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.

[steve-b]

The myth of German war guilt gave the western allies lots of leverage to bring the U.S. into the war.

The Germans gambled that unrestricted submarine warfare would win the war for them before the resulting US involvement would win the war for the Allies. They lost their bet. Notions of "guilt" didn't really enter into the equation.

[Tax-chick]

I think I read it in John Taylor Gatto, "Underground History of American Education." He'd have it footnoted. I can't swear it was Prussia, though, might have been some other Central European monarchy, although it seems to me that the emphasis on growing the fighting population fits well with the agressive policies of the Prussians. And the opinion of the 1848 revolutionaries, I don't find too persuasive :-).

[steve-b]

I'm rather skeptical of that claim myself, but I do recall a rather more plausible assertion from several sources that the modern government school system was a Prussian invention.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

Strictly speaking, the French launched an invasion of Germany, with the first battle taking place on 7 August, 1914. The Battle of Muhlhausen.

In any case, diplomatic cause and effect occur often behind the scenes, so the person who fires the first shot is not necessarily the one is responsible for the war.

The French minister to St. Petersburg assured the Tsar that he could mobilise the Russian army while the French threat would prevent Germany from supporting Austria. Had a person like Bismarck been in charge of German policy, there is a good chance that this is the way things would have turned out. In such a scenario, Russia could have dismembered Austria-Hungary, annexed the eastern Slavic portions, and left Deutsch-Oesterriech, Bohemia and Moravia to Prussia.

Such an outcome would have been entirely consistent with Bismarckian policy.

[That Subliminal Kid]

This is such a pile of hysterical garbage I don't even know where to start.

[x]

The Roman emperors also intervened heavily in family life. Hoppe and Sobran entirely ignore "oriental despotisms," the terribly oppressive regimes under which much of the world's population has lived. It's a very "Eurocentric" perspective.

[x]

Good argument. They could counter that emperors wouldn't have had the power of mass drafts if the French Revolution hadn't led the way. It's not an entirely convincing counterargument though.

Hoppe's argument follows Bertrand de Jouvenel's analyis in "On Power." It's an intriguing analysis of how the French Revolution made governments more powerful and intrusive, but it relies too much on the experience of Northwestern Europe to become a generalizable law.

[x]

Check your encoding for the "'" and "?" thing. Your computer may be set to another character system, rather than Western.

Sobran has come out in favor of anarchy. He's no longer a reliable source of creditable opinion.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

There are so many factual errors here, I can't imagine where to begin. (Kings that taxed were considered "moderate", most just viewed everything and everybody in their Kingdom as their own property.)

But, this will lend support to a theory I've been developing about libertarians and their worldview. They view society as not only unnecessary, but also as harmful to liberty. To a libertarian, any form of government above and beyond personal choice is the same as the most tyrannical government imaginable.

Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. And under the Articles, they would wail and anguish about their State not being sovereign. And if their State were completely soveriegn, they would wail and anguish about living in a tyranny.

"Libertarians" don't want anybody telling them what to do under any circumstance imaginable. This author seems to have found the truth of his own convictions.

[u-89]

Strictly speaking, the French launched an invasion of Germany, with the first battle taking place on 7 August, 1914. The Battle of Muhlhausen.

Yeh, but even if this didn't happen because of alliance when a state of war existed between Germany and Russia France was involved and it would be sound for Germany to hit France hard and try and take them out before Russia could fully mobilize. One reason our founders warned against entangling alliances but even without legal alliances look at the example of WW2. We are officially neutral yet are aiding Britain who is at war with Germany. When Japan went to war with both the US and GB we became allies in war together against Japan. Under this guise we could massively aid Britain legally while still not being at war with Germany but our aid would not have to be limited to the Pacific Theatre. So we could aid them in N.Afrika as well as the home isles. Under these circumstances with large amounts of US shipping going into a hot war zone it would be only time before FDR would of had an incident to justify a war with Germany. Hitler realizing this decided to try and get some advantage out of the situation and declared war on us showing good faith with Japan hoping that they would reciprocate against Russia. The long and the short of this is that under a democracy, monarchy or any other system we're screwed.

[citizenK]

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 indeed.

People in the US have come to believe freedom is the ability to run down to Walmart whenever they want to support the latest consumer trend.

[u-89]

Sobran has come out in favor of anarchy

He has become fairly disillusioned with government and has written other columns to this regard. I will look around and see if I could locate some others.

He's no longer a reliable source of creditable opinion. I like reading him because he's thought provoking. Gives me material to think through.

[dheretic]

The problem with democracy is that it allows idiots to wield political power. There should be strict literacy and education tests before citizens can vote. The political power of the vote cannot be trusted in the hands of an uneducated idiot. People should have to have a decent understanding of the US Constitution and maybe even pass a basic educational assessment test. Democracy is not a peaceful system of choosing leaders, such a system does not exist. If you don't agree with the majority you will pay the consequences. The true face of democracy can be seen in the execution of Socrates.

[Burkeman1]

I like reading him because he's thought provoking.

Me too. He does have some valid points once in a while and he does challenge me to think. And he is a crisp writer. But he always manages to go to far and has a tendency for wild sweeping generalizations that can't stand up to even mild scrutiney.

[Burkeman1]

The founders believed that a true republican form of government is contingent upon a population that shares the same values, is religious and restrained, conservative in the cultural sense, and is literate. We are far from that and it shows. Once the culture of a republic turns to hedonism, denigrates and mocks the culture and past from wence it was forged, and celebrates and upholds it's misfits and criminals- then no republican government can last long. One can argue that we haven't had a true republican form of government for at least 50 years.

[u-89]

There are so many factual errors here

Unless illustrations are significantly in era as a rule I try to weigh the thrust of an article against the content. Sometimes there could be a major truth or important issue that outshines minor eras of factoids. Unless something is intentionally misrepresented or so blatantly in era as to be self-defeating to the thesis I overlook it. To me this article's topic is one that is fun to toss around.
Take for example this line "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.) ''. At face value this makes sense to rational people as what person would not take care for their children's future well being. 2 obvious exceptions is some Caligula like maniac and the truth that power corrupts and delusions of grandeur may cause a monarch to take reckless and possible fatal actions. The second part of the statement is unimpeachable. Riffraff on the make are self-centered and inconsiderate.

As for this comment of yours - Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. I have actually heard some pine for the A.o.C. Is pining a bad thing when it is for freedom? 'Tis better than a central heavy hand. Local government is most responsive to and reflective of community. It could be though that a libertarian society would work better if it was one of a single culture with commonly held values. While people will always have differences multi-culturalism is bound to be contentious and could prove fatal unless human nature is miraculously transformed. The old adage "birds of a feather flock together" is a timeless truism. With limited government (coercion) people singing off the same song sheet will be able to co-exist more harmoniously than groups of conflicting world views. But still a very limited government providing only what the people themselves can not do is the best chance for success of multi-culturalism as people would not be divided into competing groups vying for recognition or benefits and complaining how their tax dollars sponsor things with which they disagree. Things like prayer in schools, books in libraries, gay community centers would not be points of contention if these things were privatized.
I heard of a 19th cent. town called Liberal , Mo founded by a man with a specific world view. He bought land and invited folks who shared his mindset to come and settle and kept it exclusively to such people. They were totally free within the guidelines of community standards. While I do not share their particular beliefs the point is they were free to do it. Today with all the Federal laws such a community could not be formed. We can't even have a large private club or corporation immune from government meddling. Ever hear of the Free State Project?

cordially,

P.S. libertarian thought as I understand it to be is not synonymous with anarchy.

[u-89]

parts of post 56 may be of interest to you.

[dheretic]

population that shares the same values,

wrong! That the population does not share the same values was the reason why Madison argued in favor of a large decentralized republic. It would keep the peace by not enforcing a national code of ethics, etc. Eough unity to create a nation but not enough to destroy a nation as culturally diverse as the US. We've always been diverse, the 13 original colonies had plenty of major cultural quirks.

religious and restrained

You mean the same population that resorted to armed rebellion everytime a tax was levied? The whiskey rebellion is a prime example.

literate

Oh puhlease! The majority of the population was illiterate

Once the culture of a republic turns to hedonism, denigrates and mocks the culture and past from wence it was forged, and celebrates and upholds it's misfits and criminals

You find nothing deeply degenerate and hypocritical about a society that presents itself as a free and moral republic and that allows slavery and indentured servitude?

then no republican government can last long

You have to put the common man in his place. He has the same rights as everyone else but he is not fit to define society. A republic is not an egalitarian society beyond equality before the law. A scientist or artist has an intrinsically higher value to their society than say.... a retail sales worker or a burger flipper. The biggest source of the problem is that American culture can't accept that. We have a society where every layman is allowed to wield political power on issues he knows nothing about. The average joe's opinion on technical issues should be largely ignored by the government. The opinions of technical workers should however be taken very seriously on technical issues for example because only they can advise the government on the proper actions.

One can argue that we haven't had a true republican form of government for at least 50 years.

We've never had one, a true republic is a dictatorship by an elite that is born and bred to lead by virtue. Plato's republican ideal is just that, an ideal. It can't work. The closest thing you could have would be a technocratic dictatorship. A society where either a machine drafts educated and informed citizens from the population to serve in the civil body politic or where technologists rule over the government completely.

[u-89]

Democracy has been called Mobocracy. When the rule of law succumbs to mobocracy's pressures(political correctness) a demagogue can be very dangerous. Your suggested voting requirements is something that I have tried to balance with pure liberty in my mind and have yet to make a call. People free to be uninformed fools left to their own are not so bad but when uninformed fools have a say in my life self-preservation sounds off alarm.

[Burkeman1]

Shares the same general values. I think a Northeastern factory owner, a Southern Plantation owner, a Northern factory worker, and a Southern slave shared much of the same moral values or at leased professed belief in them? Do you disagree with that?

I am not really familiar with the "whiskey rebellion" to comment on it. But as for the rest of your post- there was much more cultural agreement in 1865 among all peoples than there is today.