Government is good? Part 1

September 5, 11:02 PMAlbuquerque Libertarian ExaminerKent McManigal

Previous Next

9 comments Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Albuquerque Libertarian Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

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.