Libertarians generally cringe at most of what comes out of Hollywood and for good reason. The consistent message from its movies and movie stars is that private property and free enterprise are the scourge of society, that profits are made by exploiting the poor and working classes, and that private industry is the enemy of nature that will eventually destroy the earth.
Given this consistent anti-freedom message, it would be hard to blame anyone for a reflexive roll of the eyes upon hearing that Kevin Costner has come forward regarding the BP oil spill. However, this real-life story has a surprising twist. Costner is not calling for some tax-funded government boondoggle. Nor is he taking the opportunity to lecture the masses about their responsibility to sacrifice their lives and property to save the earth or why they should feel guilty for polluting it merely by being alive. Instead, Costner has provided a solution, born out of his entrepreneurial interest in a new technology, that may be effective in cleaning up the oily gulf.
According to an article in the LA Times, Costner and a business partner acquired Ocean Therapy Industries after the Exxon Valdez oil spill and “has spent 15 years and $24 million of his own money on this technology.” The technology had little commercial potential until the Deepwater Horizons accident, which may also qualify Costner as – gasp – a speculator.
The article goes on to say that, “The machines essentially operate like big, floating vacuum cleaners, which suck up oily water and spin it around at high speed. On one side, it spits out pure oil, which can be recovered. The other side spits out 99% pure water.” Costner and his partner hope to sell the reclaimed oil and donate most of the profits to local parishes which have suffered because of the spill. Presumably, the revenues for selling the machines themselves will constitute a handsome return on investment for Costner and his partner.
Whatever Costner’s political views may be, his actions speak louder than words. He is demonstrating yet again that every innovation that has improved the quality of human life has been the result of entrepreneurs taking risks in the hope of profits. While President Obama is making speeches and looking for asses to kick, private enterprise has stepped forward with a solution that will benefit all parties involved. Like all exchanges in a free market, the customer benefits from a new product that it needs or wants, the entrepreneur is enriched for risking his own money and devoting his own labor and time, and all of humanity benefits from the existence of new technology. There are no “losers” in a voluntary exchange of property.
In all fairness, this technology was originally developed by the U.S. government. However, it took the vision, commitment, and risk tolerance of a private investor to transform the technology into something useful and make it available when the time was right. This is also not without precedent. In the 1980’s, entrepreneur’s saw opportunity in a little-known technology called ARPANET, the result of a partnership between MIT and the Department of Defense. They decided to risk their own money developing this technology into something that would actually be useful to everyday people. They created products and services that billions now benefit from and the entrepreneurs were enriched in the process. Today, we call that technology the Internet.
Hopefully, Costner’s fellow actors, producers, and directors will not vilify Costner for “making money on this environmental tragedy.” I recommend that they look at it that Costner is “making the big, bad oil company pay” for the damage it has done. However, no amount of spin can change the facts. This solution was provided by a private entrepreneur who took a risk in the hope of profits. As far as this crisis is concerned, the score is Market 1, Government 0.
Libertarians don’t get to say this very often, so let me be the first: Hooray for Hollywood! Oh, and Kevin, good luck with your venture. I hope you make a million bucks.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Congressman Ron Paul Endorses A Return to Common Sense!
“Thomas Mullen is a knowledgeable and passionate libertarian and “A Return to Common Sense” is a valuable addition to the libertarian literature. Those new to the freedom movement will benefit from Tom’s introduction to both the practical and moral arguments for freedom. Long-time activists will benefit from Tom’s explanation of why strict adherence to principle is vital to the future success of the liberty moment.”
- Representative Ron Paul (TX-14)
Get your copy right here!
e-mail Tom Mullen
- Representative Ron Paul (TX-14)
Get your copy right here!
e-mail Tom Mullen
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Three Types of Government Spending
Any objection whatsoever to some new, tax-funded government program elicits a consistent response from liberals or progressives. “You just don’t want to pay your fair share,” or “I guess we won’t see you driving on any of those government roads or calling the government police or fire departments.” The underlying assumption is that taxation is an all or nothing proposition. Either there is nothing that the government can collect taxes for or there is nothing that the government cannot collect taxes for. There are no principles upon which to base an answer to the question, “Is this a legitimate function of government?”
While there are probably thousands of different services that governments spend money on, they can generally be divided into three broad categories: security, public services, and wealth redistribution. Libertarians[1] argue that the only legitimate government spending is on security. Conservatives generally approve of security and some public services with their rhetoric while engaging in all three types of spending when in public office. Liberals generally endorse all three types of spending with both their rhetoric and their actions while in public office.
“Security” includes all government functions which attempt to defend citizens from aggression against their rights by other human beings. These would include the military, various police forces, and the civil and criminal courts. These are the functions of government whose purpose is to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, property, etc.
It is important to remember that even if these are legitimate functions of government, it does not mean that they cannot be abused. For example, a small suburban village in a low-crime area may not need more than the county sheriff for a police force, but may instead bear a tax burden of village, town, county, state, and even federal police forces. However, these debates revolve around how efficiently the services are being provided, not whether they should be provided by the government at all.
“Public services” generally refers to services provided to all members of society. What makes a service a “public service” is that it can be reasonably assumed that every member of the society has an equal opportunity to utilize it. Examples include roads, bridges, public libraries, garbage collection services, and fire departments. Libertarians argue that these are goods and services that the private sector can provide. Their objection to providing them with tax dollars is that those who do not consent to purchase them are still forced to pay. While this is also true of security services, libertarians acquiesce to those on the assumption that it would be impossible to exercise property rights without a government in place to defend them.
Certainly, a bridge between a new suburb and the city may improve commerce for the entire city. However, it is not necessary to protect anyone’s rights. Therefore, libertarians argue that those who want to build the bridge should provide the capital for it themselves and are perfectly within their rights to charge a fee to those who wish to use the bridge. Conservatives have traditionally argued that these services can be funded by the government and provided by private corporations under government contracts. Liberals generally support public services as well, although they sometimes object to them being provided by private firms.
Like security services, public services are prone to abuse and corruption, even if one accepts that they are legitimate functions of government. Public funds are often wasted on services that are not needed or services that are poorly rendered because they are provided by politically-connected government employees or private firms, rather than by the most qualified. Consider the “bridges to nowhere,” the roadwork construction projects that never end, or the multitude of scandals where it was discovered that $500 was spent on a single nail or some other gross abuse of public funds occurred.
The third category of government spending is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution collects taxes from one group of people in order to provide services to another group. What makes this type of government spending different from public services is the fact that the goods or services provided do not benefit all members of society equally. For example, health benefits under Medicaid are paid for by all taxpayers but are only available to people whose income is under a defined eligibility level. Thus, those funds are literally taken from one group and redistributed to another. Both libertarians and conservatives argue that this is nothing more than legalized theft, although conservatives have often led or acquiesced to expansion of this type of spending once in office. President Bush’s expansion of Medicare is one of the most recent examples. Liberals and progressives generally support this type of spending, arguing that it is each person’s moral responsibility to “contribute.”
In order to have an informed debate about a new government program, one must identify which category the proposed program belongs in. Too often the distinctions between these categories are blurred by both critics and proponents. Most often, a program that would properly be categorized as wealth redistribution is represented as a public service in an effort to persuade those that must pay for it that it is their civic duty to do so.
For example, if the federal government issues a grant to build a commuter train in Florida, it is really redistributing the wealth of all of those outside of the service area of the train, especially those in other states who were taxed to underwrite the grant. It is certainly not reasonable to assume that citizens of Montana have an equal opportunity to utilize that train, yet they were taxed to fund it. Therefore, a commuter train to benefit Floridians does not fit the definition of a “public service” for the entire nation. Interestingly, it is exactly this type of government spending that the 2010 Census form cites as its primary reason for collecting data (so that your community receives its “fair share” of federal funding).
Similarly, Social Security and Medicare purport to be public services which provide a plan for wage earners to save for their retirement. However, everyone knows that since the beginning of both of those programs, the taxes collected to fund them have gone to pay current beneficiaries, not into some mythical trust fund. In fact, when Social Security did run surpluses in the past (when contributions exceeded the payouts to current beneficiaries), the government spent the excess money and replaced it with its own bonds, which are just promises to pay based upon future taxes! So, Social Security is and has always been a wealth redistribution program. The same is true for Medicare.
Wealth redistribution can even be disguised as security with the right amount of government propaganda. The military is a security function insofar as it defends its citizens against aggression by foreign nations. However, when the military grows beyond what is reasonably necessary for defense of U.S. citizens and into a worldwide institution, surrounded by multi-billion dollar corporations which exist solely to support it, and which both attacks nations that have not committed aggression against the United States and stations troops in over 130 nations, one must ask the question, “Who is benefitting from this tax-funded monstrosity?”
It is hard to make an argument that the security of the United States depends upon the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany, Korea, or Japan. U.S. troops arrived in those countries during a war that ended 65 years ago and remained there supposedly because of a Cold War that ended 20 years ago. At this point, the only Americans benefitting from the continuation of the U.S. troop presence around the world are the defense contractors who sell goods and services to the government to support the operations. Is this not wealth redistribution disguised as security?
Often, conservatives will argue that America is protecting her allies by stationing troops in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. However, even this argument does not hold up to scrutiny. If the money to support these operations is collected from Americans but really benefits German, Japanese, or other foreign citizens, is this not still wealth redistribution disguised as security? This is one of the main reasons that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson told us not to make those alliances in the first place and spent most of their presidencies trying to keep America out of foreign wars.
Liberals represent the latest government foray into the health care industry as a public service. They claim that this will provide coverage for the 45 million Americans who are not currently covered by some form of health insurance coverage. While this number is widely disputed by opponents as being grossly inflated, it still only represents 15% of the population, even if accurate. It then follows that 85% of the population already has some form of health care coverage. Therefore, how can it be argued that all U.S. citizens will benefit equally from this program?
The program will also provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to buy health insurance coverage on their own, which is mandated for everyone.[2] This aspect of the program is undisguised wealth redistribution, as taxes will be collected from all Americans and used to purchase services only for those who qualify due to their income. There is not even a scheme in place for this program to make it look as if the recipients are funding the benefits, as there is with Medicare or Social Security.
The history of federal government spending in America can be separated into three eras. The first was dominated by the ideas of Jefferson and classical liberals (now called “libertarians) and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” That document unambiguously limited government’s role to security.
Thirteen years later, Alexander Hamilton and his conservatives succeeded in drastically expanding the role of government with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. That document does not limit the government’s role to “securing rights,” but also to “promote the general welfare” and “form a more perfect union.” It grants the U.S. government the power to tax for the purposes of “promoting the general welfare.” This expansion of the role of government to include public services was then increasingly exploited by conservatives throughout the next century to institute wealth redistribution programs for the benefit of a wealthy elite, all disguised as public services or security. These included subsidies to corporations to build roads and canals, subsidies to railroads, and the establishment of a large, standing military force.[3]
Once the conservatives succeeded in establishing government as wealth redistributor to the wealthy, liberals abandoned the philosophy of government limited to security and instead began to advocate government as wealth redistributor to the poor and middle classes. This transformation can be traced roughly to the Woodrow Wilson administration, which combined elements of the conservative philosophy with modern liberal ideas of social justice. With the FDR administration, the transformation of liberal philosophy was complete. The liberals now sought to redistribute wealth to the poor and middle classes, while the conservatives continued to redistribute to the wealthy. These are the choices presented to Americans to this day.
There are large grassroots movements forming with one rallying point in common: they are all opposed to a federal government that spends $3.6 trillion dollars a year and shows no sign of slowing down. If the movements are to succeed, their constituents must clearly understand the three types of government spending and which one really costs the most. True security makes up so small a percentage of the federal budget that no income tax, national sales tax, or “value added tax” is necessary to fund it. Truly public services are also insignificant in terms of cost. Even the hapless postal service, for all of its inefficiency and waste, does not make up a significant portion of the federal budget.
No, it is not spending on security or public services that has bankrupted the federal government and destroyed the U.S. economy. The true cause of the problem has been the massive redistribution of wealth, perpetrated by conservatives for the benefit of the wealthy and by liberals for the benefit of everyone else. It is this type of government spending that must be recognized in all of its disguises and eliminated if the United States is to be saved.
[1] I use the term “libertarians” to describe those who advocate limited government. There are also many libertarians who advocate a completely stateless society, with even security functions provided by private firms in a free market.
[2] This is a gross violation of liberty and property rights as well.
[3] See Tom Dilorenzo’s excellent body of work on this, including Hamilton’s Curse, How Capitalism Saved America, and The Real Lincoln.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
While there are probably thousands of different services that governments spend money on, they can generally be divided into three broad categories: security, public services, and wealth redistribution. Libertarians[1] argue that the only legitimate government spending is on security. Conservatives generally approve of security and some public services with their rhetoric while engaging in all three types of spending when in public office. Liberals generally endorse all three types of spending with both their rhetoric and their actions while in public office.
“Security” includes all government functions which attempt to defend citizens from aggression against their rights by other human beings. These would include the military, various police forces, and the civil and criminal courts. These are the functions of government whose purpose is to secure the individual rights of life, liberty, property, etc.
It is important to remember that even if these are legitimate functions of government, it does not mean that they cannot be abused. For example, a small suburban village in a low-crime area may not need more than the county sheriff for a police force, but may instead bear a tax burden of village, town, county, state, and even federal police forces. However, these debates revolve around how efficiently the services are being provided, not whether they should be provided by the government at all.
“Public services” generally refers to services provided to all members of society. What makes a service a “public service” is that it can be reasonably assumed that every member of the society has an equal opportunity to utilize it. Examples include roads, bridges, public libraries, garbage collection services, and fire departments. Libertarians argue that these are goods and services that the private sector can provide. Their objection to providing them with tax dollars is that those who do not consent to purchase them are still forced to pay. While this is also true of security services, libertarians acquiesce to those on the assumption that it would be impossible to exercise property rights without a government in place to defend them.
Certainly, a bridge between a new suburb and the city may improve commerce for the entire city. However, it is not necessary to protect anyone’s rights. Therefore, libertarians argue that those who want to build the bridge should provide the capital for it themselves and are perfectly within their rights to charge a fee to those who wish to use the bridge. Conservatives have traditionally argued that these services can be funded by the government and provided by private corporations under government contracts. Liberals generally support public services as well, although they sometimes object to them being provided by private firms.
Like security services, public services are prone to abuse and corruption, even if one accepts that they are legitimate functions of government. Public funds are often wasted on services that are not needed or services that are poorly rendered because they are provided by politically-connected government employees or private firms, rather than by the most qualified. Consider the “bridges to nowhere,” the roadwork construction projects that never end, or the multitude of scandals where it was discovered that $500 was spent on a single nail or some other gross abuse of public funds occurred.
The third category of government spending is wealth redistribution. Wealth redistribution collects taxes from one group of people in order to provide services to another group. What makes this type of government spending different from public services is the fact that the goods or services provided do not benefit all members of society equally. For example, health benefits under Medicaid are paid for by all taxpayers but are only available to people whose income is under a defined eligibility level. Thus, those funds are literally taken from one group and redistributed to another. Both libertarians and conservatives argue that this is nothing more than legalized theft, although conservatives have often led or acquiesced to expansion of this type of spending once in office. President Bush’s expansion of Medicare is one of the most recent examples. Liberals and progressives generally support this type of spending, arguing that it is each person’s moral responsibility to “contribute.”
In order to have an informed debate about a new government program, one must identify which category the proposed program belongs in. Too often the distinctions between these categories are blurred by both critics and proponents. Most often, a program that would properly be categorized as wealth redistribution is represented as a public service in an effort to persuade those that must pay for it that it is their civic duty to do so.
For example, if the federal government issues a grant to build a commuter train in Florida, it is really redistributing the wealth of all of those outside of the service area of the train, especially those in other states who were taxed to underwrite the grant. It is certainly not reasonable to assume that citizens of Montana have an equal opportunity to utilize that train, yet they were taxed to fund it. Therefore, a commuter train to benefit Floridians does not fit the definition of a “public service” for the entire nation. Interestingly, it is exactly this type of government spending that the 2010 Census form cites as its primary reason for collecting data (so that your community receives its “fair share” of federal funding).
Similarly, Social Security and Medicare purport to be public services which provide a plan for wage earners to save for their retirement. However, everyone knows that since the beginning of both of those programs, the taxes collected to fund them have gone to pay current beneficiaries, not into some mythical trust fund. In fact, when Social Security did run surpluses in the past (when contributions exceeded the payouts to current beneficiaries), the government spent the excess money and replaced it with its own bonds, which are just promises to pay based upon future taxes! So, Social Security is and has always been a wealth redistribution program. The same is true for Medicare.
Wealth redistribution can even be disguised as security with the right amount of government propaganda. The military is a security function insofar as it defends its citizens against aggression by foreign nations. However, when the military grows beyond what is reasonably necessary for defense of U.S. citizens and into a worldwide institution, surrounded by multi-billion dollar corporations which exist solely to support it, and which both attacks nations that have not committed aggression against the United States and stations troops in over 130 nations, one must ask the question, “Who is benefitting from this tax-funded monstrosity?”
It is hard to make an argument that the security of the United States depends upon the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Germany, Korea, or Japan. U.S. troops arrived in those countries during a war that ended 65 years ago and remained there supposedly because of a Cold War that ended 20 years ago. At this point, the only Americans benefitting from the continuation of the U.S. troop presence around the world are the defense contractors who sell goods and services to the government to support the operations. Is this not wealth redistribution disguised as security?
Often, conservatives will argue that America is protecting her allies by stationing troops in Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. However, even this argument does not hold up to scrutiny. If the money to support these operations is collected from Americans but really benefits German, Japanese, or other foreign citizens, is this not still wealth redistribution disguised as security? This is one of the main reasons that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson told us not to make those alliances in the first place and spent most of their presidencies trying to keep America out of foreign wars.
Liberals represent the latest government foray into the health care industry as a public service. They claim that this will provide coverage for the 45 million Americans who are not currently covered by some form of health insurance coverage. While this number is widely disputed by opponents as being grossly inflated, it still only represents 15% of the population, even if accurate. It then follows that 85% of the population already has some form of health care coverage. Therefore, how can it be argued that all U.S. citizens will benefit equally from this program?
The program will also provide subsidies to those who cannot afford to buy health insurance coverage on their own, which is mandated for everyone.[2] This aspect of the program is undisguised wealth redistribution, as taxes will be collected from all Americans and used to purchase services only for those who qualify due to their income. There is not even a scheme in place for this program to make it look as if the recipients are funding the benefits, as there is with Medicare or Social Security.
The history of federal government spending in America can be separated into three eras. The first was dominated by the ideas of Jefferson and classical liberals (now called “libertarians) and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” That document unambiguously limited government’s role to security.
Thirteen years later, Alexander Hamilton and his conservatives succeeded in drastically expanding the role of government with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. That document does not limit the government’s role to “securing rights,” but also to “promote the general welfare” and “form a more perfect union.” It grants the U.S. government the power to tax for the purposes of “promoting the general welfare.” This expansion of the role of government to include public services was then increasingly exploited by conservatives throughout the next century to institute wealth redistribution programs for the benefit of a wealthy elite, all disguised as public services or security. These included subsidies to corporations to build roads and canals, subsidies to railroads, and the establishment of a large, standing military force.[3]
Once the conservatives succeeded in establishing government as wealth redistributor to the wealthy, liberals abandoned the philosophy of government limited to security and instead began to advocate government as wealth redistributor to the poor and middle classes. This transformation can be traced roughly to the Woodrow Wilson administration, which combined elements of the conservative philosophy with modern liberal ideas of social justice. With the FDR administration, the transformation of liberal philosophy was complete. The liberals now sought to redistribute wealth to the poor and middle classes, while the conservatives continued to redistribute to the wealthy. These are the choices presented to Americans to this day.
There are large grassroots movements forming with one rallying point in common: they are all opposed to a federal government that spends $3.6 trillion dollars a year and shows no sign of slowing down. If the movements are to succeed, their constituents must clearly understand the three types of government spending and which one really costs the most. True security makes up so small a percentage of the federal budget that no income tax, national sales tax, or “value added tax” is necessary to fund it. Truly public services are also insignificant in terms of cost. Even the hapless postal service, for all of its inefficiency and waste, does not make up a significant portion of the federal budget.
No, it is not spending on security or public services that has bankrupted the federal government and destroyed the U.S. economy. The true cause of the problem has been the massive redistribution of wealth, perpetrated by conservatives for the benefit of the wealthy and by liberals for the benefit of everyone else. It is this type of government spending that must be recognized in all of its disguises and eliminated if the United States is to be saved.
[1] I use the term “libertarians” to describe those who advocate limited government. There are also many libertarians who advocate a completely stateless society, with even security functions provided by private firms in a free market.
[2] This is a gross violation of liberty and property rights as well.
[3] See Tom Dilorenzo’s excellent body of work on this, including Hamilton’s Curse, How Capitalism Saved America, and The Real Lincoln.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
What is Limited Government?
It is certainly encouraging to see a massive grassroots movement demanding that government cease its exponential growth. The Tea Party movement has already flexed its muscles in some high-profile elections, and there is widespread consensus that it will be a factor in the 2010 elections. For the first time in over a century, there is a critical mass of people actually demanding limited government.
However, there is one very important question that must be answered. What is limited government?
The answer supplied by Republicans for the past several decades has been “lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less government spending.” These are all wonderful ideas, although Republicans have hardly put them into practice when given the reins of power. Afterwards, their supporters have chastised them for “not being true conservatives,” although I’m not sure that the conservative movement has ever really been about “small government.” In any case, the fundamental assumption underlying conservative rhetoric is that the limits of government are quantitative. One is led to believe that if the government would only spend less on health care, education, stimulus packages, and other programs (excluding the military, of course), that freedom, peace, and prosperity would be just around the corner.
However, limited government has nothing to do with how much money government spends, but rather what government is allowed to spend money on. Restoring freedom and constitutional government depends not just upon cutting taxes, but redefining what services government can legitimately tax its citizens to underwrite. At one time in America, there was a clear and unambiguous answer to that question: taxation was limited to underwriting the defense of life, liberty, and property.
Politicians have to mince words in order to keep fragile constituencies together, so they rarely make unambiguous statements. When one faction among their supporters opposes a new government health care program, they cannot agree on principle and say that government should have no role in providing health care. This would alienate another faction among their supporters that are currently benefitting from an already well-established government health care program. So, the politician uses words like “sensible” and “market-driven” in order to attack his opponent’s program without acknowledging the principle that it violates whether administered “sensibly” or not.
Truly limited government can only mean one thing: enforcing the non-aggression principle, known to our founders as “the law of nature.” Jefferson said that no man has the right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and that is all from which the law ought to restrain him. As government is merely the societal use of force, its limits are no different than the limits on the use of force by an individual. An individual may use force only in defense against aggression and under no other circumstances. He may never initiate force. The words “sensible,” “lower,” and “smaller” do not apply. The limits on government are absolute.
The argument that needs to be made against the current health care program is that it violates the law of nature. By forcing some people to pay for health care services that are provided to others and by forcing everyone to purchase health insurance regardless of their consent, government exceeds the natural limits of its power. It initiates force and thereby commits aggression against every individual in society. The initiation of aggression results in the state of war. It is for this reason that the new health care program should be repealed. Once the argument is diverted to one simply about cost or the practical means to fund the program, the principle of limited government has been abandoned.
While this is a relatively simple answer, as are all answers to questions of justice, it is a double-edged sword for conservatives. Once the true limits of government power are acknowledged, then a large swath of the conservative platform is called into question. Most obviously, garnering support from older Americans in opposing “Obamacare” on the grounds that it will necessitate cuts in Medicare contradicts the principle of limited government. The flimsy distinction between the new health care program and the old has been that Medicare recipients have “paid into the system all of their lives.” While this is undoubtedly true, everyone knows that those payments all went to underwrite previous beneficiaries and not into some magical trust fund. Medicare is no less a redistribution program than Obamacare. It just benefits a different special interest group.
While support for Medicare may merely be a political necessity for conservative politicians, truly limited government is also at odds with what has become the bedrock of modern conservatism: support for the worldwide U.S. military establishment. This is not to say that limited government means no military establishment at all. However, it does mean that the government has no legitimate authority to maintain standing armies overseas, to fight wars to protect one nation from another, or to protect a foreign people from a despotic government. The natural limit of government military action is to defend its own citizens against aggression by a foreign nation. Beyond this, it is initiating force and exceeding that natural limit.
One might argue that every individual has a right and a duty to protect a fellow human being from aggression by a third party, and that therefore the U.S. government’s military interventions around the world are justified. This was the basis for the (second) argument for the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was oppressing his people and the United States had a duty to protect them from him. However, no individual has a right to force someone else to defend a third party against aggression. Every American had the right to send money to support Hussein’s opponents or even to go and fight in a revolution to overthrow him. However, no American had the right to force his neighbor to do so. The natural limit on military spending is that which is necessary to protect those taxed to support it. Humanitarian aid in any form must be voluntary.
Liberals constantly use the term “fair share” when justifying the egregious taxation and redistribution system that the U.S. government has become. Of course, this begs the question, “What is my fair share of services that I don’t use and that I actively oppose?” The only rational answer to this question is “zero.” However, once you come to this inescapable conclusion, virtually all government social and economic programs must be eliminated, as they are all based upon taxing one person in order to provide benefits to another.
Limited government does require each individual to pay his fair share, which is the cost to protect his own life, liberty, and property and that of his dependents. It is limited to what is necessary to “secure these rights.” While everyone may not have an equal amount of property, everyone has equal rights and thus an equal stake in providing for their defense. An examination of the U.S. government’s budget reveals that the cost of providing this defense of individual rights is orders of magnitude less than what is spent now. A government operating within its natural limits would not require an income tax, a value added tax, or a “fair tax.” American history has already proven this.
While it may be justified in a theoretical sense, America’s massive redistribution state cannot be abolished with the stroke of a pen. Not even the staunchest libertarian really wants to see Social Security, Medicare, or public welfare turned off tomorrow, with the poor and elderly left to fend for themselves. However, to be committed to limited government means to be committed to working towards eliminating these programs, not reforming them. This may take generations to accomplish, but we must first at least acknowledge that they have to go.
What we can do right now is end our worldwide military empire. Unlike the social programs, this would not mean short-term hardship in exchange for long-term gain. Getting our soldiers out of the 130 countries that they are stationed in would provide an immediate benefit both to the United States and the rest of the world. Proponents of the empire would argue that a sudden withdrawal of our troops would “destabilize” the regions that they are stationed in, but this is absurd. The presence of troops does not provide stability. It inspires resentment and provokes the inhabitants to retaliate. Without a troop presence in the Middle East, the motivation for terrorism would quickly fade. It is much easier to recruit suicide bombers when you can show your recruits armed troops in their own neighborhood than it is trying to convince them to give their lives to stop women in some far off land from wearing mini-skirts. Does anyone really believe that this is why they want to kill us?
A little simple arithmetic will demonstrate that even eliminating all military spending would not allow us to pay for our welfare state. The total military budget is around $700 billion, while Social Security and Medicare alone are over $1 trillion, with Medicaid adding $400 billion more. This does not even take into consideration all of the smaller programs for housing, education, medical research, “infrastructure,” energy, agriculture – all of these programs violate the principle of limited government for the same reason that Obamacare does. Added together, the vast majority of non-military federal spending is some type of wealth redistribution. It would seem that there is no equitable way out.
The answer lies in revisiting the “fair share” idea. Unlike taxation, there is no such thing as a fair share of benefits derived from other people’s money. We must recognize that in order to undo the century of damage we have done to our society, some people are going to have to pay out more than they receive in benefits. We could certainly come up with a plan whereby people my age, in their mid-40’s, would only be guaranteed catastrophic coverage through Medicare and reduced payments from Social Security, both payable only with a demonstrated need rather than as an entitlement. This would allow new workers to get out of the system altogether and finally restore limited government and true social justice. Would it be fair? No. Neither is the status quo. However, it would lead to prosperity and justice for our children. The status quo will lead us to our destruction.
This is only one strategy and I am sure that smart people could come up with others. As the old saying goes, the first step in solving our problem is admitting that we have one. If we want limited government, we must recognize that it is far more than Obamacare or welfare for the poor that is violating the law of nature. Let us continue to oppose Obamacare, but let us also acknowledge the vast amount of work to do even after this new incursion into our liberty is vanquished.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
However, there is one very important question that must be answered. What is limited government?
The answer supplied by Republicans for the past several decades has been “lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less government spending.” These are all wonderful ideas, although Republicans have hardly put them into practice when given the reins of power. Afterwards, their supporters have chastised them for “not being true conservatives,” although I’m not sure that the conservative movement has ever really been about “small government.” In any case, the fundamental assumption underlying conservative rhetoric is that the limits of government are quantitative. One is led to believe that if the government would only spend less on health care, education, stimulus packages, and other programs (excluding the military, of course), that freedom, peace, and prosperity would be just around the corner.
However, limited government has nothing to do with how much money government spends, but rather what government is allowed to spend money on. Restoring freedom and constitutional government depends not just upon cutting taxes, but redefining what services government can legitimately tax its citizens to underwrite. At one time in America, there was a clear and unambiguous answer to that question: taxation was limited to underwriting the defense of life, liberty, and property.
Politicians have to mince words in order to keep fragile constituencies together, so they rarely make unambiguous statements. When one faction among their supporters opposes a new government health care program, they cannot agree on principle and say that government should have no role in providing health care. This would alienate another faction among their supporters that are currently benefitting from an already well-established government health care program. So, the politician uses words like “sensible” and “market-driven” in order to attack his opponent’s program without acknowledging the principle that it violates whether administered “sensibly” or not.
Truly limited government can only mean one thing: enforcing the non-aggression principle, known to our founders as “the law of nature.” Jefferson said that no man has the right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and that is all from which the law ought to restrain him. As government is merely the societal use of force, its limits are no different than the limits on the use of force by an individual. An individual may use force only in defense against aggression and under no other circumstances. He may never initiate force. The words “sensible,” “lower,” and “smaller” do not apply. The limits on government are absolute.
The argument that needs to be made against the current health care program is that it violates the law of nature. By forcing some people to pay for health care services that are provided to others and by forcing everyone to purchase health insurance regardless of their consent, government exceeds the natural limits of its power. It initiates force and thereby commits aggression against every individual in society. The initiation of aggression results in the state of war. It is for this reason that the new health care program should be repealed. Once the argument is diverted to one simply about cost or the practical means to fund the program, the principle of limited government has been abandoned.
While this is a relatively simple answer, as are all answers to questions of justice, it is a double-edged sword for conservatives. Once the true limits of government power are acknowledged, then a large swath of the conservative platform is called into question. Most obviously, garnering support from older Americans in opposing “Obamacare” on the grounds that it will necessitate cuts in Medicare contradicts the principle of limited government. The flimsy distinction between the new health care program and the old has been that Medicare recipients have “paid into the system all of their lives.” While this is undoubtedly true, everyone knows that those payments all went to underwrite previous beneficiaries and not into some magical trust fund. Medicare is no less a redistribution program than Obamacare. It just benefits a different special interest group.
While support for Medicare may merely be a political necessity for conservative politicians, truly limited government is also at odds with what has become the bedrock of modern conservatism: support for the worldwide U.S. military establishment. This is not to say that limited government means no military establishment at all. However, it does mean that the government has no legitimate authority to maintain standing armies overseas, to fight wars to protect one nation from another, or to protect a foreign people from a despotic government. The natural limit of government military action is to defend its own citizens against aggression by a foreign nation. Beyond this, it is initiating force and exceeding that natural limit.
One might argue that every individual has a right and a duty to protect a fellow human being from aggression by a third party, and that therefore the U.S. government’s military interventions around the world are justified. This was the basis for the (second) argument for the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was oppressing his people and the United States had a duty to protect them from him. However, no individual has a right to force someone else to defend a third party against aggression. Every American had the right to send money to support Hussein’s opponents or even to go and fight in a revolution to overthrow him. However, no American had the right to force his neighbor to do so. The natural limit on military spending is that which is necessary to protect those taxed to support it. Humanitarian aid in any form must be voluntary.
Liberals constantly use the term “fair share” when justifying the egregious taxation and redistribution system that the U.S. government has become. Of course, this begs the question, “What is my fair share of services that I don’t use and that I actively oppose?” The only rational answer to this question is “zero.” However, once you come to this inescapable conclusion, virtually all government social and economic programs must be eliminated, as they are all based upon taxing one person in order to provide benefits to another.
Limited government does require each individual to pay his fair share, which is the cost to protect his own life, liberty, and property and that of his dependents. It is limited to what is necessary to “secure these rights.” While everyone may not have an equal amount of property, everyone has equal rights and thus an equal stake in providing for their defense. An examination of the U.S. government’s budget reveals that the cost of providing this defense of individual rights is orders of magnitude less than what is spent now. A government operating within its natural limits would not require an income tax, a value added tax, or a “fair tax.” American history has already proven this.
While it may be justified in a theoretical sense, America’s massive redistribution state cannot be abolished with the stroke of a pen. Not even the staunchest libertarian really wants to see Social Security, Medicare, or public welfare turned off tomorrow, with the poor and elderly left to fend for themselves. However, to be committed to limited government means to be committed to working towards eliminating these programs, not reforming them. This may take generations to accomplish, but we must first at least acknowledge that they have to go.
What we can do right now is end our worldwide military empire. Unlike the social programs, this would not mean short-term hardship in exchange for long-term gain. Getting our soldiers out of the 130 countries that they are stationed in would provide an immediate benefit both to the United States and the rest of the world. Proponents of the empire would argue that a sudden withdrawal of our troops would “destabilize” the regions that they are stationed in, but this is absurd. The presence of troops does not provide stability. It inspires resentment and provokes the inhabitants to retaliate. Without a troop presence in the Middle East, the motivation for terrorism would quickly fade. It is much easier to recruit suicide bombers when you can show your recruits armed troops in their own neighborhood than it is trying to convince them to give their lives to stop women in some far off land from wearing mini-skirts. Does anyone really believe that this is why they want to kill us?
A little simple arithmetic will demonstrate that even eliminating all military spending would not allow us to pay for our welfare state. The total military budget is around $700 billion, while Social Security and Medicare alone are over $1 trillion, with Medicaid adding $400 billion more. This does not even take into consideration all of the smaller programs for housing, education, medical research, “infrastructure,” energy, agriculture – all of these programs violate the principle of limited government for the same reason that Obamacare does. Added together, the vast majority of non-military federal spending is some type of wealth redistribution. It would seem that there is no equitable way out.
The answer lies in revisiting the “fair share” idea. Unlike taxation, there is no such thing as a fair share of benefits derived from other people’s money. We must recognize that in order to undo the century of damage we have done to our society, some people are going to have to pay out more than they receive in benefits. We could certainly come up with a plan whereby people my age, in their mid-40’s, would only be guaranteed catastrophic coverage through Medicare and reduced payments from Social Security, both payable only with a demonstrated need rather than as an entitlement. This would allow new workers to get out of the system altogether and finally restore limited government and true social justice. Would it be fair? No. Neither is the status quo. However, it would lead to prosperity and justice for our children. The status quo will lead us to our destruction.
This is only one strategy and I am sure that smart people could come up with others. As the old saying goes, the first step in solving our problem is admitting that we have one. If we want limited government, we must recognize that it is far more than Obamacare or welfare for the poor that is violating the law of nature. Let us continue to oppose Obamacare, but let us also acknowledge the vast amount of work to do even after this new incursion into our liberty is vanquished.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Fed Audit Goes the Way of the Tea Party
"Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow of necessity."
- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944)
When Congressman Ron Paul proposed his bill to subject the Federal Reserve System to regular audits, it was no secret what his ultimate objective was. If there was any doubt, his subsequent book, End the Fed, eliminated it. Congressman Paul hoped to educate the public about just what the Federal Reserve does – transfer wealth. With regularly scheduled audits, average Americans would see that new money and credit created by the Fed in the form of loans makes its way quickly and consistently to Wall Street, defense contractors, and government agencies.
Meanwhile, people would slowly begin to catch on that this apparent act of magic was not without a cost; that in fact, they were bearing the cost themselves through the loss of their purchasing power due to inflation of the money supply. This could plausibly start a popular movement to do exactly what Paul has been calling for throughout his political career. The key to the strategy was to educate Americans on the principle at issue with the Federal Reserve.
The principle is each individual's right to keep his own property, which the Fed is completely antagonistic to. The Federal Reserve System is an instrument of theft. Even if managed flawlessly (which it never has been) by its government-appointed central planners, the Fed would still accomplish every one of its goals by taking property from some people and giving it to others. It is no less a wealth redistribution scheme than Medicaid, food stamps, or Social Security. The only difference is a cosmetic one. Instead of clumsily removing dollars from Person A’s bank account and depositing them into Person B’s, as Congress does through taxation and appropriation, the Fed operates with a more graceful subtlety. It allows Person A to keep his dollars while merely creating new ones for Person B. However, Person B’s new purchasing power has not been created. It has been stolen from Person A, whose dollars are now worth something less than they were before the new dollars were printed.
It is no mistake that a state-controlled central bank with an exclusive monopoly was one of Karl Marx’s ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. A system in which people are forced to use a state-sponsored currency, manipulated by a central bank to transfer wealth in support of the goals of the state at the expense of the individual is a completely communist, collectivist idea. No matter which monetary policy is pursued, the existence of monetary policy is anti-capitalist and anti-freedom.
Sadly, that central point has been largely obscured due to the varied ideologies of the people that make up the coalition that Congressman Paul has put together. Instead of an indictment of the ongoing theft that central bank monetary policy represents, the focus has shifted exclusively to the money and credit created during and after the financial crisis of 2008. The newly proposed one-time audit will show that the funds were directed towards Wall Street banking giants and foreign central banks. Both then and now, the cries of "but what about average Americans?" can be heard from populists of every political persuasion. It is no longer a question of whether or not we should steal, but rather how we should split up the loot.
It is important to remember that even if 100% of the money and credit in question was instead directed to average Americans in danger of mortgage foreclosure, it would still be stealing. The purchasing power in question would still have been taken from Person A in order to be redistributed to the troubled borrowers. Moreover, it would be just as economically destructive, as all wealth redistribution by government ultimately is. The only distinction would be that a different special interest group would be benefitting at the expense of the rights of those victimized to underwrite them.
This dearth of principle is pervasive in political protest movements in America today. There are no end of demagogues calling up the ghosts of early American heroes of liberty; some even wearing three-cornered hats for effect. The Tea Party is one example. Certainly it is laudable that its members oppose "Obamacare," but how many would show up for Tea Party rallies if opposition to Medicare was also part of the platform? In reality, the lion's share of support for the so-called Tea Party comes from Medicare beneficiaries who object not to government-provided health care, but to the program that they benefit from being cut to fund a program for other people. They also largely support the forced redistribution of wealth from individuals to military contractors and the government in support of the United States' worldwide military establishment, which they extol as if it weren't also a massive government program.
It is a sobering reality that any real understanding of liberty has been completely eradicated in the minds of most Americans today. Instead, we have become a collection of special interest groups, all competing with each other politically for other people's money. Our "progressive" education system has rendered most Americans completely incapable of conceiving that there is an alternative to a government-directed economy. When confronted with the bank bailouts of 2008, the universal, conditioned response was one of outrage that wealthy bankers were getting public funds and average American homeowners were not. The idea that it was a violation of the rights of those from whom the money was taken never entered into their minds.
Why would it? That principle had never been taught to them in school. It was not voiced in the media. No politician, conservative, liberal, or otherwise, articulated it at all. The closest thing to it was the "moral hazard" argument, that rewarding the people who caused the problem would only lead to further problems. However, this is a sound economic argument made from a collectivist perspective, based upon what might acheive the best aggregate results, rather than one based upon freedom or individual rights. That the economic analysis happens to be true in the case of the "moral hazard" argument only further obscures the fundamental principle that makes it true. One might conclude from this argument that central planning and wealth redistribution would be beneficial if the planning and redistribution were done more wisely. The moral hazard argument correctly points to a negative effect but distracts us from the underlying cause - the violation of individual rights. It is this underlying cause that is at the root of every societal problem facing America today.
All resistance to government wealth redistribution is a good thing, regardless of whether the motives of every protestor are completely "pure" as defined by political theorists. The one-time audit of the Fed will be helpful, even if it is motivated in large part by the politics of jealousy rather than principle. However, it is the job of everyone who believes in and yearns for freedom to point out early, often, and loudly that the central objection to the Fed should be that it steals in the first place, not to how it divides up the take. Once that distinction is clear in the minds of average Americans, it is a cure for virtually all of our afflictions of government.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (1944)
When Congressman Ron Paul proposed his bill to subject the Federal Reserve System to regular audits, it was no secret what his ultimate objective was. If there was any doubt, his subsequent book, End the Fed, eliminated it. Congressman Paul hoped to educate the public about just what the Federal Reserve does – transfer wealth. With regularly scheduled audits, average Americans would see that new money and credit created by the Fed in the form of loans makes its way quickly and consistently to Wall Street, defense contractors, and government agencies.
Meanwhile, people would slowly begin to catch on that this apparent act of magic was not without a cost; that in fact, they were bearing the cost themselves through the loss of their purchasing power due to inflation of the money supply. This could plausibly start a popular movement to do exactly what Paul has been calling for throughout his political career. The key to the strategy was to educate Americans on the principle at issue with the Federal Reserve.
The principle is each individual's right to keep his own property, which the Fed is completely antagonistic to. The Federal Reserve System is an instrument of theft. Even if managed flawlessly (which it never has been) by its government-appointed central planners, the Fed would still accomplish every one of its goals by taking property from some people and giving it to others. It is no less a wealth redistribution scheme than Medicaid, food stamps, or Social Security. The only difference is a cosmetic one. Instead of clumsily removing dollars from Person A’s bank account and depositing them into Person B’s, as Congress does through taxation and appropriation, the Fed operates with a more graceful subtlety. It allows Person A to keep his dollars while merely creating new ones for Person B. However, Person B’s new purchasing power has not been created. It has been stolen from Person A, whose dollars are now worth something less than they were before the new dollars were printed.
It is no mistake that a state-controlled central bank with an exclusive monopoly was one of Karl Marx’s ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. A system in which people are forced to use a state-sponsored currency, manipulated by a central bank to transfer wealth in support of the goals of the state at the expense of the individual is a completely communist, collectivist idea. No matter which monetary policy is pursued, the existence of monetary policy is anti-capitalist and anti-freedom.
Sadly, that central point has been largely obscured due to the varied ideologies of the people that make up the coalition that Congressman Paul has put together. Instead of an indictment of the ongoing theft that central bank monetary policy represents, the focus has shifted exclusively to the money and credit created during and after the financial crisis of 2008. The newly proposed one-time audit will show that the funds were directed towards Wall Street banking giants and foreign central banks. Both then and now, the cries of "but what about average Americans?" can be heard from populists of every political persuasion. It is no longer a question of whether or not we should steal, but rather how we should split up the loot.
It is important to remember that even if 100% of the money and credit in question was instead directed to average Americans in danger of mortgage foreclosure, it would still be stealing. The purchasing power in question would still have been taken from Person A in order to be redistributed to the troubled borrowers. Moreover, it would be just as economically destructive, as all wealth redistribution by government ultimately is. The only distinction would be that a different special interest group would be benefitting at the expense of the rights of those victimized to underwrite them.
This dearth of principle is pervasive in political protest movements in America today. There are no end of demagogues calling up the ghosts of early American heroes of liberty; some even wearing three-cornered hats for effect. The Tea Party is one example. Certainly it is laudable that its members oppose "Obamacare," but how many would show up for Tea Party rallies if opposition to Medicare was also part of the platform? In reality, the lion's share of support for the so-called Tea Party comes from Medicare beneficiaries who object not to government-provided health care, but to the program that they benefit from being cut to fund a program for other people. They also largely support the forced redistribution of wealth from individuals to military contractors and the government in support of the United States' worldwide military establishment, which they extol as if it weren't also a massive government program.
It is a sobering reality that any real understanding of liberty has been completely eradicated in the minds of most Americans today. Instead, we have become a collection of special interest groups, all competing with each other politically for other people's money. Our "progressive" education system has rendered most Americans completely incapable of conceiving that there is an alternative to a government-directed economy. When confronted with the bank bailouts of 2008, the universal, conditioned response was one of outrage that wealthy bankers were getting public funds and average American homeowners were not. The idea that it was a violation of the rights of those from whom the money was taken never entered into their minds.
Why would it? That principle had never been taught to them in school. It was not voiced in the media. No politician, conservative, liberal, or otherwise, articulated it at all. The closest thing to it was the "moral hazard" argument, that rewarding the people who caused the problem would only lead to further problems. However, this is a sound economic argument made from a collectivist perspective, based upon what might acheive the best aggregate results, rather than one based upon freedom or individual rights. That the economic analysis happens to be true in the case of the "moral hazard" argument only further obscures the fundamental principle that makes it true. One might conclude from this argument that central planning and wealth redistribution would be beneficial if the planning and redistribution were done more wisely. The moral hazard argument correctly points to a negative effect but distracts us from the underlying cause - the violation of individual rights. It is this underlying cause that is at the root of every societal problem facing America today.
All resistance to government wealth redistribution is a good thing, regardless of whether the motives of every protestor are completely "pure" as defined by political theorists. The one-time audit of the Fed will be helpful, even if it is motivated in large part by the politics of jealousy rather than principle. However, it is the job of everyone who believes in and yearns for freedom to point out early, often, and loudly that the central objection to the Fed should be that it steals in the first place, not to how it divides up the take. Once that distinction is clear in the minds of average Americans, it is a cure for virtually all of our afflictions of government.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Fighting For Our Freedom?
To even question the active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the now-institutionalized worldwide military empire being maintained by the U.S. government draws tourrettes-like attacks from all who identify themselves as conservatives. Not only are critics of U.S. foreign policy accused of being unpatriotic or even traitorous, but conservatives routinely go so far as to label them ungrateful. The argument goes that critics of the empire enjoy the freedom of speech with which they criticize the government only because the military has fought to defend that freedom. Therefore, those who oppose the present wars or our military presence around the world should be ashamed of themselves for "biting the hand that feeds them."
Of course, this argument rests upon an assumption. The assumption is that if the U.S. had not fought any of its past or current wars or had not maintained its military presence around the world, that we would have lost some or all of our freedom. This fundamental assumption is never questioned (or I suspect even considered) by supporters of U.S. foreign policy, despite the fact that it completely disintegrates under even superficial examination.
Let's give conservatives WWII for now, Pat Buchanan's interesting arguments notwithstanding. Is there any credible argument to be made regarding any of the major wars that the United States has waged since 1945 wherein one could conclude that not fighting it would have resulted in a loss of freedom for Americans? What chain of events can any reasonable person construct whereby U.S. citizens would have lost their freedom if not for the invasions of Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq?
The first two post-WWII wars were justified for ostensibly the same reason. We supposedly had to prevent the communist governments of North Korea and North Viet Nam from taking over South Korea and South Viet Nam, respectively, because if we did not, communism would spread like a virus throughout all of Asia and eventually the world. This was the so-called "Domino Theory." While anyone with a globe that is more or less correctly scaled can see through the ridiculousness of the argument in terms of Korea, one need not even resort to conjecture to refute this argument regarding the Viet Nam war. History has shown in its case that the domino theory was completely untrue.
North Viet Nam did take over South Viet Nam. The U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam in defeat and the very outcome that the U.S. had spent 14 years, the lives of 50,000 U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to prevent came to pass. The communists took over all of Viet Nam.
Did American citizens lose any freedom as a result? No. In fact, as young men were no longer conscripted into the army to participate in this futile exercise, anti-war protestors were no longer being suppressed, and a huge chunk of government spending was eliminated (in theory, anyway), Americans were actually far freer once the war was lost than they were while it was being fought.
There is no argument to be made, no matter how far logic is stretched or how much disbelief is suspended, that Americans lost any freedom as a result of the loss of the Viet Nam war. Therefore, the assertion that the troops fighting it were "fighting for our freedom" must be false.
Moreover, communism didn't spread like wildfire beyond Viet Nam. After approximately 12 years, it imploded there just as it did in China at about the same time. In the mid-1980's, the Vietnamese began transitioning to a market economy, just as China did. Today, both countries are arguably as capitalist as the United States, which unfortunately isn't saying much.
As for Korea, the most generous conclusion one could come to regarding the "fighting for our freedom" theory is that the jury is still out - sixty years later. U.S. troops are still stationed at the 38th parallel, supposedly keeping the communist barbarians from taking over South Korea as a stepping stone to the rest of the world. Here speculation is certainly necessary, but not random speculation. While it certainly would not be a postive outcome for South Koreans, can anyone seriously argue that if North Korea took over South Korea tomorrow that American freedom would be lost or even noticeably diminished? How?
Fast forward 25 years and consider the present war in Iraq. That war was started based upon on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that it was preparing to use against its neighbors to destablize the Middle East. Let's pretend for a moment that this assertion was not proven completely false. Exactly how would another war in the Middle East, which would presumably resemble Iraq's ten-year war with Iran, jeapordize the freedom of American citizens? What cause and effect relationship could possibly be established between Middle Eastern politics and American freedom? This question has to be answered before the "fighting for our freedom" assertion can be proven.
There is only one answer: none. The Middle East has been unstable for thousands of years, and freedom has come and gone for countless western nations regardless of political devleopments in the Middle East, with the exception of the actual invasions of Western Europe by Muslim nations in the Middle Ages. Those were ultimately defeated. Certainly today the Middle Eastern nations pose no military threat to Europe, much less the United States. To assert that Afghanistan could possibly threaten American freedom borders upon the absurd.
Putting the active wars aside for the moment, any objective observer would be even harder pressed to conclude that the U.S. military presence in the other 135 countries in which the U.S. maintains troops is contributing anything toward American freedom. Can anyone seriously argue that if the U.S. government were to remove the 56,000 troops presently stationed in Germany that American freedom would somehow be jeopardized? How? The same question applies to the 33,000 troops in Japan, the 10,000 in Italy, and so on. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that Americans would be one iota less free if all of these troops were to come home.
Warfare conducted for any purpose other than defending the borders of the nation does not make Americans freer. On the contrary, it destroys freedom without exception. More of Americans' property is confiscated in taxes to support warfare. Freedom of speech is curtailed. Opponents of the war are rounded up and imprisoned or exiled. Privacy is destroyed by the government in search of enemy spies or saboteurs. These destructions of freedom have occurred during every war that the United States has ever fought, including all of the wars of the past 60 years.
Furthermore, America's vast military presence in countries where no active war is being fought also results in less freedom for Americans. Regardless of the public relations efforts of the U.S. military establishment, foreign troops are universally regarded the same way by the citizens of countries where they are stationed: they are resented. This resentment breeds terrorism in some countries and other forms of protest in others. Americans traveling abroad are much less free in what they can do, where they can safely go, and where they are welcome because of resentment born of U.S. troops stationed in foreign nations.
As Randolph Bourne famously observed, "war is the health of the state," and the state is the enemy of freedom. America was founded upon the idea that the state was "at best a necessary evil" and that there was an inverse relationship between war and liberty. James Madison wrote that if "tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. No Nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." History has proven him correct. In the post-WWII era, the wars have become more numerous and longer and government has grown exponentionally. With the expansion of war and the state, freedom has diminished.
This is not an argument for pacifisim or against the actual soldiers. We live in a world with other nations that pose a threat to our lives and liberty and there must be some means to defend ourselves against an aggressor nation. Whatever their reasons for joining, the men and women who serve in our miltary do make a huge sacrifice. The overwhelming majority of them serve honorably both on the battlefield and off. They join believing that they are defending our nation and freedom and the blame for our foreign policy does not rest with them. A military force cannot function with each of its members questioning every order before carrying it out. They have an obligation to disobey an order which is obviously immoral, such as shooting a non-combatant or torturing a prisoner, but beyond situations like those they must carry out their orders without question. They place a sacred trust in their civilian leaders to deploy them only when it is absolutely necessary.
It is those civilian leaders who have violated that trust over and over again for the past sixty years. It is they who have not supported our troops, spending their lives like so much loose change in wars that have been fought for everything but freedom. They have sent them to countries that pose no military threat to the United States whatsoever and then tied their hands with rules of engagement that, whether intentionally or not, have prolonged those wars for years and even decades. There can be no greater insult to the honor of brave soldiers than to exhort them to give their lives defending freedom when in fact freedom is not at issue in the war.
The United States government is broke. It has accumulated a debt that can never legitimately be repaid. While entitlement programs are ultimately far more economically destructive, costing over twice as much as U.S. military adventures, the $700 billion annual military budget is the next largest contributor to the deficits. Of that $700 billion, less than $200 billion is spent fighting the two current active wars. An active war should represent the high water mark of government spending, yet most of our military expenditures go to support standing armies in places like Germany and Japan.
It is evident that the military could be downsized by orders of magnitude without jeapordizing U.S. security in the least. In fact, the U.S. would be far more secure without troops in 135 countries inspiring resentment against Americans and fighting wars against nations that could not launch a military attack against the United States in anyone's wildest dreams. Most importantly, the lives of hundreds of thousands of our troops, their opponents, and the innocent civilians in the countries that they fight in would be spared.
The gargantuan U.S. military establishment survives because American soldiers and civilians continue to accept the assertion that it is necessary to preserve our freedom. This assertion is at best a destructive delusion and at worst an insidious lie, told by people who care nothing for our troops or the civilians they defend. It is time to stop believing the lie and to truly support our troops. Bring them home.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Of course, this argument rests upon an assumption. The assumption is that if the U.S. had not fought any of its past or current wars or had not maintained its military presence around the world, that we would have lost some or all of our freedom. This fundamental assumption is never questioned (or I suspect even considered) by supporters of U.S. foreign policy, despite the fact that it completely disintegrates under even superficial examination.
Let's give conservatives WWII for now, Pat Buchanan's interesting arguments notwithstanding. Is there any credible argument to be made regarding any of the major wars that the United States has waged since 1945 wherein one could conclude that not fighting it would have resulted in a loss of freedom for Americans? What chain of events can any reasonable person construct whereby U.S. citizens would have lost their freedom if not for the invasions of Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, or Iraq?
The first two post-WWII wars were justified for ostensibly the same reason. We supposedly had to prevent the communist governments of North Korea and North Viet Nam from taking over South Korea and South Viet Nam, respectively, because if we did not, communism would spread like a virus throughout all of Asia and eventually the world. This was the so-called "Domino Theory." While anyone with a globe that is more or less correctly scaled can see through the ridiculousness of the argument in terms of Korea, one need not even resort to conjecture to refute this argument regarding the Viet Nam war. History has shown in its case that the domino theory was completely untrue.
North Viet Nam did take over South Viet Nam. The U.S. pulled out of Viet Nam in defeat and the very outcome that the U.S. had spent 14 years, the lives of 50,000 U.S. soldiers, and hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to prevent came to pass. The communists took over all of Viet Nam.
Did American citizens lose any freedom as a result? No. In fact, as young men were no longer conscripted into the army to participate in this futile exercise, anti-war protestors were no longer being suppressed, and a huge chunk of government spending was eliminated (in theory, anyway), Americans were actually far freer once the war was lost than they were while it was being fought.
There is no argument to be made, no matter how far logic is stretched or how much disbelief is suspended, that Americans lost any freedom as a result of the loss of the Viet Nam war. Therefore, the assertion that the troops fighting it were "fighting for our freedom" must be false.
Moreover, communism didn't spread like wildfire beyond Viet Nam. After approximately 12 years, it imploded there just as it did in China at about the same time. In the mid-1980's, the Vietnamese began transitioning to a market economy, just as China did. Today, both countries are arguably as capitalist as the United States, which unfortunately isn't saying much.
As for Korea, the most generous conclusion one could come to regarding the "fighting for our freedom" theory is that the jury is still out - sixty years later. U.S. troops are still stationed at the 38th parallel, supposedly keeping the communist barbarians from taking over South Korea as a stepping stone to the rest of the world. Here speculation is certainly necessary, but not random speculation. While it certainly would not be a postive outcome for South Koreans, can anyone seriously argue that if North Korea took over South Korea tomorrow that American freedom would be lost or even noticeably diminished? How?
Fast forward 25 years and consider the present war in Iraq. That war was started based upon on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that it was preparing to use against its neighbors to destablize the Middle East. Let's pretend for a moment that this assertion was not proven completely false. Exactly how would another war in the Middle East, which would presumably resemble Iraq's ten-year war with Iran, jeapordize the freedom of American citizens? What cause and effect relationship could possibly be established between Middle Eastern politics and American freedom? This question has to be answered before the "fighting for our freedom" assertion can be proven.
There is only one answer: none. The Middle East has been unstable for thousands of years, and freedom has come and gone for countless western nations regardless of political devleopments in the Middle East, with the exception of the actual invasions of Western Europe by Muslim nations in the Middle Ages. Those were ultimately defeated. Certainly today the Middle Eastern nations pose no military threat to Europe, much less the United States. To assert that Afghanistan could possibly threaten American freedom borders upon the absurd.
Putting the active wars aside for the moment, any objective observer would be even harder pressed to conclude that the U.S. military presence in the other 135 countries in which the U.S. maintains troops is contributing anything toward American freedom. Can anyone seriously argue that if the U.S. government were to remove the 56,000 troops presently stationed in Germany that American freedom would somehow be jeopardized? How? The same question applies to the 33,000 troops in Japan, the 10,000 in Italy, and so on. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that Americans would be one iota less free if all of these troops were to come home.
Warfare conducted for any purpose other than defending the borders of the nation does not make Americans freer. On the contrary, it destroys freedom without exception. More of Americans' property is confiscated in taxes to support warfare. Freedom of speech is curtailed. Opponents of the war are rounded up and imprisoned or exiled. Privacy is destroyed by the government in search of enemy spies or saboteurs. These destructions of freedom have occurred during every war that the United States has ever fought, including all of the wars of the past 60 years.
Furthermore, America's vast military presence in countries where no active war is being fought also results in less freedom for Americans. Regardless of the public relations efforts of the U.S. military establishment, foreign troops are universally regarded the same way by the citizens of countries where they are stationed: they are resented. This resentment breeds terrorism in some countries and other forms of protest in others. Americans traveling abroad are much less free in what they can do, where they can safely go, and where they are welcome because of resentment born of U.S. troops stationed in foreign nations.
As Randolph Bourne famously observed, "war is the health of the state," and the state is the enemy of freedom. America was founded upon the idea that the state was "at best a necessary evil" and that there was an inverse relationship between war and liberty. James Madison wrote that if "tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. No Nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." History has proven him correct. In the post-WWII era, the wars have become more numerous and longer and government has grown exponentionally. With the expansion of war and the state, freedom has diminished.
This is not an argument for pacifisim or against the actual soldiers. We live in a world with other nations that pose a threat to our lives and liberty and there must be some means to defend ourselves against an aggressor nation. Whatever their reasons for joining, the men and women who serve in our miltary do make a huge sacrifice. The overwhelming majority of them serve honorably both on the battlefield and off. They join believing that they are defending our nation and freedom and the blame for our foreign policy does not rest with them. A military force cannot function with each of its members questioning every order before carrying it out. They have an obligation to disobey an order which is obviously immoral, such as shooting a non-combatant or torturing a prisoner, but beyond situations like those they must carry out their orders without question. They place a sacred trust in their civilian leaders to deploy them only when it is absolutely necessary.
It is those civilian leaders who have violated that trust over and over again for the past sixty years. It is they who have not supported our troops, spending their lives like so much loose change in wars that have been fought for everything but freedom. They have sent them to countries that pose no military threat to the United States whatsoever and then tied their hands with rules of engagement that, whether intentionally or not, have prolonged those wars for years and even decades. There can be no greater insult to the honor of brave soldiers than to exhort them to give their lives defending freedom when in fact freedom is not at issue in the war.
The United States government is broke. It has accumulated a debt that can never legitimately be repaid. While entitlement programs are ultimately far more economically destructive, costing over twice as much as U.S. military adventures, the $700 billion annual military budget is the next largest contributor to the deficits. Of that $700 billion, less than $200 billion is spent fighting the two current active wars. An active war should represent the high water mark of government spending, yet most of our military expenditures go to support standing armies in places like Germany and Japan.
It is evident that the military could be downsized by orders of magnitude without jeapordizing U.S. security in the least. In fact, the U.S. would be far more secure without troops in 135 countries inspiring resentment against Americans and fighting wars against nations that could not launch a military attack against the United States in anyone's wildest dreams. Most importantly, the lives of hundreds of thousands of our troops, their opponents, and the innocent civilians in the countries that they fight in would be spared.
The gargantuan U.S. military establishment survives because American soldiers and civilians continue to accept the assertion that it is necessary to preserve our freedom. This assertion is at best a destructive delusion and at worst an insidious lie, told by people who care nothing for our troops or the civilians they defend. It is time to stop believing the lie and to truly support our troops. Bring them home.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Three P's: Things Government Cannot and Should Not Do
In this late stage of America’s devolution from constitutional republic to social democracy, one is hard pressed to find meaningful debate anywhere about the role of government. Despite a 24/7 news cycle and endless political commentary on talk radio, most Americans have not once in their lives heard the question posed, “What is the purpose of government?” Certainly, we hear that “the government should do this” or “the government should not do that” in regard to particular issues, but nowhere will you hear a meaningful discussion about the underlying mission of government. Indeed, answering this question might not be all that beneficial to our chattering classes, because once it is answered, there is little need for hours and hours of more talk. Clarifying the role of government makes the answers to most political questions rather simple and unambiguous. It is hard not to suspect that many of our politicians avoid this subject intentionally.
If America is truly the “land of the free,” then there can be only one answer to this question. The purpose of government is to defend its constituents against aggression. Period. Since “liberty” and “the non-aggression principle” are one and the same, it is impossible for government to have any other purpose, or any additional role.
As government is by definition the societal use of force, any action of government other than defense against aggression must itself be aggression. To induce human action through aggression is coercion. When coercion is practiced by government, it is called tyranny.
Freedom is the ability to exercise one's will in the absence of coercion. Therefore, freedom is impossible once government is allowed to perform any function other than defense. If freedom is exercising one’s will in the absence of coercion, one cannot be free while being coerced. Two plus two cannot equal five.
That leaves a multitude of actions that government must be prohibited from engaging in. They generally fall into three categories, which I like to call “the Three P’s.” The Three P's are to prevent, to promote, and to provide. There is no way for government to engage in any of these three activities without destroying the liberty that it supposedly exists to defend. Yet, this is 99 percent of what government in modern America does.
Most Americans look to government to prevent crime. Once a particularly heinous crime is reported in the media, there are universal outcries about the failure of government to prevent it. Almost no one stops to think about what it really means for government to "prevent crime." By definition, to prevent something is to act before it happens. Since all government action represents the use of force, government can only prevent crime by initiating force against people who have committed no crime. Force must always be initiated by someone. The initiating party is the aggressor. There is no other possibility.
This is not merely a theoretical or academic argument. Think for a moment about the results of government's various "crime prevention" efforts. Gun control disarms the victims of crimes while empowering violent criminals who don't care about gun control laws. Economic regulations which attempt to prevent fraud insulate protected corporations from competition, emboldening them to commit more fraud. Worst of all, the War on Terror, the ultimate government crime prevention program, has harassed millions of American citizens while allowing terrorists to walk onto planes with explosives in their shoes, underwear (and who knows where else), and has laid waste to an entire nation in order to determine that the "weapons of mass destruction" it supposedly possessed did not in fact exist.
In addition to preventing crime (including terrorism), that war also claims to undertake another of the Three P's: to "promote." Once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a new rationalization was needed for our brutal invasion of that country. That new reason turned out to be our missionary desire to "promote democracy." Without getting into the erroneous perception that "democracy" and "freedom" are synonymous, it should be quite clear after seven years of uninterrupted martial law in Iraq that our government has failed to achieve either democracy or freedom. Only government can be capable of missing the irony of ordering people at gunpoint to be free. While it might play for some good laughs in a Peter Sellers or Monty Python movie, it is really quite horrifying when one considers that our government takes this position in all seriousness.
It is not only in foreign policy that government reaps disastrous results when trying to "promote." Consider its attempts to promote "clean energy." One need look no farther than the ethanol fiasco or "Climategate" to see the results government gets in promoting respect for the environment.
The same underlying reason accounts for the similarity of results when government tries to "promote" or to "prevent." In both cases, force is initiated against individuals who have committed no aggression themselves. In order for government to "promote" anything, it must act. When government acts in the absence of aggression, it commits aggression. By committing aggression against and therefore overriding the decisions of millions of individuals, government causes innumerable unintended consequences. All of them can be traced to the initiation of force.
The third of the Three P's is by far the most destructive when undertaken by government: to provide. The illusion that government can "provide" anything springs from a loss of recognition of what government is. Government is the use of force, not by an individual, but by all of society. As it is a destructive force, rather than a creative one, it can produce nothing. Therefore, it can only provide something to one citizen that it has forcefully seized from another. This holds true whether it is attempting to provide healthcare, education, housing, or any other form of property.
The fact that human beings spend the majority of their time on earth laboring to fulfill their wants or needs makes this the most costly of the Three P's. While warfare represents violent aggression against millions of people, government's usurpation of human labor initiates violence against everyone. While the cost of warfare in human lives cannot be expressed in dollars and cents, there is at least a limit to the amount of lives it can affect and the length of time it will go on (despite government's best efforts to make it universal and indefinite). However, once government has claimed a right to the labor of its constituents, no one is spared and the subjugation never ends.
While the active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to less than $200 billion per year (as if those amounts were not staggering themselves), the U.S. government spends trillions of dollars each year attempting to provide its citizens with healthcare, retirement benefits, education, housing, and other necessities. Government's results in all of these areas are the same: disastrous. The healthcare, education, and housing provided by government are more expensive, of lower quality, and in shorter supply than would be the case if government did not attempt to provide them. Aggression cannot create prosperity any more than it can create freedom.
Thomas Paine wrote that "government is at best a necessary evil." He understood clearly what government is: an institution of violence. As individuals, we understand that the need may arise to commit violence against another human being, but only justifiably for one reason: to defend our lives against aggression. Should we be faced with that unfortunate choice, we may be justified in resorting to violence but afterwards regret that the need to do so arose. Most importantly, no sane person claims a right to initiate violence under any other circumstances. As we do not possess this power as individuals, we cannot delegate this power to government. Any legitimate power possessed by government must derive from the individuals who constitute it.
To put it most succinctly, government must always be limited to a negative power. It is the societal extension of the individual right of self defense. As individuals cannot use force to prevent, promote, or provide, government cannot either. Individuals have no right to force one another to do anything, even if they believe that it is in the victims' best interests. So, whenever the question arises of whether government should involve itself in some new aspect of its citizens' lives, remember the Three P's. If the new program represents any of them, it is time for each individual to exercise his most basic right in respect to his government: the Fourth P, to prohibit.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
If America is truly the “land of the free,” then there can be only one answer to this question. The purpose of government is to defend its constituents against aggression. Period. Since “liberty” and “the non-aggression principle” are one and the same, it is impossible for government to have any other purpose, or any additional role.
As government is by definition the societal use of force, any action of government other than defense against aggression must itself be aggression. To induce human action through aggression is coercion. When coercion is practiced by government, it is called tyranny.
Freedom is the ability to exercise one's will in the absence of coercion. Therefore, freedom is impossible once government is allowed to perform any function other than defense. If freedom is exercising one’s will in the absence of coercion, one cannot be free while being coerced. Two plus two cannot equal five.
That leaves a multitude of actions that government must be prohibited from engaging in. They generally fall into three categories, which I like to call “the Three P’s.” The Three P's are to prevent, to promote, and to provide. There is no way for government to engage in any of these three activities without destroying the liberty that it supposedly exists to defend. Yet, this is 99 percent of what government in modern America does.
Most Americans look to government to prevent crime. Once a particularly heinous crime is reported in the media, there are universal outcries about the failure of government to prevent it. Almost no one stops to think about what it really means for government to "prevent crime." By definition, to prevent something is to act before it happens. Since all government action represents the use of force, government can only prevent crime by initiating force against people who have committed no crime. Force must always be initiated by someone. The initiating party is the aggressor. There is no other possibility.
This is not merely a theoretical or academic argument. Think for a moment about the results of government's various "crime prevention" efforts. Gun control disarms the victims of crimes while empowering violent criminals who don't care about gun control laws. Economic regulations which attempt to prevent fraud insulate protected corporations from competition, emboldening them to commit more fraud. Worst of all, the War on Terror, the ultimate government crime prevention program, has harassed millions of American citizens while allowing terrorists to walk onto planes with explosives in their shoes, underwear (and who knows where else), and has laid waste to an entire nation in order to determine that the "weapons of mass destruction" it supposedly possessed did not in fact exist.
In addition to preventing crime (including terrorism), that war also claims to undertake another of the Three P's: to "promote." Once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a new rationalization was needed for our brutal invasion of that country. That new reason turned out to be our missionary desire to "promote democracy." Without getting into the erroneous perception that "democracy" and "freedom" are synonymous, it should be quite clear after seven years of uninterrupted martial law in Iraq that our government has failed to achieve either democracy or freedom. Only government can be capable of missing the irony of ordering people at gunpoint to be free. While it might play for some good laughs in a Peter Sellers or Monty Python movie, it is really quite horrifying when one considers that our government takes this position in all seriousness.
It is not only in foreign policy that government reaps disastrous results when trying to "promote." Consider its attempts to promote "clean energy." One need look no farther than the ethanol fiasco or "Climategate" to see the results government gets in promoting respect for the environment.
The same underlying reason accounts for the similarity of results when government tries to "promote" or to "prevent." In both cases, force is initiated against individuals who have committed no aggression themselves. In order for government to "promote" anything, it must act. When government acts in the absence of aggression, it commits aggression. By committing aggression against and therefore overriding the decisions of millions of individuals, government causes innumerable unintended consequences. All of them can be traced to the initiation of force.
The third of the Three P's is by far the most destructive when undertaken by government: to provide. The illusion that government can "provide" anything springs from a loss of recognition of what government is. Government is the use of force, not by an individual, but by all of society. As it is a destructive force, rather than a creative one, it can produce nothing. Therefore, it can only provide something to one citizen that it has forcefully seized from another. This holds true whether it is attempting to provide healthcare, education, housing, or any other form of property.
The fact that human beings spend the majority of their time on earth laboring to fulfill their wants or needs makes this the most costly of the Three P's. While warfare represents violent aggression against millions of people, government's usurpation of human labor initiates violence against everyone. While the cost of warfare in human lives cannot be expressed in dollars and cents, there is at least a limit to the amount of lives it can affect and the length of time it will go on (despite government's best efforts to make it universal and indefinite). However, once government has claimed a right to the labor of its constituents, no one is spared and the subjugation never ends.
While the active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amount to less than $200 billion per year (as if those amounts were not staggering themselves), the U.S. government spends trillions of dollars each year attempting to provide its citizens with healthcare, retirement benefits, education, housing, and other necessities. Government's results in all of these areas are the same: disastrous. The healthcare, education, and housing provided by government are more expensive, of lower quality, and in shorter supply than would be the case if government did not attempt to provide them. Aggression cannot create prosperity any more than it can create freedom.
Thomas Paine wrote that "government is at best a necessary evil." He understood clearly what government is: an institution of violence. As individuals, we understand that the need may arise to commit violence against another human being, but only justifiably for one reason: to defend our lives against aggression. Should we be faced with that unfortunate choice, we may be justified in resorting to violence but afterwards regret that the need to do so arose. Most importantly, no sane person claims a right to initiate violence under any other circumstances. As we do not possess this power as individuals, we cannot delegate this power to government. Any legitimate power possessed by government must derive from the individuals who constitute it.
To put it most succinctly, government must always be limited to a negative power. It is the societal extension of the individual right of self defense. As individuals cannot use force to prevent, promote, or provide, government cannot either. Individuals have no right to force one another to do anything, even if they believe that it is in the victims' best interests. So, whenever the question arises of whether government should involve itself in some new aspect of its citizens' lives, remember the Three P's. If the new program represents any of them, it is time for each individual to exercise his most basic right in respect to his government: the Fourth P, to prohibit.
Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!
Home
© Thomas Mullen 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
