I believe in fairness, especially if there is no danger in being fair. Since my offer to a supporter of government (a person who actually dared to say "I like government") to write a guest column on why government is so wonderful never materialized, I offer an dissenting voice today.
I found a website, named "Government is Good", and it is astonishing. I highly recommend you go read the entire article I am discussing today (as well as the other articles therein), and as you do, rationally and logically dissect the claims made. I think you will see that the entire premise is dependent upon an utter lack of understanding, or "creative defining", of "freedom" and "good". Since the author is a professor of politics at a university, I have to assume he is an intelligent person. Unfortunately, that also means I must assume he knows better. I think he is displaying an abominable level of intellectual dishonesty.
Let's look at his claims:
"Let’s start by seeing what is wrong with the assumption that there is an inevitable trade-off between government and our individual rights and liberties."
If something always, without fail, happens, is it not "inevitable"? Point to an actual extant or historical example of a government that hasn't violated individual rights in any way. Any "trade-off" must be considered. You must include violations on those points where you happen to think the violation was necessary or good- if you are being honest.
What is "government"? It is a system of control. What is "control"? It is a loss of freedom. Some "freedoms" may not be ethical and may not be a "right", but the only reasonable way to deal with this is to let people set boundaries and enforce their own rights without fear of being further violated by government enforcement of some nonsensical "law".
Then he goes on:
"So the size and extent of government activity, by itself, tells us nothing about how free or oppressive a society is."
Perhaps, if you don't consider that everything the government does requires money, and that governments do not earn money; they take it. Under threat of force. The bigger the government is, the more expensive. The deeper the government reaches, the more expensive it is. Are you just as free if 70% of your money is taken by government as you are if "only" 10% is taken? I think not. Is not a slave oppressed simply because he lacks the final say in running his own life? He must ask permission for the majority of his actions. Just as government, even the most "non-intrusive" government, demands.
We can see the creative mind tricks the author is passing off as "scholarly observations". Do we fall for them?
Due to the length this column has already attained, and the importance of countering such absurd claims, I have split this article into two parts. Please join me tomorrow for Part 2.
Comments
You are right, Kent. The author of that essay neither understands liberty or ethical behavior. He ignores the fact that all of his wonderful supposed benefits of central government are only possible via theft and the threat of death.
I have proposed to such people that those who WANT such government should be perfectly free to have one - and that those of us who would rather govern ourselves and not be threatened or robbed should be able to live without any.
Their look of horror tells the whole tale. Oh no... there can be no option NOT to be robbed and controlled, or killed if we do not obey.
What they all seem to miss is the fact that the "benefits" would be provided in abundance by voluntary cooperation and self government. But those who love to be in control would have to be content to control just themselves.
Can't have that!
You are right about the article AND the government, but what the hell can we "little people" do about it now? The country decided they needed a "man of color" for president, and look where we are now. Not that the republicans are perfect, but the deficit wasn't in the trillions of dollars either. Not to mention what they are doing with the health care program. (Which by the way began in March, as my perscription drugs plan was terminated then). If we can't have "government" the way it's supposed to be, at least the republicans seemed to actually care about senior citicens and disabled people.
Keep up the good work Kent, maybe someday the right people will hear.
Too bad the color is red...
Man I love your editorials. I hope you don't mind, but I post excerpts almost every day on Facebook and you'd be amazed the discussions I get into. Even hard core liberals "claim" to agree with you. They twist in the wind trying to reconcile their "agreement" with their defense of their beloved "programs." It's great comedy if it weren't so deadly serious.
I was amazed at this statement by the Professor ...
"Hitler did not become the supreme ruler of the Nazi state by first taking over the health department."
This is true. He did it by taking over the Police Departments "For the Safety of the People and Our Children."
Every pro-government person I have had a chance to discuss this with has completely ignored the "Threat of Violence or Death" that is inherent in the enforcement of government's "for our own good" rules, edicts, regulations and so called "Laws".
If they are "for our own good" then why must they threaten violence, death or impoverishment to enforce them ?
Most would be doing those actions anyway so why The Force ?
Enforce them - IN...FORCE them.
Isn't it amazing how the pro-government dupes can miss that simple pronunciation and even simpler realization ?
The Professor seems to have his forms of government confused. He is advocating socialist democracy and our forefathers set up a Free Republic.
Big di
Oops ... Pardon Me.
The "Di" in my last comment is supposed to be "Difference" but most here probably caught and inferred that already.
Can you tell I'm not used to "limited space" posting ?
Keep up the education efforts Kent.
Kent,
I think you're right, the person writing that page DOES indeed know better. So far as I know,the most widely accepted definition of modern government (or more accurately, the bureaucratic State) is that of the German sociologist, Max Weber "Government is an entity that claims the legitimate use of force within a geographic area"("force" is actually better translated as "violence"...but that is a bit too stark for Poli-sci textbooks). This is praised by the author-disingenuously-but it is never truly spelled out. All sorts of crimes are mentioned-that we poor fools would suffer from without that "violence" protecting us-but the circularity of the point is expected to be missed by us peons. The writer thinks we are stupid.
If the State protects us from pollution-why does it exist? The same with rape? Murder? Kidnapping?
The answer of course is that the State either expressly PERMITS these things(pollution), or flaccidly responds to them(violent crime). The writer knows that.
Kent and Mike,
Indeed. The good professor wants to use a definiton of 'government' that is 'his wish' - not what, in fact, government really is (violence).
Any of us can make glorious an entity that is a fantasy.
The challenge of all that apologize for the State and Governmet is this:
Does the enity require to do violence upon non-violent people? If it does - how can it claim to be legitimate?
Good points, well made. it is vital that the friends of Liberty continually take to task the apologists of statism.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!