workplace mass murders, usually at US Post Offices; and so on.

Second, government laws are always used to advantage by those who have an incentive to do wrong. As one example, polluters are allowed to pollute to certain levels by the EPA. Thus, polluters have no legal responsibility to landowners whose wildlife they’ve killed, as long as the polluters can prove they’re within legal guidelines. If people had true property rights, people could seek restitution based on damage done, not based on whether laws were obeyed. Under present circumstances, lawsuits are won and lost only on whether laws were obeyed; damage done is irrelevant. As another example, Enron used accounting and reporting laws to legally hide losses on the balance sheets of other companies in which they had part ownership. Enron also used campaign contributions to buy the favor, and silence, of US legislators. It was the stock market that first broke the news that Enron had problems.

Third, government laws invariably create losers by creating win/lose scenarios when the unfettered market creates win/win scenarios. All government laws select winners and losers, except criminal laws, which make everyone a loser. Under forcible government, criminals usually come out of the system worse off than when they entered, and victims are forced at gunpoint to pay for the criminals’ upkeep in the meantime; at the same time, victims have little claim to restitution. I mentioned environmental laws, which make partial winners of polluters and complete losers of everyone else. Name the law of your choosing, and you can identify the loser immediately.

So that’s my stance. Do not confuse a lack of respect for the US Constitution, for the Pledge of Allegiance, or for American pre-emptive wars, with communism. Both the American system of government and old-fashioned Soviet communism have at their root the same mechanism: Lethal force applied to an entire population to provide the government what it wants without the government being required to live up to any promises of recompense.

That forcible government is a moral wrong in itself is enough reason to abolish it, even if market solutions were not an improvement. That market solutions are always better – more efficient, more peaceful, more just, more productive of wealth – should be all it takes to convince even die-hard statists that all governments should be abolished. It’s too bad statists are blinded by their personal incentives.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 last
To: Cathryn Crawford
That forcible government is a moral wrong in itself is enough reason to abolish it...

I wholeheartedly agree!! Let's pass a law against it.
/sarcasm

101 posted on 12/09/2003 11:02:32 PM PST by ARepublicanForAllReasons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Ignore the fact at your own peril. It's the reason Communism doesn't work and the reason anarchy doesn't work. Not liking it doesn't change the reality.

No one asks for your consent for truth to exist. Nor has anyone demanded you obey, just that you be prepared for the consequences of your actions.

102 posted on 12/10/2003 5:40:15 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
The fact of the matter is that most people DO act morally. Even in the absence of an over-riding authority. I agree that given enough temptation, anyone can fall from "grace". The basic animal nature in us all almost predicates such an impulses existance.

But we are more than just animals are we not? Can't we make a "choice" to act morally? How does this differ from having that choice taken from you by a government at the point of a gun? How much moral corruption can be laid upon a person given authority over others before you get situations like we have today with our current abuse of the power structure?

As I said, UNTIL people grow up more... a limited Constutional Republic is THE singular BEST system as long as those holding the offices realize that violating their oaths can have dire consequences.

"We the People..." have been VERY lax in our duty to keep our government honest.

To get back to where we should be, things like an NRST, citing Constitutional authority for the existance of a Law before passage, line item veto, instant run-off elections, and a few other logical meassures could go a long way towards bringing us back from the brink of destruction.

103 posted on 12/10/2003 6:02:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
How about the argument that there be no federal government.

Lets go back in time to 1830 when a State of the united states had a real government. When States ruled thier lands. Federalists where the destruction of the constitution. There by no state is greater than the whole and no state can determine its citizens laws. So that only the United States of America out of washington, DC will make all rules and laws first.

104 posted on 12/10/2003 6:05:05 AM PST by Baseballguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
While I agree with the author about most of what she says, I no longer care. I'm going to get my drugs for free because the government's going to pay. As a baby boomer, I was weened on drugs at an early age, so I've come to like them quite a bit. In the early years we did pot, acid, mescaline. Mostly crude stuff we made in high school chemistry labs.

But now. Well, it's beyond my wildest dreams. I keep seeing the ads for all these new designer drugs -- Prozac, Zocor, Celebrex -- they look way better than that stuff we did in high school. I've been wanting to try them, but I couldn't afford them. Now that the government's coughing up $400 billion to buy them for me, this tired old boomer is like a kid in a candy store.

Of course, the first thing I'm going to try is that Viagra. Wow. When I was younger, I never imagined there would be drug that could do such a wondrous thing, or that I'd ever need one. But now. Well, who couldn't use a little "help" now and then?

How could this woman be saying the awful things she says when the good old federal government has now signed on to give me a hard-on for life? Thank you, thank you, thank you! Free Viagra for life makes me proud to be a "member" of the Republican Party, if you know what I mean.

105 posted on 12/10/2003 6:26:05 AM PST by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Baseballguy
I have no problem with limiting our government. I would have been a bit more restrictive than Hamilton about a Federal government at the time the Convention was going on.

But what is being discussed is anarchy. No Government. Let's look at the situation surrounding the creation of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were a bust. People were not behaving and there were all sorts of problems associated with the Articles. And that was as close to a Federal anarchy as you could get.

Look at the French situation. After the revolution, it was tantamount to anarchy for large areas of France. When Bonaparte came to power, it was his promise to restore order that made him a popular figure.

Let's learn from history, let's examine how people react without the rule of any Government, before we say it free us or that people will behave themselves without the constraint of law. History teaches us different.

106 posted on 12/10/2003 7:34:15 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Given no consequences for immoral decisions or incentive towards moral behavior, give me an example that a significant minority of people will act in a way that does not benefit them to the disadvantage of others.
107 posted on 12/10/2003 7:36:39 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Being shot and killed by your intended victim is "no incentive"? I beg to differ.
108 posted on 12/10/2003 7:52:33 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Also, with the lack of Affirmative Action and fair hiring practices, freedom of association would be a force in society again. Shame may actually come back into vogue as a means of curbing public behaviors.

That'd be neat.

109 posted on 12/10/2003 7:54:05 AM PST by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
You claim "most people are immoral" and see it as a "fact", and a "truth" ?

No, Anitius, -- that is just the authoritarian line, promoted by socialists who seek to control our life & liberty.

This socialistic fallacy assumes that people are basically bad for working in their self interest.
Socialism assumes that everybody must be forced to work to better society as a whole. This "idea" you subscribe to assumes that no one will behave themselves unless there are authoritarian rules.
- Not so.
Basically, this country had all the 'rules' we needed, after the passage of the 14th amendment in 1868. Unfortunately, instead of following those constitutional mandates, we've gradually followed the world into socialism.

110 posted on 12/10/2003 8:36:33 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Given no consequences for immoral decisions or incentive towards moral behavior, give me an example that a significant minority of people will act in a way that does not benefit them to the disadvantage of others.
107





The USA from 1868 to '98 would be a fine example, imo, of how a majority of people, unfettered by anything but basic criminal law, -- act in a way that benefits all to the advantage of society.
The 'Victorian Compromise' worked quite well. Consequenses for socalled immoral behavior existed, but were soundly ignored.
111 posted on 12/10/2003 9:35:21 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but FRs flying monkey squad brings out the Rickenbacker in me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-111 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson