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
He was the most significant thinker to have fought the Revolution and his achievements have stood the test of time for over two hundred years. He dedicated over 15 yrs. of his life and the opportunity to become immensely wealthy because of his love of country only to have those who worked incessently to tear it down condemn him through the bought and paid for liars in the press. Apparently you choose to side with them rather than one of our greatest patriots.
He was so far above the lyin' pack of swine associated with Jefferson that it is astounding. A political genius of the first water who won the respect of Washington while Jefferson was losing it. Hamilton could be called the First American for his farsighted understanding that the nation would be destroyed if the State political machines were not reduced in power.
Your cracks indicate that, in fact, you know nothing of Hamilton or his achievements. Or Jefferson for that matter.
Why did they wait until he had been dead for 50 years?
Apparently your knowledge of Hamilton is even less than I surmised.
"The first Republican Party was formed in 1792 by Jefferson and Madison. It was the Democratic-Republican ..."
So what was it, the Republican party or the Democratic-Republican party? When you refer to the Republican party, it is going to be understood as the modern Republican party that was founded in 1854. If you means something else, it is your responsibility to clarify that.
Don't blame me for your careless lack of clarity. You put me in mind of a child who calls another child ignorant for not knowing what he (the first child) only learned the day before,
Just where do we have to start in order to stoop to your level of historical knowledge? You are aware that Washington was our first president I hope.
I apologize for my post #264, it was basically a joke. I had no idea I was dealing with someone with such a fragile ego.
Here is another: The govt need have no hand in the projects that you name. All of these things utilized public funding because it was offered. If these projects were economically viable. they would have proceeded without a gift from me.
As I look at your folowing posts, you still strike me as an elitist/socialist...especially in the area of wealth re-distribution.
I made no such thing. I don't disagree that govt funding has made all of these things possible. Govt largess continues to be used by private industry simply because it is there. You continually cite the trans-continental railroad as an example. The only thing that would have been different is that the railroad would not have been built until a later date, when it would have been profitable without the govt subsidy. What I know of the trans-con railroad is that it lost money initially, a shorfall that was made up by the taxpayers. This is also true of most of the examples you cite. I wouldn't mind so much but, for the most part, after taking the risk the taxpayer rarely, if ever shares in the profits at the end.
The role of govt is to make the environment for these things possible, not to fund them with my dollars.
It all started going wrong with the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution. Roosevelt's "New Deal" basically was the end.
--Boris
"Govt largess continues to be used by private industry simply because it is there."Correction: much government largess was created by private industry for its own ends.
Please read Gabriel Kolko's "The Triumph of Conservativism." Kolko's a g**mned marxist, but he's right: business used government to its own ends during the progressive period (and before, and after, I would add).
Nonsense. You don't pay any taxes at all. The gov't plays a shell game wherein it gives you money and then takes some back. It still remains true that that all of this money was originally stolen from people in the productive economy.
Why shoud I be disenfranchised just because I chose a career serving the public?
I don't allow my servants to decide how to run my house - for obvious reasons. If you want to decide what happens, get yourself a real job instead of pretending that that you "serve" the public you extort a salary from.
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.