Myth of Limited Government

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

[Burkeman1]

Well- let's examine absolute Monarchs then. The Russian Czars were absolute and as their power became even more absolute and consilidated Serfdom actually got worse until it resembled American slavery by it's final years (where serfs could be bought and sold at markets and were no longer merely tied to the land). Further- Russia expanded and conquered most of it's territory while under the rule of these absolute monarchs (as did the Austro- Hungarian empire). Chinese Emperors waged wars with millions of troops even before guns or cannon had been invented and decimated entire populations. The Mayan Kings and the Aztecs- both waged war on mass scale- mobilizing the entire population for the effort.

I think the argument is highly flawed that Monarchs are "less intrusive" and or wage war less than "Democracies".

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

I have never, ever, heard of this, and I have studied Prussia rather extensively. Do you have a source for this?

Prussia was generally considered the most "liberal" of the German monarchies -- so much so that the 1848 revolutionaries offered the crown of a united Germany to King Friedrich Wilhelm IV. Even in the 18th century, Prussia was thought of very highly by both the English (generally reputed to have been the most free among all Europeans) and the Americans. There were some in the Continental Congress who seriously entertained the idea of offering the crown of an American monarchy to Heinrich of Prussia, the King's brother.

With respect to the technology issue, Russia under Lenin and Stalin, and Germany under Hitler, were able to execute, starve, and brutalise tens of millions of people with technology that had already been in existence during the previous, constitutional (and monarchical) governments.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"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."

The Great War was started by ministers, rather than monarchs. The main instigator of Russian mobilisation had been the French emissary to the Tsar. If it were left up to the Tsar and Kaiser Wilhelm, there probably would not have been a war at all.

[WhiskeyPapa]

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

The French under the last few Louis's were taxed heavier than we are, by far.

It caused a revolution.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

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.

The Constitution doesn't do that.

But...Americans drive automobiles on the Moon. Is anybody else going to do that any time soon?

[WhiskeyPapa]

The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation.

The states never had that power -- except by revolution. The Supreme Court ruled on that as early as 1793. The Judiciary Act of 1789 requires that "controversies of a civil nature" between the states be submitted to the Supreme Court. Lastly (until the usual suspects show up) the Militia Act of 1792 requires that United States law operate in all the states.

The states have never had a right to withdraw from the Union under U.S. law.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I doubt it. There wasn't that much to spare. Taxes were lower before the machine age because they had to be: it took several farmers to feed a non-farmer. Farmers didn't have that much to spare. Todaay, a small fraction of the nation's work hours provides all the necessities, so there's a lot more surplus to play with. The government levies higher taxes today because it can.

If you read some of the accounts of the tax collectors in France, you might not think so.

Ironically, the Frogs bankrupted themselves into revolution in order to help us out against the Brits.

Walt

[KC Burke]

And the corrupt judiciary has been part and parcel of the shift.

While I imagine that you used the term "corrupt" as one readily at hand, I do wish the problem was that simple with that branch.

The activist judiciary we have is every bit as much a danger to the Rule of Law and legitiment government when animated by leftist ideals as it was when acting to support reactionary agendas, like Dred Scott, in the last century.

The Tempting of America by Robert Bork is an excellent study of this issue.

If it was nothing but "corruption", impeachment and other measures might address it. Instead, it is a foundational perversion of the role of a judiciary.

[WhiskeyPapa]

If it were left up to the Tsar and Kaiser Wilhelm, there probably would not have been a war at all.

I dunno. Kaiser Bill couldn't wait to get it on.

Walt

[u-89]

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.

--------------------------------

Yeh, I really liked that line too.

[TopQuark]

Hans-Hermann Hoppe appears to have missed all the developments in economics over the last 25 years and is stuck in Economics 101.

A state is defined conventionally as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decison-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation. By definition then, every state, regardless of its particular constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers.

That's a static example, with one good, which is private. Both cited powers are public rather than private goods.

So much for the "theory" of the state.

[Burkeman1]

You seem to think that Serfs were "share croppers". They were not. Even under the best form of Serfdom in England or in France Serfs didn't keep 75% of their crop (what would they do with it? Eat it? Not likely.) Serfs worked land as slaves with "rights" on paper and by tradition that may have been respected by their Lord- or not. ONe can't compare the "tax rates" of a Serf who wasn't even working his own land- not allowed to accumulate land, wealth, or pass anything on to his Children- to a modern a American citizen.

Totally off subject but: It is interesting to note as well that Serfdom declined in Western Europe faster than the Center or the East because of one event- The Black Death. The Plauge hit Western Europe much more severely than the rest of Europe (England suffered perhaps worst of all.) There were places in Western Europe were entire villages disappeared off the map and were swallowed by the wilderness again. This massive de-population of Western Europe gave the remaining Serfs power- their labor was needed and they could demand wages and even land titles for their labor from a landed class that had land but no hands to work it. The free, Western Europeon yeoman farmer was born from out of the ashes of the black death- and this class in turn generated a need for property rights law- real estate law- more sophisticated inheritence laws- indeed- created a demand for the rule of law, courts and officers to enforce law. One can trace a line from the birth of this new post Black Death class of free farmers and their "common law" to our Constitution.

[snooker]

The Costitution was tossed in the toilet when the Senate became elected instead of appointed by state governors. This made the states incapable of stopping any excess of the federal government and led to the little monarchs we have in the senate today.

This single change allowed the states to be loaded up with mandates with no end in sight.

All these arcane senate rules were designed to allow the states/governors to block onerous legislation. The filibuster was specifically to be used by state's senators to prevent big states from mandating things small states didn't want or couldn't do/afford.

Small changes mean a lot.

snooker

[Burkeman1]

Well- thats a bit of a false argument isn't it? Are you saying that WWI wasn't the result of "true Monarchism" much like leftists say that "real communism" wasn't Stalinism? Communists in the Gulags used to blame their arrest and torture on "ministers" as well and would moan "if only Stalin knew what was going on!"

[u-89]

accounts of the tax collectors

Pretty loathsome bunch those tax collectors. I read once about why in Jesus' days tax collectors were so despised. The Romans used some locals to collect the taxes and had a rate set for themselves and gave authority to certain chaps to get it and with this power these agents raked people over the coals and the Romans didn't care as long as they got theirs. The tax collectors got weallthy at the expense of their fellow citizens. Matthew, I believe was a tax collector, seems he had good reason to repent.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

War, unlike tango, does not require two. It only requires one who is sufficiently pushy. That would be the French. They invaded Germany in 1870 and got their heads handed to them. As a result, they lost two provinces that had been stolen by Napoleon in the first place. So they wanted to get even, and enlisted the Tsar's government in their scheme.

In a supporting role, perfidious Albion, which hasn't been a proper monarchy since the Stuarts went away.

[steve-b]

My recollection is that Bismarck got canned for, essentially, trying to talk Kaiser Bill into making policy based on rational thought instead of overcompensation for his bad arm.

[steve-b]

War, unlike tango, does not require two. It only requires one who is sufficiently pushy. That would be the French.

Er, the objective fact is that the Germans launched the invasion of France in 1914, not vice versa.

One might argue that the Germans were responding to French "pushiness", just as one might argue that the 9-11 Massacre was a response to American "imperialism". In either case, you'd better get your weight down to the point where it can be supported by the tensile strength of straws.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

This has been the English party line since 1914. Recent historiography (see The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson. Basic Books, 1998.) suggests the opposite.

The myth of German war guilt gave the western allies lots of leverage to bring the U.S. into the war. It also provided a moral justification for the peace that was dictated afterwards.