Posted on 01/15/2025 1:51:12 PM PST by nickcarraway
I can't stand big government, but I think we need something. Michael Malice says I'm wrong.
"Donald Trump will be a tyrant!"
So my neighbors claim. I live in Manhattan. Feel for me.
Yes, Trump says wild things, like riffing about "terminating" parts of the U.S. Constitution.
But I don't think he means it. As Joe Rogan said to President-elect Donald Trump when candidate Trump came on his show, "You say a lot of wild shit!"
In any case, podcaster Michael Malice, in my new video, says not to worry, "We have so much further to go before we're lost as a country."
Malice knows the damage real tyrants do. He's spent time in North Korea, and he was born in the Soviet Union. He detests political "leaders," saying the best political system is anarchism: self-government without a central authority, or, as the artificial intelligence (AI) on my computer defines it: "a self-managed, stateless society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid."
Malice and I debate that. I'm no anarchist. I'm a libertarian. I believe we should be allowed to act as we wish, so long as we don't hurt others. I accept the need for limited government, one that adjudicates disputes, enforces pollution control, and funds police and a military to keep us safe.
Malice says it's wrong to think that way, because all central government is a problem.
"Security is like anything else," he argues. "Should the government be producing books?…No. Producing helicopters?…No…a government monopoly makes no sense. But somehow when it comes to security, you're OK with this. And then you live in New York and wonder why it ends up being the way it is."
I'm not convinced that security is "like anything else." A government monopoly on force at least means that we rarely have different security forces fighting each other.
"How about pollution?" I ask, because I don't see how my beloved free market will effectively address it. "My smoke goes into other people's lungs. Under anarchy, there's no preventative mechanism that would deter me from letting that smoke travel."
"That's an aggression," replies Malice. "You are violating my space. That would be adjudicated under private arbitration, which would be faster and more efficient."
Private lawsuits and arbitration are efficient? Not that I've seen.
It's hard for everyone who breathes my fumes to sue me.
"There would be some John Stossels out there who make those polluting cars or they don't really care. But the point is, all the pressures on cars and all these other mechanisms are far more a function of people getting informed and involved than it is the function of government laws."
He points out that pollution is worst in countries with big governments, "like China, where under communism…you drain every bit of resource that you can….People getting cancer, dying, you don't care. Under free markets, people are more invested and have more of a space to say something, to clean up the environment."
"But our air and water were filthy before we had government's pollution laws," I point out.
"How did they get cleaned up? Because you had organizations saying 'pollution is bad'….And these companies did something about it. Government laws came as a consequence."
Malice calls anarchism "libertarianism with principles." He also published The Anarchist Handbook, featuring essays by thinkers who say that a society without government could work well.
I'm skeptical.
I hate our big intrusive government, hate that it grabs almost half our money and micromanages our lives. I hate the politicians who act like good things come from them, rather than from millions of free people pursuing our own interests. I hate that government constantly grows more intrusive and takes more of our money (under both Democrat and Republican administrations).
But I do think we need some of it.
All? No.
But far too many “government functions” aren’t really the functions of government.
Government doesn’t function.
Its an absurd question and improperly framed
Malice talks about “private arbitration” for a pollution, which would be treated as crime against property.
OK. Fine - but what standards will be used in the arbitration? the penalties? Society must somehow agree on this before any mechanism to arbitrate them. Society must create the framework (or “laws”) at the base of any arbitration, hearing or lawsuit.
National Defense by the Private Sector is unlikely. It’s all downhill after that though.
Anarchy appeals to some leftists.
However, this article seems to be trying to make the case that being for small government (as defined by the constitution) is the same as being an anarchist. Nothing further from the truth.
Can the government replace all private sector functions?
How’s that going for us?
IMHO the FedGov has only a few obligations:
- maintain a military presence
- post office
- international relations
- suggest, not demand a few national standards for education and a few more systems that would benefit everyone.
That’s about it. Everything else is intrusion of privacy.
You nailed it. Only inherently governmental functions should be funded with tax dollars. I'm talking about things that only the fed/gov has authority to do. Everything else is just graft and a violation of the 10th amendment.
When I hear the words, "Government-public partnership" I know the latest taxpayer grafting scam is on.
I believe all NGOs should not receive a penny of federal funding whether they be on the right or the left. That will fix 20% of the problem, the other 80% is the government itself.
Too many functions of government aren’t real functions at all.
lol — good point
“All? No.”
I think people who push for that crap know FULL WELL it is not possible and not workable. They are just Attention Queens.
Other than military/national security, most government functions don’t need for government to do them. Perhaps another one needing to be a function of government is what the DOJ and SCOTUS do, and even those can be farmed out to state authorities, as long as the constitution and bill-0r-rights are enforced..
Trump purposely overstates issues in order to maximize public attention and focus.
Once he has everyone’s attention, then the real negotiating begins.
Government’s responsibility is;
Post Office
Issuing currency
Providing for national defense
Making treaties with foreign governments
So says the US Constitution.
Everything else is according to congressional approval.
90% of our government could be slashed and still remain within legal boundaries.
The political left LOVES big government because it gives them the power to force people to do things they don’t want to do.
IMHO, cut non-entitlement programs and departments in half, and after all the yelling and screaming dies down, cut it in half again.
And repeal the 17th amendment. The corruption in DC will never stop until they do.
How did Americans in 1900 survive without the ATF and Department of Education?
‘If it’s in the Yellow Pages...’
Pete Wilson.
I’m with you.
And centralized government is crap!
I lean towards what this guy is saying, but I realize that it really would lead towards many people getting hurt and killed. Human nature would prevail and strong would destroy the weak.
However government rule and regulatory functions have replaced much congressional authority, and abused it in a major way.
Examples? USEPA, DOEd, and so on.
Replacing their authority with the only ability to make recommendations to congress might be a good start.
Problem is the “private sector” more and more is in bed with the government.
Federal government has three primary functions: provide for the external defense, sponsor internal order, and provide a dependable and valid national currency. I would add kill terrorists and deliver the mail. But that’s it.
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.