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
This is a good piece by Sobran.
He gets it.
That we must be protected from ourselves? or, paradoxically, that we must not govern ourselves at all in order to protect ourselves from ourselves... curiouser and curiouser!
That is the problem with "democracy" which we were never intended to be, if 51% vote that the other 49% should surrender their wealth to support the 51%, then you have defacto slavery at the point of government guns as far as the 49% are concerned.
I find the notion that we can "create new rights" rather curious, particularly in a conservative forum. You seem to give much over to the proposition that creative semantics is an acceptable substitute for public debate, vote, and ratification of amendment.
That we must be protected from ourselves? or, paradoxically, that we must not govern ourselves at all in order to protect ourselves from ourselves... curiouser and curiouser!Let's see, if 51% of the populace are women, and 51% of the vote is a tyranny... then we must repeal the 19th amendment! Yeah, yeah, that's it.
Now, how to get all those girls to go along with it...
Seems to me that the Property owners have more right to have the government they want because they were not only getting the reward of the government but also supporting (morally and financially) the government. On the other hand, welfare recipients are simply a drag on the government which use resources but supply no support.
Ted Kennedy not only wins elections and feels good about himself over the progressive income tax but he is hardly affected by it. Why do you think the Cap. Gains tax went through so easily and you don't hear Rats bitching about it?
The progressive income tax is a barrier only to those moving up the class scale, not to those already there (a guess would be that it affects most those in the $80 to $250K income range on salary). I would also argue that the progressive income tax is a burden upon the lower classes because the higher tax payers naturally shift their burden upon lower income consumers. My solution would be to be rid of salary taxes (gone medicaid, s.s., etc.) and have all pay a flat rate on income earned however. Won't happen, but that's my pet solution.
Alright: property rights. One of the great questions in American history is the nature of this right. Ask ten people and I'd bet not two could tell you the basis of their property rights. The nine others would give you eighteen different definitions.
I'd love to hear your definition and identification of its source and protection.
If only Tark and the the Armenian school of economics had put away their childish utopianism and gotten with the program and joined Dean Smith, Digger Phelps, Janet Reno, and John Ashcroft and understood the practical realities of gaming CONTROL.
like... KINDA PREGNANT !
Where are you from? Must not be the US. They certainly do vote and certainly do run the government in collaboration with the liberals.
"democracy is positively "immoral," because "it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C"
A are the liberals and with the collaboration of B who are the "dependent" class, they agree that they will stick together and pass liberal and "entitlement" legislation, thereby ripping off C which are the top tax payers who are traditionally conservatives. The liberals get their socialist legislation and the "dependent" class get free support through entitlements and all the Conservatives get is the bill through taxes.
[Welfare recipients] certainly do vote and certainly do run the government in collaboration with the liberals.Hmm. So do government dependants run the country or not? Those devilish welfare queens, manipulating the useful idiots in the Democratic party... Get real and re-read my # 169. You're just trying to rationalize why things are not as you want/percieve them.
Thus your twisted scenario whereby the "the top tax payers ... are traditionally conservatives." If everyone thinks the rich are conservative its easy for liberals -- especially rich ones -- to blame everything on vile, rich conservatives. This type of thinking is exactly what the Democrats want.
OMG, I'm becoming a conspiracist... Joe, aTp, x, Crab Tree, Huck, Common T... somebody, HELP!
Now, tberry, tell me about property rights.
Rothbard's conclusion that the Rebellion led to Jefferson's "Revolution of 1800" (talk about simplification) is incomplete. Just as Shay's fight had the reverse effect to further the Federalist cause, the Whiskey Rebellion served, at the time, to strengthen Washington and Hamilton's program. It was those damend Law and Order whigs, I guess... lol!
Oh: with repeal of the excise taxes, how was the government financed? (And which three secession movements and two wars did that lead to?)
"In so far as he had any view of the economics of government, he simply took for granted that they would, as a matter of course and more or less automatically, arrange themselves to favor "the rich and well-born," since these were naturally the political patrons and protectors of those who did the world's work. In a properly constituted government, such consideration as should be bestowed upon the producer would be mostly by way of noblesse oblige. The extent of his indifference to the means of securing political and economic supremacy to "the rich and well-born" cannot be determined; yet he always frankly showed that he regarded over-scrupulousness as impractical and dangerous. Strong in his belief that men could be moved only by force of interest, he fearlessly accepted the corollary that corruption is an indispensable instrument of government, and that therefore the public and private behavior of a statesman may not always be answerable to the same code.
p. 111
Mr. Jefferson
Hallberg Publ. Co. (1983)
(especially if applied to today's tax code...? lol!)
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.