The Myth of 'Limited Government'

We are taught that the change from monarchy to democracy is progress; that is, a change from servitude to liberty. Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens.

But we are taught that this condition is liberty, because "we" are – freely – taxing "ourselves." The individual, as a member of a democracy, is presumed to consent to being taxed and otherwise forced to do countless things he hasn’t chosen to do (or forbidden to do things he would prefer not to do).

Whence arises the right of a ruler to compel? This is a tough one, but modern rulers have discovered that a plausible answer can be found in the idea of majority rule. If the people rule themselves by collective decision, they can’t complain that the government is oppressing them. This notion is summed up in the magic word "democracy."

It’s nonsense. "We" are not doing it to "ourselves." Some people are still ruling other people. "Democracy" is merely the pretext for authorizing this process and legitimizing it in the minds of the ruled. Since outright slavery has been discredited, "democracy" is the only remaining rationale for state compulsion that most people will accept.

Now comes Hans-Hermann Hoppe, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, to explode the whole idea that there can ever be a just state. And he thinks democracy is worse than many other forms of government. He makes his case in his new book Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order

Hoppe is often described as a libertarian, but it might be more accurate to call him a conservative anarchist. He thinks the state – "a territorial monopoly of compulsion" – is inherently subversive of social health and order, which can thrive only when men are free.

As soon as you grant the state anything, Hoppe argues, you have given it everything. There can be no such thing as "limited government," because there is no way to control an entity that in principle enjoys a monopoly of power (and can simply expand its own power).

We’ve tried. We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn’t work. Over time the government claimed the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, then proceeded to broaden its own powers ad infinitum and to strip the states of their original powers – while claiming that its self-aggrandizement was the fulfillment of the "living" Constitution. So the Constitution has become an instrument of the very power it was intended to limit!

The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation. But the Civil War established the fatal principle that no state could withdraw, for any reason. So the states and the people lost their ultimate defense against Federal tyranny. (And if they hadn’t, there would still have been the problem of the tyranny of individual states.) But today Americans have learned to view the victory of the Union over the states, which meant an enormous increase in the centralization of power, as a triumph of "democracy."

Hoppe goes so far as to say that democracy is positively "immoral," because "it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C." He argues that monarchy is actually preferable, because a king has a personal interest in leaving his kingdom in good condition for his heirs; whereas democratic rulers, holding power only briefly, have an incentive to rob the public while they can, caring little for what comes afterward. (The name "Clinton" may ring a bell here.)

And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents. By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power. And compared with modern war, the wars of kings were mere scuffles.

Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.

Well, I'm certainly not arguing that it would have been good thing for WJB to have won at the polls. In fact, my point was that he was the man who betrayed the principles of the Democratic party. It used to be the party which protected the common man from exploitation by big business. Under WJB, it became the party through which the common man exploited big business. Ever since, both parties have been about exploitation.

OTOH, I have little respect for Big Stick Roosevelt either. Since 1896, we have largely been offered a choice between war mongers and welfare mongers. With the result, over time, that we slowly have gotten more of both. By now, we get more socialism and more war no matter which bunch of scoundrels we elect.

Daniel Webster's words point out precisely what I was saying about the Republican party - the party of high tariffs and support for big business. Under Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, they became the part of war, as well.

It may be true that I exaggerated the role of Wilson in all these developments, especially the amendments to the Constitution. The point is that they were inevitable once the Democrats sold out.

And, of course, the 20th amendment was inconsequential. What's more it wasn't even from the Progressive Era. My inclusion of it was a typo.

You just don't get it, do you? You still hold this fantasy that you pay taxes. You're the only bureaucrat I've ever met who was actually stupid enough to fail to understand that obvious fact. You have to point it out to them, of course. But they get it.

And you expect me to think that you are worth the money you extort from the rest of us. Hah!

Where to start? Who in Congress has been proposing higher tariffs: Democrats. Our entry into World War I was under Wilson; WWII: after two FDR terms; Korea: after five or six years of Truman; Viet Nam: Ike sent advisers, but it was JFK who sent troops and LBJ who magnified our involvement exponentially. Are you against Reagan's incursion into Granada, the Gulf War, and the current efforts against terrorism?

Your Reply No. 344 lacks substance for a response. The only fantasy world in operation here is the one in which you claim federal workers don't pay taxes. My pay stub proves it, and I'm not extorting money from others. Get over the BS if you can.

Just wanted to say hello to a couple of my favorite freepers (one for each side of the debating table). I don't have as much time for this as I used to, but I am taking the time to read your discussion and finding it really enjoyable. Regards to both of you gentlemen,

Huck

Who in Congress has been proposing higher tariffs: Democrats

Did you not get the point that we were talking about what happened to the Democratic party 1896? In the 19th century, tariffs were to protect industries. The ordinary farmer paid them. Today democrats want tariffs to protect big labor. It's still about the ordinary joe but in 1896, it got perverted from portection to exploitation.

As to your brain-damaged notion that you pay taxes. Look, let's say you net $50,000. That is fifty grand which has been taken from the productive economy to support you playing your little war games. It makes no difference how much your gross is. That's just the government giving with one hand and taking with the other. What difference does it make whether they write $50,005 or $5,050,000? It's not even real money, just paper shuffling. Which, of course, is the only thing bureaucrats know how to do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.