Posted on 01/04/2002 5:34:10 AM PST by tberry
The Myth of 'Limited Government'
by Joseph Sobran
We are taught that the change from monarchy to democracy is progress; that is, a change from servitude to liberty. Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens.
But we are taught that this condition is liberty, because "we" are – freely – taxing "ourselves." The individual, as a member of a democracy, is presumed to consent to being taxed and otherwise forced to do countless things he hasn’t chosen to do (or forbidden to do things he would prefer not to do).
Whence arises the right of a ruler to compel? This is a tough one, but modern rulers have discovered that a plausible answer can be found in the idea of majority rule. If the people rule themselves by collective decision, they can’t complain that the government is oppressing them. This notion is summed up in the magic word "democracy."
It’s nonsense. "We" are not doing it to "ourselves." Some people are still ruling other people. "Democracy" is merely the pretext for authorizing this process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled. Since outright slavery has been discredited, "democracy" is the only remaining rationale for state compulsion that most people will accept.
Now comes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, to explode the whole idea that there can ever be a just state. And he thinks democracy is worse than many other forms of government. He makes his case in his new book Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order
Hoppe is often described as a libertarian, but it might be more accurate to call him a conservative anarchist. He thinks the state – "a territorial monopoly of compulsion" – is inherently subversive of social health and order, which can thrive only when men are free.
As soon as you grant the state anything, Hoppe argues, you have given it everything. There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power).
We’ve tried. We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn’t work. Over time the government claimed the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, then proceeded to broaden its own powers ad infinitum and to strip the states of their original powers – while claiming that its self-aggrandizement was the fulfillment of the "living" Constitution. So the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!
The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation. But the Civil War established the fatal principle that no state could withdraw, for any reason. So the states and the people lost their ultimate defense against Federal tyranny. (And if they hadn’t, there would still have been the problem of the tyranny of individual states.) But today Americans have learned to view the victory of the Union over the states, which meant an enormous increase in the centralization of power, as a triumph of "democracy."
Hoppe goes so far as to say that democracy is positively "immoral," because "it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C." He argues that monarchy is actually preferable, because a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name "Clinton" may ring a bell here.)
And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents. By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.
Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.
January 4, 2001
And what (and who) made them change their mind? FDR and his court packing bill were a sorry episode in the history of executive power abuses. The fact that this is what it took to get this foolishness made law should give Congress pause to wield the power it grants. They, and we seem oblivious.Actually, it wasn't FDR that brought this change in the view toward Interstate commerce. LegalFreepers might give us the citations, but I do know that Scotus moved towards this view as early as 1890s and more fully into the 1910s. Contract law also suffered this "liberalization." FDR broked it wide open, as you say.
I believe the proper context for this proposition with respect to the Constitution is best expeplified by the blindfold on the statue of Lady Justice. Our fidelity to that proposition is best measured by our degree of respect for the integrity of the idea of blind justice.
This means you subscribe to the Democrats philosophy's on taxation and property rights. It sounds like you're describing a system pretty close to what the Japanese have. The Japanese people have a phrase to describe the end result of this kind of policy:
Rich Japan, poor Japanese.
I'll pass.
Well you know, equality was all fine and good till Massa Lincoln came along and rueened it for evabody. An if anyone had any doubts about that, jus lookit what happened with that uppitty niggra King many yahs lata, always going on about the Declaration and the equality of man and ole man Lincoln. Damn'd unfortunate they eva mentioned equality at all. Judging from the way Jefferson and his friends actually lived, one has to wonder what they meant by equality. Seems the patriots were split on that point.
By the way, this is a fine point. I like Scalia's concept, which is to go with its words. He doesn't care what they "intended", because that is too subjective. What were the words understood to mean when they wrote them. If we all handled it this way, we could, through legislation and amendment, better secure the rights that are in doubt, and better empower the government where desired, and limit it as well, or whatever. In short, the Founders did their work. We must do ours.
I'm glad somebody made the distinction between "Democracy" and "Constitutional Republic", because the difference is considerable.
Constitutional Republic is what we used to be; a "Democracy" (read "mob rule") is where Hillary and her socialist pals want to lead us.
It was a response to this:
"Please give me a couple of examples about when the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as saying things that it plainly does not, when doing such has increased the power of the Federal government."
The decision's being a fact of history does not make it an inapproriate or incorrect response. To justify your allegations of misuse and twisting you would need to demonstrate that there is a basis in the Constitution for this decision.
Do you want to cite me some examples where I have misused other information? As opposed to simply stating an opinion that differs from yours; that being apparently in your mind a sin qualifying as "misusing information".
It is true that a well-written constitution can slow down the growth of government and decay of freedom, but it can't stop it let alone reverse it. As long as a society has elected leaders, they -- each single one of them -- have an organic interest in selling government power to the constituents. Thus, they have an organic interest in seeing to it that the total amount of power that the government possesses grow.
In contrast to that, an unelected leader is ensured of his position as long as he makes a passably good job of it. Moreover, if overall power increases, the unelected official's share of power will usually decrease. For example, kings who created too much of a government apparatus in the past were forced to appoint ministers who diluted their power.
One can hope that, armed with the lessons from monarchies of the past, the failures of democracy, and the failed attempts to build a stable constitutional republic, the Western Civilization will return to the Medieval ideals of small principalities with hereditary rule. May be not in the 21st century, but very likely in the 22nd.
"By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles."
Wow. That's what he wrote. I guess we've all just been dragged into Sobran's abyss of historical regret and self-loathing. It's stupid. Just plain stupid.
No sir, you simply haven't read Hoppe's book, unlike Sobran. Hoppe discusses therein his natural law / classical liberal theory of government. He points out that a monopoly of the application of force invariably leads to worse results under democratic conditions. Under democracy, universality of potential access to power and the transitory hold by any one group upon that power lead to decisions that deprive more of the "citizens" of more of their life, liberty and property than even under a traditional monarch. Hoppe argues that the Hobbesian outcome of democracy is inherent to it.
Hoppe argues that monopolies worsen conditions for consumers, including consumers of the only product that the state monopoly on force proffers - protection of life, liberty and property.
Does anything last forever?
Seeking out the causes which tend to maintain democracy, Alexis de Toqueville remarks on the concern of the New Englanders who
abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundatios of Christianity and freedom on the banks of the Missouri or in the prairies of Illinois . . If you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to hear them speak so often of the goods in this world and to meet a politician where you epected to find a priest. They will tell you that "all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republian institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is therefore our interest that the new states should be religious, in order that they may permit us to remain free." Such are the opinions of the Americans; and if any hold that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race on the other side of the ocean is to believe with Spinoza in the eternity of the world, or with Cabanis that thought is secreted by the brain I can only reply that those who hold this lanugage have never been in America and that they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return from a visit to that country, we shall hear what they have to say.Democracy in American, 1831
Threshold on Percentiles |
Personal Income Tax Paid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I agree with your course of action. When the number of people voting in federal elections approximates the population of Washington D.C., then people will start telling the feds to stuff it. For now, the federal government has accomplished its goal of sticking the minority of voters with the majority of taxes, and it has crafted a program pandering to virtually every social/economic/gender/age/race interest group, all of whom are voting to increase their share of government largesse.
The iron laws of economics dictate that everyone can't live off everyone else. The more a government strives for this, the sooner its own downfall.
But instead of incessant whining and complaining about it, I'd rather do as the Declaration of Independence says: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Anything else is conjecture and not worthy of being heard, IMHO. I truly believe that changes can only come through the shedding of blood.
I'm not advocating overthrowing the government, either. That's sedition and our government is a constituted authority. But I don't see any other way to get off of the slippery slope.
For brilliant libertarian analysis of George Washington, I highly recommend everything that Murray Rothbard has written on the subject. Particularly interesting is Rothbard's treatment in Conceived in Liberty, Volume II of Washington and Anglo-Virginian aggression against the French and displacement of the Indians in the Ohio Valley.
Then I replied: Without hitting the law books for cites, in recent years the SC has ruled that preventive detention is legal, notwithstanding the absolute right to bond except in capital cases, that indefinite detention is legal, that roadblocks are legal (seizure of the person without reasonable cause or court order), seizure of assets before trial is legal (no due process). I could go on and on, but it is apparent that you have not kept up with constitutional law, or you would not have need to ask such a question. Roe v. Wade is enough of an answer.
You then argued: What Constitution are you reading? Nothing in the Eighth Amendment says one has an absolute right to bail. Read Salerno. It only upheld the statute against a facial challenge. For the Act to actually apply, you would have to have a defendant who intended to commit further crimes, but was not a flight risk. Obviously, the intent to commit further crimes makes one a flight risk. IOW, the case is much ado about nothing. Since passed no one has challenged the Act, as applied, of which I am aware.
First, I note that you rebutted only one point that I made. As to that point, based on your question, neither court interpretations nor legislative acts are relevant. The question simply asks for examples of where the Supreme Court has construed the Constitution in a manner to say something that it plainly does not and thereby gives the federal government increased power. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution reads in pertinent part: "Excessive bail shall not be required..." Placed in context, the founders intended for the police powers to be left to the states and there would be very few federal crimes, but clearly, those charged with federal crimes were to be allowed to bail, and bail was to be set in an amount not excessive; that is, an amount not meant to force them into pretrial detention, but an amount based upon their means that would guarantee their appearance at trial while also allowing their pretrial release. You need a history lesson in the star chamber and the courts of King George if you think the founders intended anything else. Now, in this present epoch, in this present decade, during the WOD, in the majority of cases, bail is denied in the federal courts. It is denied as you have ascertained based upon legislation meant to circumvent the Eighth Amendment which the Supreme Court has upheld. Therefore, my example holds, along with the others I opined. Only one arguing insincerely could argue that no bond is different from excessive bond. That the Supreme Court has argued insincerely on numerous occasions to increase the power of the federal government is the entire point of this thread.
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.