Myth of Limited Government

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | Jan. 2001 | Joe Sobran

[u-89]

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 (Transaction Publishers).

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.

[u-89]

Not sure why the ? appears where there should be '. Must be a html thing.

[Republic of Texas]

Right on Target.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens"

An interesting concept.

[r9etb]

"Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens"

Interesting concept, indeed. Seems that Joe's forgotten the basic rules of the feudal system.

[KC Burke]

now it isn't suprising that you are the first one I ping to this, is it?

[coloradan]

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.

Well said.

[Tax-chick]

And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents.

Not true - check out the Prussians. Among other invasions, their government required a report on the menstrual cycle of every married woman, and imposed penalties if a woman wasn't pregnant quickly enough.

By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power.

Pish! Most of them just didn't have the technology and communications infrastructure to sieze the power they wanted.

A smart man, Joe, but ...

[Jake0001]

Perhaps we've got socialism confused with democracy here.

Prior to WWI there was no income tax (a temporary measure to finance the war), SS#s, FBI, FCC, etc. People didn't have formal credit (except the rich) and thus worked and lived on a cash/barter basis.

The computer age has inpinged quite nicely on the privacy of the citizenry. Now we've got records and documentation to bite us in the rump we could never have foreseen. Most of which, but not all, revolving around our SS#.

No avoiding these things either. Can't get a job without your SS# and possibly a credit check. Try to get a loan to buy a house or car without having a prior credit record.

Regarding expenses: It ain't cheap to operate and maintain a globally dominant military presence. No monarchy ever tried that AND guarantee a dignified retirement AND spend itself into such a hole of debt in history like our democracy has.

[Burkeman1]

Yes - rather historically stupid. First of all on taxes. Kings taxed very heavily and very brutally. Tax Collectors were often free agents who demanded even higher taxes than the King demanded becasue they kept a part of the money collected. And one shouldn't forget the "duties" different classes within these monarchny systems were forced to perform- wether it be military service from the gentry to public works labor from the lower classes- without pay and up to several months out of the year. That may not be a "tax" but it prevents one from earning for ones self. As for wars not being as rough and tumble as the mass wars of the 20th century- has Sobran ever heard of the first world war? That was largely a war of Monarchs- the last breath from that era. As soon as kings had the technology- they raised mass armies and fought a mass war.

[Burkeman1]

Ever here of the British Empire?

[weikel]

ping

[B-Chan]

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)

Finally, finally, somebody who gets it. Thank you for posting and pinging, KC. Obviously, as a monarchist myself I couldn't agree more.

[alpowolf]

I don't believe that we can devise a form of government that can run on autopilot. Self-government means just that; you have to keep your eyes open and your hands on the wheel. I think that is where we as a people have failed. Too many of us have let the politicians con us into letting them have the wheel. Now the idea of taking care of oneself seems bizarre. Until more of us get back to being truly self reliant we will have this problem regardless of our form of government.

[RipSawyer]

"I don't believe that we can devise a form of government that can run on autopilot. Self-government means just that; you have to keep your eyes open and your hands on the wheel. I think that is where we as a people have failed. Too many of us have let the politicians con us into letting them have the wheel. Now the idea of taking care of oneself seems bizarre. Until more of us get back to being truly self reliant we will have this problem regardless of our form of government."

And there lies the source of the problem exposed in all its naked ugliness. I have had the bad habit for most of my life of speaking out against government oppression and mostly what it got me is ridicule. Some people agreed with me but were not interested in lifting a finger and most seemed to think I was just a kook. Freedom is only possible for an educated people who understand and believe in it and that rules out the majority of today's "citizens."

[KC Burke]

The changing forms of acceptable representation in government aren't spoken of in this otherwise fine article on this book.

In days of yore, the citizen free-holder in various lands thought of his soverign or aristocrat as being more worthy of representing him because he distrusted (rightly in most cases) the ability, constancy or independence of motive of his peers. His "participation" in the particapatory aspects of his age was in support of those so vested.

In our modern "particapatory" representation we have devolved from Deliberative Representation to a desire for Pliebistitory Delagate, and sometimes further, to desires to personally attend to every issue with the whim of the moment and the command of the democratic demogogue.

[jimt]

Interesting concept, indeed. Seems that Joe's forgotten the basic rules of the feudal system.

Either I misunderstand your reply, or we have different facts.

Serfs paid about 25%. We pay over 50%. Seems to me Sobran's got it right.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I think is limiting his analysis to absolute monarchy, otherwise, of course, one could ask: what about the Kingdom of Sweden?

[steve-b]

For that matter, Napoleon was a monarch both in effective power and in title (after crowning himself Emperor), and he created modern national war mobilization.

[steve50]

Ever here of the British Empire

When the British tried it they were still on gold. We are paying for it with fiat and expecting currency manipulation to lessen the damage. When the rest of the worlds gets tired of fiat dollar games we got a problem

[45Auto]

the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!

For me, this is the point. The Constitution has been turned on its head; instead of providing a limitation on the power of government to regulate the lives of the citizens, it has now been twisted to limit the freedom of the citizens and to 'grant' unlimited authority to government. And the corrupt judiciary has been part and parcel of the shift.