Democracy’s Most Critical Defect
By Robert Higgs • Tuesday October 27, 2009 10:26 AM PDT • 73 Comments
Although democracy now comes closer than anything else to serving as a world religion, it has never lacked critics. For millennia those critics, such as Aristotle, had large followings among political thinkers and practicing politicians. Even as late as 1787, when a group of prominent men met in Philadelphia to compose the U.S. Constitution, democracy was viewed with trepidation, and the framers created an apparatus of government in which democracy was hemmed in on all sides, lest the country fall into the much-dreaded condition of “mob rule.”
Nowadays, democracy’s defects are more likely to be seen as relatively benign ― its devotees like to quote Winston Churchill’s quip that “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” ― or as defects not of democracy itself, but of the party shenanigans and other frictions that keep the democratic system from operating more fully. Thus, people complain of “gridlock” and bemoan a “do-nothing” Congress because these things impede the unrestricted functioning of democracy.
Public choice theorists have written countless articles and books spelling out the manifold ways in which democracy, viewed as a political decision rule for making collective choices by means of voting, may fail to aggregate the preferences of individual constituents into an outcome that represents the “will of the people.” More than fifty years ago, Kenneth Arrow showed that no such aggregation is possible, given certain seemingly appealing restrictions on the nature of people’s preferences, such as transitivity (if A is preferred to B, and B is preferred to C, then C cannot be preferred to A).
None of this theorizing had the slightest effect on the common people’s idea that democracy can and should translate the “will of the people” into collective choices; nor has it kept generations of politicians from talking as if such a translation were possible and desirable. (Political practice, in contrast to political rhetoric, has always proceeded in the usual corrupt fashion, featuring scheming plutocrats, privilege-seeking special-interest groups, and the iron law of oligarchy.)
I mention these things only by way of introduction, however, because here I wish to claim that democracy’s gravest defect has little or nothing to do with the defects traditionally ascribed to it. I maintain that its severest defect, indeed, a flaw so critical that it gives democracy the potential to destroy civilization, pertains to its effect in corrupting the people’s moral judgment.
To see how this corruption comes about, let us begin by recognizing that in many people’s eyes, certain government functionaries may legitimately take actions that would be condemned as criminal if anyone else were to take them. If you or I were to threaten a neighbor with violence unless he handed over a specified sum of money, we would be universally recognized as engaged in extortion or attempted robbery. Yet, the functionaries of St. Tammany Parish, the state of Louisiana, and the United States of America routinely obtain money from me in precisely this manner. And although many people subject to such takings may complain that the amounts demanded are excessive, hardly anybody describes the exactions as constituting nothing more than extortion or armed robbery. Why not? Because the functionaries who assess and collect these sums of money ― which they style “taxes,” not loot, plunder, or swag ― are democratically elected “public officials.”
From a moral point of view, I am hard pressed to see how their employment status gives them a defensible right to act in ways that everyone would recognize as criminal if undertaken by a private individual. In political theory, a representative democratic government is said to derive its just powers by delegation from the people who are governed, with their consent. I assure you that I have never consented to have the various governments rob me, especially for the financing of countless activities that I consider to be useless, destructive, or inherently criminal. Regardless of the uses to which a government puts its booty, however, the people cannot justly delegate to political representatives any rights that they do not possess. If I do not have a right to plunder my neighbor, how can I delegate that right to a government functionary who purports to represent me?
The situation is the same with regard to innumerable other actions that governments carry out, including unjust imprisonment, murder, and demands for compliance with so-called “regulations.” If you or I were to demand the same actions that regulators commonly prescribe, our demands would be plainly seen to constitute unjustified intimidation and lawless coercion, at best. Likewise, if I were to send a private Predator drone to Pakistan to fire explosive missiles into villages, killing women, children, and other innocent persons, I would be seen as a monstrous mass murderer, and demands would be made that I be apprehended and “brought to justice” or killed. Yet when President Obama causes deaths in this way, no such demands are made. How did Barack Obama come by the right to kill innocent people? By democratic election to the presidency of the United States, of course. Most people actually believe, and act on the belief, that mere election to a political office can endow a person with standing to disregard the moral requirements applicable to people in general. And not only the elected official, but all those officials beneath him in the chain of command ― nobody demands that the technician who sits comfortably in the United States and directs the exact operation of the lethal drone be brought to justice; he, as the saying goes, is “only following orders.”
In the war-crimes tribunals conducted after World War II, many defendants pleaded not guilty on the grounds that they were only following orders. This defense, however, was ruled inadmissible, because the top authorities of the Nazi regime, from Adolf Hitler on down, were themselves viewed as war criminals, albeit unavailable in many instances to stand trial as such. In contrast, none of the military officers and men who carried out the fire bombings of Tokyo, Hamburg, and Dresden were indicted; nor were those who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; nor were Churchill and Truman (Franklin Roosevelt having already departed this realm of political strife). Strange to say, Hitler himself originally came to power through democratic procedures, which shows that sometimes democracy is not enough to absolve a leader of criminal acts. Winning a war may also prove decisive when innocence and guilt are being decided and punishments administered.
I fully understand how most Americans would react to the preceding observations. They would say that in wartime, certain actions that would be regarded as crimes during peacetime automatically cease to have this character. It’s an interesting theory: if the leader, especially a democratically elected one, prosecutes a war, he thereby overturns the entire basis of morality ― provided of course that his side wins the war. Killing the innocent, for example, carries no stigma; nor does wanton destruction of property, unjust punishment or imprisonment, and a thousand other actions that would be regarded as flagrant crimes during peacetime.
As the government has grown in this country (and others) during the past century, the scope of government action has widened greatly. Government officials now demand vastly greater sums of money from their subjects, and they demand compliance with vastly more regulations. They and they alone may act in these ways without bringing moral denunciation down on themselves. No wonder they sometimes deport themselves as gods: by their election they have been loosed from the moral bonds that constrain you and me, and, thus unencumbered, they have soared to ever greater heights of criminality and savagery. “When the president does it,” Richard Nixon insisted, “that means that it is not illegal.” Interviewer David Frost pursued the point, asking: “the dividing line is the president’s judgment?” To which Nixon responded, “Yes, and the dividing line and, just so that one does not get the impression, that a president can run amok in this country and get away with it, we have to have in mind that a president has to come up before the electorate.” Ah, yes, blessed election ― that “accountability moment,” as George W. Bush described it ― surely covers a multitude of sins. We may think of those sins as democracy in action.
Libertarians often argue about whether they might more successfully recruit followers by showing that a free society works best or by showing that an unfree society is unjust. Most libertarians, as I see the matter, have chosen to base their arguments on utilitarian grounds, often because they despair of ever convincing the average person that government officials chronically, or even intrinsically, violate moral strictures. Although I have no doubt whatsoever that free societies do work better than unfree ones, that they deliver, for example, greater prosperity and more rapid economic progress for the masses, I am skeptical that we can cut deeply into the current mass support for the welfare-warfare-therapeutic state unless we open people’s eyes to see that the government actions they now support ― and demand ever more of ― are utterly immoral because they violate individuals’ just rights on a gigantic scale and because the government leaders who propose and implement these measures acquire not an ounce of moral justification from their democratic selection for office. “What works best” remains ever open to dispute, as public policy debate on almost any current issue illustrates: each side has its academic experts, prestigious scientists, or other authorities to prop up its position, and although these two sides rarely offer equally compelling evidence, the lay person can scarcely be expected to see through all of the disinformation and rhetorical flimflam.
Everybody understands, however, without any advanced instruction in the matter, that murder and robbery are wrong, and that no one has a justifiable right to bully his neighbors simply because he does not like the way in which they are conducting their lives. The greatest barrier to libertarian progress continues to be that most people give a moral pass to such criminal actions when democratically elected functionaries take them. This presumed moral immunity by virtue of election to public office is the sheerest superstition ― a montrous mistake in moral reasoning ― and if people can be brought to see it for what it really is, then they will be able to act more effectively to regain some of their lost freedom.
Tags: Elections, Law, Morality, Natural Law, Politics, Presidential Power, Regulation, Taxation, The State, Uncategorized, War 
Whenever I’m reading a piece by you, Dr. Higgs, I find that it is profoundly thoughtful, radically uncompromising and always to the point (not to mention that you describe my own thoughts better than I could ever do).
And yet again I am reminded why I love liberty and justice: because they are right and true and beautiful.
Thank you.
JL | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Great article, Mr. Higgs.
I can’t stand people who quote Churchill’s quip and think they have won the debate.
I am afraid that the point when people really value their individual liberties is far from here. They will tell you that in order to get the ALLEGED benefits that States provide (public goods, redistribution and so on), the only way it can be done is through statist coercion. I am not sure to what extent people really care about morality and freedom. I would dare claim not much.
Angel Martin | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Thank you, Dr.Higgs. Although I dislike the word moral for the baggage it carries, it is the appropriate word in this context. I’m afraid we may not survive political government this time around, because it has no moral compass whatever.
Robert Klassen | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
“...no one has a justifiable right to bully his neighbors simply because he does like the way in which they are conducting their lives” – a missing “not”? (And I think there are some other typos.)
P.M.Lawrence | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
Last paragraph: “...simply because he does (not?) like the way...” I know. Picky, Picky. Thanks for such a clear statement. I’ll pass it on.
D. Frank Robinson | Oct 27, 2009 | Reply
The only defect democracy has is in the ideas of the man, cause democracy is a concept which existence is only possible through his action, which is commanded by his ideas. Remember of Ludwig von Mises has said about.Democracy has not a proper existence.If the man’s ideas goes far from free maket economy, the democracy goes too. Besides democracy is the corolary of the free marketeconomy, it comes through man mentality by its pratical exemples.
obs. My english is not good. I’m brazilian
Camorim | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
You make a very good point here, Mr. Higgs. But championing the concept of radical individualism, as Libertarian ideologues all have, actually in my view likewise undermines individual and aggregate social morality in that the unleashing of personal appetite is destructive of individual moral and thus social self-restraint. The morally and socially destructive consequences of the “unleashing of Democracy” over the past 150 to 200 years, as you point out, has observably become cumulatively apparent, even obvious. But the “Democratic cake” clearly is activated by the yeast of the ideological doctrine of radical individualism, the championing of which historically universally has preceded the March of Demos as the latter has systematically demolished and subverted civilization and particularly individual civilized moral self-restraint. The obvious lack of moral self-restraint demonstrated by the avaricious Modernist Capitalists ever since the 18th century in Europe and North America illustrates my point exceedlingly well. (Leftists generally and Marxists specifically generally wouldn’t recognize individual moral self-restrain if it grew teeth and bit off their ears.)
What has been missing in ALL Modernist Ideologies is any theoretical or practical recognition of a sense of individual and social obligation. Indeed, when one asks a Libertarian the question “Freedom to do what, exactly?”, one is typically met by an uncomprehending stare, usually followed by ideological clap-trap that obviously amounts to “Why, to be self-individualized and to thus be free to do what one wishes” (or words to that effect). Folks doing what they wish without any sense of moral or social self-restraint has eventuated in the continuing financial and economic Depression that finally hit the third week of June, 2007, which promises to collapse the world financial system and obliterate the Modernist Capitalist system altogether, with harrowing social and economic destruction worldwide. Needless to say, there will be general political-system destruction as well following in train. Civilization? Whut dat?
It is clear, to me at least, that to endlessly pontificate and blather about radical individual freedom or liberty divored from any commitment to or mention of the moral and social necessity of self-restraint–which in a practical sense necessitates accepting a sense of individual and collective moral and social obligation–is morally equivalent to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater or handing matches to little children.
Franz von Kyberg | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Very important point – democracy is inherently opposed to civilization not only because it is morally corrupting (actually this can happen in any system) because it is inherently opposed to “Quality” — aristos, the best. The
decline of cultural quality accompanies moral decline.
Caryl Johnston | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Nothing works. These people are completely brain washed. We’ll have statism forever.
andrew | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Why this singling out of democracy? Election to public office is just one of many things used as excuses for immoral behavior. Most governments will tend to act like that, whether democratic or aristocratic or any other flavor, simply because they are governments. A government is by definition something that has more authority over you and me than we have over each other.
J. E. | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs; given the mindset of most Americans, I think it fair to say that given the choice between freedom and slavery, most Americans will choose slavery, thereby rendering democracy doomed as a government for free men. Our government has offered security packaged in a state plantation system. However, instead of picking cotton or tobacco, the slaves merely vote appropriately to empower their masters. The free men who choose the SACRIFICES necessary for freedom become hosts for others to feed off of. This is by government design. The parasites generally kill off the host over time. Libertarianism is a philosophy of free men, rendering it impossible for the ideas associated with it to win majority votes. The solution? The answer not pleasant, but things will have to get much worse before they get better. p.s. remember... Churchill was pretty much a drunk.
Bill Collier | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
@P.M.Lawrence:
Messrs. Robinson and Lawrence,
Thanks for pointing out the missing “not.” I’ve repaired the oversight.
Robert Higgs | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
The paradox here is that most people have about a six-second attention span when it comes to discussing and/or thinking about political or economic philosophy. Regarding morality, they understand that in the real world, murder, mayhem and theft are wrong. Regarding economics, they understand that one must work hard, save and have sound investments to become rich.
However, they also believe in the Mary Poppins Theory of Government. Mary Poppins can do anything AND is not bound by normal rules of morality. I suspect that belief in the latter may come belief in the former. Thus, because Mary Poppins can cure economic depressions, it is moral to allow her to engage in acts that would be otherwise immoral. Because Mary Poppins has an innate ability for successful nation-building and can magically change Afghan Muslims into new-age Swedes, it’s moral that she be allowed to shoot a few drone based missiles at intransigent villagers. The average person has a very big, complicated and convoluted idea about what a government is and what it can accomplish, but does not want to think about it for more than a heartbeat.
In fact, government is not Mary Poppins. It’s generally just Rod Blagojevich and his SWAT team. Or Nixon, Hillary or Himmler and their SWAT team.
Bob Roddis | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
I see the flaw residing in the porous principles, the modern concepts of "individual" and "collective."
Americans have slid into the nonsense principles of "collective rights," which are somehow more than an aggregate of individual citizens, but are created by the compact of government, and subsume individual rights. This is a sly perversion of the principles of political compact, which date back to the Mayflower Compact of 1620, in which men pledged to create such governance "as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience." Governance was merely a utilitarian tool, to which one would be obedient insofar as it held to its purpose.
America’s freedoms appear to be ever-increasing, if one measures it in terms of the "collective will." The greater the number of individuals who contribute to the "collective will," the more important it becomes to hold it in treasure and assure that it is administered only by the wisest and most just of the people. Read Lenin, he’s all over this idea with the remarkable principle of "vanguard of the proletariat." We now have trial-by-media, war-by-proxy, and choice-by-obedience. Democracy by incorporation is an unquestioned allegiance to which we all hold. By definition. Those who do not do so, why, they’re – antidemocratic! Doubleplusungood! Wreckers of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Paradise!
Dissent is becoming increasingly unpalatable in our democracy. In fact, dissenters are frequently considered odd-balls, screwy in the head, weirdos, off their rocker, like Andrei Sakharov became at the moment he entertained anti-Soviet thoughts. The better our incorporation of the People’s Voice, the closer we come to that great institutional advocate for the People, the USSR.
You wrote, "if the leader, especially a democratically elected one, prosecutes a war, he thereby overturns the entire basis of morality ― provided of course that his side wins the war. Killing the innocent, for example, carries no stigma; nor does wanton destruction of property, unjust punishment or imprisonment, and a thousand other actions that would be regarded as flagrant crimes during peacetime." I understand this is why Robert Taft objected to the post-WWII war crimes trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo – not that such things became permissible during times of war, but under the now-radical principle that the victors lacked the objectivity, INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY, to perform fair trials, due to the nature of the prior contest.
Freedom isn’t free – and sooner or later, we won’t be, either.
Steve in New Mexico | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mary Poppins Theory of Government – splendid!
Two of the most dismaying elements in politics over the last two years, have been the way the American people have handled the economic downturn and the “health-care crisis.”
I’ll have to admit that I want all Americans to have affordable healthcare coverage with easy access, where no illness is untreated simply because the person cannot afford it. I really do.
But I also want a BMW sports coupe – and unlike most of my fellows who want it, I could get one today, cash down. But I don’t, and won’t.
The simple existence of desire defines the human condition. But in America, it becomes a compelling principle. Such things as “is it worth it? Can you afford it? What will you sacrifice to get it?” are treated with a contemptuous toss of the head.
Steve in New Mexico | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
We traded one tyrant across the ocean for 1 million tyrants across the street.
Doktor Jeep | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
When people get overtaken by emotions such as guilt, fear, and hate, they readily jettison whatever morality they believe in and otherwise practice; they will support whatever alleged salve to these uncomfortable emotions. And god knows that the politicians and media know how to bring these emotions to the fore.
D. Saul Weiner | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
This criticism of democracy is good. However, there are several problems.
Firstly Robert Higgs claims the illegitimacy of democratic government because such government exercises powers lacking legitimacy by each individual voter.
I refute this attack. Government (some government) is essential in practice. This covers defence of the territory, maintenance of law and order and the establishment and maintenance of reasonably stable money currency. The authority for these things, and taxation to fund them, comes not from democracy but from the need for such (minimalist) government. Monarchies and dictatorships, no less than democracy, are justified in providing these things and raising the taxes necessary to provide them.
Moving on, there are, of course, many beyond these minimal things that are often (even usually) provided by government: state education and various welfare provisions in particular. For these, I think I am in agreement that there is something of a problem, especially given the extent of such provision, and of course that extent is ‘worse’ in Europe than in the USA, though it is distinctly pervasive throughout the ‘western world’.
[There are other provisions by government, such as public roads, emergency hospitals, refuse collection, water, sewerage, mains electricity, either directly or through licensing a modest number of suppliers through government-sponsored monopoly or other protectionist and restrictive legislation. However, I'd like to leave much of the detail of that aside for the purposes of this comment. Likewise, I'd like to leave aside what level of government is the best one for each provision by government.]
With democracy, there is a more legitimate means than with monarchy, dictatorship, etc in deciding what government should and should not do. The problem, IMHO, comes from the structure of democracy as we currently have it, though it is somewhat different in our various countries.
The problem arises from the single policy of universal adult franchise. This is compounded by the normal process of ambition – and its typical outcome: empire building.
Every voter is given equal strength in elections, irrespective of their contribution to the economy particularly, and to society in general. For the majority of people, given the right to vote for benefits (to be provided by government) without having to pay for them (because the better-off will do that), what (or who) would you vote for. Yes, of course: you would vote for the party that offers the most government benefit, and so we have government that offers the most benefit to the most people. This has been a creeping ill, with gradually increasing taxation and government spending representing mostly an ever-increasing proportion of GDP. However, each step of this increase is dangerous for government, and so the process must be a gradual one, spread over decades.
And this increase in government spending as a proportion of GDP has carried on for the decades since the start of the 20th century in the USA. Similarly, though more unevenly, it has carried on also in the UK. I presume the same for other first world countries, though I have not seem the figures myself.
First world countries are now, again IMHO, close to breaking point. What is to be done?
I have suggested an important step for the UK, through the democratisation of its House of Lords. This is to have a fully elected house, re-authorised to be of equal power and authority to the House of Commons. I have named this house, the House of Taxpayers. The arrangement for democratic elections would be different. For the House of Taxpayers, each pound of currency paid in tax would be allocated one vote. For practicality, this would be limited to payroll taxes: in the UK that is Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions, and averaged over say the last 5 years for each taxpayer. Thus these votes are available to persons, roughly in accordance with their economic footprint. Universal franchise would continue for the House of Commons, one person one vote: thus those votes would continue to be available in accordance with existential footprint. [And let us here forgo discussion of the necessarily appropriate 'economic' vote transfers within families.]
Thus we would arrive at a parliament with a balance of powers and, very likely, some serious but cordial conflict of interests: the taxpayers versus the tax spenders, economic versus existential footprint, though of course the majority of the population of electors would actually be both and have both, but in different proportions. Taxes and the government expenditure they fund would only be approved by parliament where both the givers and the takers were agreed that the purposes of taxation were all (or at least substantially) for the common benefit, and in the right proportion compared to non-government economic and social activity.
Overambitious government and self-serving politicians would lose out: the nation would gain, or at least we would be in a better balance than currently.
Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
I refute this attack. Government (some government) is essential in practice. This covers defence of the territory, maintenance of law and order and the establishment and maintenance of reasonably stable money currency.
1. defence (9/11). fail, 2. law (shootings from drug gangs caused by drug laws & swat teams). fail, 3. stable money (dollar down 96%?). fail.
George | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Prof. Higgs, this column is nothing less than outstanding.
Speedmaster | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
-Winston Churchill
Blow your mind on that contradiction with his later quote.
Daniel Miller | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Some people say democracy is good. Others say it is bad. But no one can say WHERE it existed! Can you tell me where one man / one vote was the rule? Switzerland? Rural New England?
The problem with Higgs’ example is that the “functionaries” aren’t democratically elected. Obama wasn’t democratically elected. The Fed wasn’t created by the people.
Why do you think the AGGREGATE will of the people isn’t decidedly libertarian?
If there is no such thing as “will of the representatives”, why should there be “will of the people”? Alliances change. Coalitions are fluid. Democracy obliterates static parties. Yes, people want free health care (who doesn’t?), but they’d never vote to pay for it.
Have you ever heard of DIRECT REPRESENTATION? Representaives should have power equal to the number of votes given to them. That would end corruption.
Portland, Oregon | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
But the question is what are the alternatives?
They may exist in principle, but in reality? Rather than going against it, go with the flow and from it change to the better.
Get elected, and turn things around when you hold power. To change things, you need power first. That’s the reality but when you are inside the pressures and constraints may be too heavy to bear.
Follow the Tao.
Chee Heong QUAH | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
@Quah: I think the point is that the outcome of democracy on its face is immoral. There is no going inside and changing it for the better. There is no making it better until the people themselves realize that their governments are immoral.
EB | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
The good news is that we as individuals can choose our way of living.
You can live in seclusion, distanced from the worldly affairs and confusions.
That’s why many opt to indulge in certain teachings or beliefs that can free our minds.
When it doesn’t bother you anymore, it doesn’t matter how big the government is or who is being victimized.
Chee-Heong Quah | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Sedgwick,
Your analysis is built upon a faulty foundation. Simply because a need for a good or service exists, that does not in and of itself mean that we need a government to meet that need. This includes those traditional areas of government provision you have cited.
Many people “need” their grass to be mowed. Does this mean I have the right to mow a man’s yard without being asked to do so, and then send him a bill for my services, at whatever price and terms I see fit? What if everyone else on the street, or even just a simple majority, had already agreed to use my services on those price and terms, and they firmly believed that their neighbor should use my services too? Of course I do not have such a right. And please do not assert that there are just simply some goods or services that only the government can provide. We’ve seen what government provision, as opposed to provision by truly free-markets, gets us.
Mr. Higgs’ analysis stands. It is logically consistent – if I alone do not have a right, and neither do my neighbors, then we cannot grant that non-existent right to someone else. Think of the “how many men” argument. A majority vote is not some magic creator or destroyer of rights and privileges. These come from God alone. And God has seen fit to provide that we cannot, through force or theft, make others submit to our will. We must respect the negative rights of others and engage in voluntary interactions if we “need” something.
And merely reforming the composition of the association of plunderers and bullies, or reforming the method of their selection, is not an answer either. Mr. Chee Heong QUAH, it is also not an adequate answer to say that to end the plundering and bullying, you must first become one of the plunderers and bullies. Besides, how well has that suggestion worked out in practice – ever hear about how power corrupts? And please don’t complain about how there are no alternatives to democracy. Simply look around you at all of the voluntary, non-government imposed transactions and relationships that you engage in on a daily basis. Alternatives to democracy do currently exist in reality, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Mr. Chee Heong QUAH, if you want to “go with the flow,” think about how arguments used to abound about how slavery simply could not be ended in a practical manner. Such arguments were popular even among the supposedly open-minded and forward-thinking people of the day. Those arguments seem pretty ridiculous now. It’s a pretty good bet that history is flowing in the direction of greater personal liberty, albeit in fits and starts and occasional u-turns. A hundred years from now, do you want your descendants to have to make apologies about how you really were a great person even though you shortsightedly clung to antiquated notions of how we need a government to plunder and bully us for our own good?
No King But God | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Nigel, you have not shown that these tasks you say are essential must be provided by a coercive monopoly organization.
(Not to mention the obvious fact that governments have done a terrible job at most of these tasks; “maintenance of reasonably stable money currency”? The US federal government took over currency management in 1913 and today the dollar is worth about 4% of what it was then. If this is stability, I’d hate to see what instability might look like.)
Larry Ruane | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
“Of the thirty-six ways to get out of trouble, the best way is to leave.” ~ Chinese proverb
There really isn’t anything to quibble with of importance in your assessment Dr. Higgs. We’ve conversed about similar issues. You in fact have the big picture. Now what?
Action. The ONLY time one should vote ... is with their feet. When Harry Browne wrote, “How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World,” the single greatest “tool” available to the individual who has the relentless desire and means to have freedom, liberty, privacy and private property is to find a venue that offers such. They do exist. The government-controlled school system and cultural inculcation by the tribe has stultified individual initiative to “break away and live one’s life free from subjugation.” Don’t even get me started on “legalized plunder, redistribution etc.!” It doesn’t exist in the venues where I stay.
Democracy, au contraire, is the “choice” of those who wish to display self-inflicted terminal stupidity. C’est la guerre. They VOTE! The lynchpin or cornerstone of democracy is the vote! To live in a democracy is to live in denial, plain and simple. To live one’s life in a democracy is to compromise one’s integrity. Democracy offers choices, just not “free” choices!
All of the critical thinking, rational reasoning, employment of logic etc., WILL NOT change the way you live the ONLY life you will ever have, living in the hands of the rebarbative political popinjays and addlebrained Philistines that choose to “control” your life in a democracy. There is ONLY one-way: leave. Ultimately, Frank Chodorov, Harry Schultz and the late venerable libertarian Harry Browne recognized this. Best to you Robert, circumstances notwithstanding, save for the fact that my comments are NOT a rhetorical device... They are in fact, facts.
Regards,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
“Never argue with an idiot; they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” – anonymous
Capt. A. | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr. von Kyberg –
Without defining ‘radical’ individualism, you are invoking trite generalism to attempt to make a point. Further, your attempt to blame Modernist Capitalists for their lack of moral self-restraint on the ‘free market’ makes no sense. Most (not all) Modernist Capitalists have acted in accordance with the market distortions and protections of GOVERNMENT, not voluntary or mutual self-interest.
Freedom to live, worship and own property as one can gain through his/her own labors and voluntary transactions with others – that is what Libertarians promulgate. The concept of voluntary transaction with others, if you would stop to consider it, is the basis for both moral and social self-restraint.
GOVERNMENTS, not folks, doing what they wish without a sense of moral or social restriction, is what is destroying our world financial system.
Chris Burkland | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Sedgwick –
Interesting suggestion for the House of Lords, but you are falling into a trap essentially similar to when the Senate was ‘converted’ from appointment of Senators by the State legislatures to direct election. The only difference in your case, is to give ‘the rich’ more votes than ‘the poor’. Instead of that facade, why don’t you go one better by replacing the aristocracy of monarchy with the aristocracy of productivity – give the largest taxpayers seats in the House of Lords?
Chris Burkland | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Higgs essentially asks: “Whence the authority of the state?”.
There is a relatively simple libertarian answer, that surely is not original to me, and surely has been propounded before more competently. I just don’t know where. My version of it is here.
Can anyone point to some prior art on this? The closest I can think of to prior art is an old pamphlet I have against anarchism written by John Hospers, though it doesn’t talk about homesteading. I’m also of course interested in prior art from anarchists in the form of attempted rebuttals to such an argument.
Ad hoc efforts here at a rebuttal, without reference to the anarcho-libertarian literature, will be taken as an admission that the a/l literature has an embarrassing blind spot about this straightforward argument. :-)
Brian Holtz | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
In response to my earlier comment:
George writes:
This trivialises the issues. Occasional government failure, especially when it is only partial failure, does not invalidate government responsibility.
Concerning 9/11, surely government action (given the circumstances) saved a great many lives. Whenever I hear that song by Tom Paxton (twice live in the UK) tears well in my eyes in respect for sacrifice far beyond that I have ever even approached, and doubt I ever could give even if the opportunity arose. Similar tears welled as I watched, in the UK, 8 years, 1 month and 17 days ago, when the fear was of loss of life over 6 times greater. But I emote – sorry.
Concerning 2, I agree (with the benefit of much hindsight) that the war on drugs is a failure. But does that refute the whole concept of maintenance of law and order? Anyway, the USA invented the war on drugs, some moralistic thing amplified by the 1960s – perhaps as a chaser for prohibition, and pretty much forced it on the rest of us. Go suck!
Value of money: 96% fall in 96 years. I think that’s 3.3% per year. I’m sure I’d like it to be less, but George’s definition of financial stability is what?
No King But God writes:
And he goes on to write about uncontracted mowing of other peoples’ lawns and then billing them for it. And then there is a fair bit about God.
Well, for those to whom it matters, I hold with God (really). Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s. I could go on, but I don’t think it really helps too much (well at least outside the USA). My father taught me that the Bible holds a case for both sides of any argument, and I have seen that argument from religion goes (and always has done) well beyond love of God’s righteousness. This particular argument also strikes me as going away from mankind’s duty of godly self-determination and good stewardship (themes in my Anglican learning, though I suppose not prevalent across the totality of Christendom, let alone all the world’s religions).
The case against the argument of No King But God is that he refutes the minarchists’ argument (the one I have given first) in favour of, I assume, the more extreme anarchists’ argument. As there is no reasonable prospect of society accepting even the minarchists’ argument, and as I seek some way of making things better for us all, No King But God seems in practice to hold to a totally pointless position.
Larry Ruane writes first:
Well that wording has the advantage of not irritating so much as the earlier ones: thank you.
There are, I steal, these self-evident truths.
Show me a successful society (difficult, I know, on definition – but try for 50+ years and preferably more) where there was some reasonably large population, was no government, and was no centralised requirement of and for defence, of and for law and order and of and for monetary stability (though, of course, the latter was much much easier without government action before the world economy outgrew the gold standard). And I must admit to being no great historian, so may well be barking up the wrong tree: go for it Larry!
And Larry writes:
I think I’ve answered that one above. On annual inflation, 3.3% on average is, I argue, more than sufficient stability for all but economic extremists. Look at those countries that have not suffered economic collapse and at those which have: where is the threshold in terms of currency inflation?
Chris Burkland writes:
Also a much better argument than those I reference earliest above. However, Chris really has only a throwback argument. The aristocracy always were the productive: mostly in economic terms (but also in war). I’m looking for ‘democracy’ in which the totality of economic footprint gets ‘fair’ representation. What Chris is suggesting is much more that what I am suggesting, in terms of giving more votes to the rich. Is that not obvious? See also here: http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/10/who-pays-our-taxes.html concerning who would get the votes in the UK for my proposed House of Taxpayers. It’s not dominated by the rich.
Well, it’s around 2150 UTC. Has anyone else, apart from Chris, any views beyond my first 3 paragraphs, into the next 10?
Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Burkland: Thank you for your response. Your comment about most Modernist Capitalists being unable to practice presumably “pure capitalism” owing to government “distortions and protections” to which they presumably must submit reminds me of the defense of Communism put forward by university and college Marxists in the 1970s and 1980s that to judge Communism by looking at the fruits of the Soviet Union’s criminalist regime and that of Mao-led China was simply unfair because, the Marxists and neo-Marists bleated, neither in the Soviet Union or Red China was true Communism ever followed and practiced. No Modernist ideological blueprint has been or can be slavishly, 100 per cent implemented according to the Modernist Ideology whose ideologues spawn the blueprint. Neverthelss in both of those nightmarish Communist states there was enough collectivization and political tyranny (Vanguard of the Proletariat indeed!) a la Marxist doctrine to fairly label their murderous political systems Communist.
If you wish to engage in the fiction that most Modernist Capitalists would unquestionably have been self-restrained and ideal social paragons except that Leviathan interfered and got in their way, then so be it. But you assume what have to prove when you make that undemonstrated assertion, e.g., you bootleg your consequent into your predicate. Nice try, but no cigar, as the old saying goes. I understand that you prefer to say that the current financial-economic meltdown afflicting working people worldwide is owing to the statists run amuck and that Modernist Capitalists have nothing to do with what is currently transpiring; however, that is ideological bunkum reflective of your presumed personal ideological commitment to the Libertarian (Classical Liberal) Modernist Ideology. If you can put aside your ideological blinders, you will begin to grasp the “who” and the “why” behind the cause of the present ongoing collapse of the Modernist Capitalist system–and no, this crisis is not one that can objectively or fairly be blamed on the Leftists and Marxists.
Franz von Kyberg | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
If we’re going to rehearse the usual debates about anarcholibertarianism, then please consider as read into the record:
What empirical evidence supports anarchism?
Are aggression trade-offs incalculable?
Do markets under-produce public goods?
Can torts police all negative externalities?
Brian Holtz | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Brian Holtz – You ask for anarchist literature about the authority of the state. Murray Rothbard says it best. You can download his The Ethics of Liberty from here.
Marty Nichol | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr Sedgewick: You asked for examples of successful anarchist societies. I believe both Ireland and Iceland were anarchist for over a millennium.
This talks about Medieval Iceland. Rothbards “Ethics” linked above discusses Ireland.
Mr Holtz: I believe these address your request for empirical evidence supporting anarchy. Present-day Somalia also does (despite what the mainstream media says).
Marty Nichol | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
While I always enjoy and applaud Dr Higgs’ writing, I think he’s making a mistake in invoking “morality” here.
For one, it doesn’t work: there are as many “moralities” as there are people, so if you try to use a particular “morality” as a lowest common denominator upon which you can build an intellectual argument for libertarianism, you are going to lose most people right from the beginning. I am not referring here to people with extremely “non-standard” morals, but instead to thoughtful, caring people who see value in “freedom” or “individuality” but think that other concepts such as “equality (of result)” as higher priority. You simply cannot create a logical argument that works starting from an assumption that is not held by the vast majority of people.
For two, it is unnecessary. “Libertarianism” (recognizing that this is an umbrella term that includes many somewhat similar and yet different concepts/systems) can be derived from a much less contentious basis: self-interest. Consider any two randomly chosen people and ask “would each of you achieve a net gain if you were to voluntarily choose to give up options like ‘murder the other person’ or ‘assault the other person’ or ‘steal from the other person’ in exchange for them doing the same in reverse?” Unless you get unlucky and get a bully, a thug, a sociopath, etc., the easy answer is “yes” for the vast majority of people, who generally would not choose those actions as a way to advance their personal situation anyway. Once you have established this relationship for two, it’s a simple induction argument to show that the same benefit will apply to such a contract signed and kept by a group of arbitrary size. Thus, the “libertarian principle” becomes a contractual agreement signed by most people because it is trivially in their best interest, and any further institutions or contracts must still honor that contract.
Lots of details remain to be filled-in by such a construction of course, but whatever results still falls within “libertarianism” by construction.
The strength of this construction is that it solves the big problem that Dr Higgs has pointed out: it avoids the problem that today *most people do not realize that the system they participate in is one in which they are daily using force against otherwise peaceful people*. In my experience, if you ask an average person if they want to use force against their next-door neighbor for their own personal benefit, they will emphatically say “no”, but because of the layers of indirection between their actions and the force being applied against their neighbors, they simply do not intellectually buy that they *are* using force against their neighbors. By couching the initial “contract” in extremely simple and direct cause-and-effect, this intellectual smokescreen is not in play.
I like to think of an analogy. If person A kills person B, clearly that is murder, and you really won’t get an argument with that. If A hires C to kill B, you still won’t get an argument that A murdered B: people can easily handle that level of indirection. What if A hires C to in turn hire D to kill B? Logically, it’s clearly still the same thing: A murdered B. But our intuition starts to lose the connection as we make this ever more implicit. In theory, A could hire C who hires D who hires E... who hires Z who shoots B. Would anyone buy that A is somehow *not* guilty of murder simply because of the indirect chain? Of course not. But you can continue to muddy the waters. What if A hires 20 people and asks them to vote on who should kill B, does that get A off the hook? A cursory thought tells us that it better *not*, or else we have invented a legal way to murder. But it’s equally obvious that as these layers of indirection get built up, our intuitive sense of cause and effect falls further behind. Now take the incredible complexity of a form of government, the number of people involved, the lag between cause and effect, etc., and it’s easy to see how many people who would not choose to use force againat a neighbor – think here of a typical kindly and peaceful person – still advocate for government: because they simply do not understand the causal chain between their actions and the force being applied against their neighbor.
“Morality” is simply an individual’s guide *to their own actions*. Any attempt to project one’s own “morality” onto others is simply hubris and can *never* lead to a common basis on which to build a consensus. Finding an economic exchange that is a slamdunk for most people* is a much more promising place to start.
*: I’m certainly not going to claim that all people would agree to this contract, nor that all that do agree to it would do so with the intention of keeping it. However: A) a contract that is economically nonzero sum is of benefit to those that participate independent of the participation of others. IOW, should only myself and, say, Dr Higgs sign such an agreement, he and I would gain benefit from it even if no one else does (I gain because I no longer have to defend myself from Dr Higgs attempts to murder me, and vice-versa). The benefit from the contract increases as a function of the number of signatories, and is not a step function that only provides value when *everyone* signs it; B) this contract is such a statement of basic nonaggression that if it is the case that most of humanity would not benefit from it, then our problem isn’t with our system of government, the problem is with human nature, and there’s really no point. Put another way: at their heart, I’d estimate that something like 90% of people are basically nonviolent in that they do not want to use murder, assault or theft as a way to advance their personal situation, and if 90% of people will sign a contract to that effect, then we’re basically there (we’d have to deal with the other 10%, but 90% of people defending themselves from 10% is *tons* better than each and every person defending themselves from every single other one). If instead I am wrong and most people *want* to reserve murder, assault and theft as legitimate options for advancement of their personal situation, then we’re all fucked no matter what our system of government is.
Andy Cleary | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Mr Holtz: Sorry. I should have read your links before I posted my quick reply.
This forum doesn’t lend itself to long essays so I’ll limit myself to two reponses.
1) A great deal is made about national defense. I direct you to Hoppe’s The Myth of National Defense.
2) The second biggest area of concern is with providing sustenance for life for millions. All I can say is the free market is already doing this. Why would it stop if government went away?
Marty Nichol | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Who is primarily responsible for the immoral actions of a predatory organization? The 535 + 1, or their allies, those voters who install them in power?
Democracy may beat some of the alternatives, but it is still a predatory machine, which some of the Founding Fathers wanted to restrain. They understood the problem lies in human nature. The American experience shows that power will not be restrained by moral principles, or telling people that taxation is theft. It will be used for personal enrichment and to impose a tribal vision on others.
Does anyone have a viable answer?
Capt. A makes some good points. Monaco must have advantages, but for many, America still beats the alternatives.
While some of the support only reflects socialist beliefs, surely a large part is based on immediate self-interest. Just as the king would enrich himself with impunity, so do those voters who work for government or receive public benefits. Voting is easy and profitable for them; and of course they see themselves enlightened citizens advancing a compassionate society, not as thieves destroying the social order.
david | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
The curve, so to speak, that represents governmental abuses in America goes like this: 250 years ago men’s rights to self-government, self-direction, and ownership of their lives and property were violated by a monarchy; today, those rights are being violated under a democratic system.
Same result, two purportedly different systems.
Ergo, the more modern of the two systems cannot be at fault. The result is produced by something else.
Especially when there was an intervening period of time which is looked to by many people as a benchmark against which they can claim that there has been a growth of government power in America. What were the ideas that were prominent in the society and government of that period, a period which came both after and before periods of tyrannical government–one kingly, one democratic?
Does anyone remember when people used to say in this country when there was some sort of personal dispute, “it’s a free country?” Does anyone remember when you used to hear, in cases of quarreling views and purposes, “two wrongs don’t make a right?” When was the last time you heard either one?
The defining characteristic, politically, of our age is that intellectual and ethical considerations as to the truth of any proposition or the propriety of any action have been replaced by struggles for power. This again, is no exclusive characteristic of democracy, it having characterized as one example the whole period of European religious and dynastic conflicts.
(With this difference, admittedly: whereas in 1470 or 1570 the fights were between kings and princes, now the whole of the people are mobilized and politicized in contending camps whose goal is to wrest power from one another.)
A concomitant of the widespread lust for political power is the posing of the question by one and another group, what shall we do with the power when we get it? Leading to the mania over who is going to initiate and execute one plan instead of another plan, or whose plan is better, or whose is worse; and leading to the omission of any question as to whether any plan whatsoever should be crafted with respect to the matter at hand.
Benevolent government–good old self-government–is extremely difficult to do well (and easy to do badly), since if it is to protect men’s rights it must use its own power to deny power to any violators of those rights, while at the same time enforcing legal standards in furtherance of that goal that are to be uniformly applied to each person, with blindfold on. Having such a government–which need not be unitary or consolidated, but may be federal and distributed–is quite a challenge, and one worth accepting.
The challenge for republics or for men, as once or twice was said, is also to keep at the end what good you started out with in the beginning.
STG | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Literally translated, democracy means, people-rule. I get that! People-rule — equals — self-rule — equals — anarchism. What everyone here seems to be discussing is a form of coercive collectivism going by the name Democracy. Yes, government is handy, but the only government consistent with self-rule is voluntary non-state government. Coercive collectivism is the great evil; democracy, rightly understood, is freedom.
Matty D | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for feedback.
Tell me what are the better ways to curb the tyranny if not being one of them first?
By being at the top, you can slowly reform the system, moving from democracy to something else.
Yes, anarchy is good but how to move from here to there? Please explain.
Chee-Heong Quah | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
If everyone voted – not just those who believe in the system – a majority would vote for anarchy.
Portland, Oregon | Oct 28, 2009 | Reply
“On annual inflation, 3.3% on average is, I argue, more than sufficient stability for all but economic extremists.” -Nigel Segwick
Let me ask you a simple question: when was the last time you were able to get a 3.3% interest rate on a savings account at the bank?
je5752 | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
Once again you blow me out of the water. The only thing I enjoy more in life than reading your articles is reading your books.
Wes Dillard | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
Marty, I explicitly am not asking for original essays to be posted here. On the contrary, I’m asking where the anarcholibertarian literature specifically addresses the libertarian justification for the state that I described. If you think Rothabard has addressed it, you need only provide a page cite.
Here, I list 16 specific problems that AFAIK no anarchy has ever even come close to solving. “Providing sustenance” is not on the list, and Iceland and Ireland never faced the three national-defense problems I list. If you’re really going to claim Somalia as your poster child, then I’m happy to rest my case after repeating the first five sentences of the aforementioned web page.
Brian Holtz | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
“Regardless of the uses to which a government puts its booty, however, the people cannot justly delegate to political representatives any rights that they do not possess. If I do not have a right to plunder my neighbor, how can I delegate that right to a government functionary who purports to represent me?”
A point well made. But I can give to a govt. the power to tax or to incarcerate or to kill yours truly, depending on a context. Government itself is not evil. The State—a fiat monopoly of government—is evil.
Kifaru | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
How can “the people [..] justly delegate to political representatives any rights that they do not possess”?
Good question. The answer stands unrebutted at here.
Brian Holtz | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for your well-thought out reply. You asked me to show you a successful anarchist society of the past. To me this is beside the point. Until just a few hundred years ago, when someone suggested that perhaps religion should not be a coercive monopoly, the likely reply was: “Show me a successful society that practiced religious liberty. You can’t! No, everyone must believe the same religion within our community or there will be chaos — ANARCHY!”
It took many thousands of years, untold violence and millions of needless deaths before almost all people finally came to realize that, indeed, people can believe different religion doctrines — even living right next door to each other!
I think it is the same with the state. I believe that some day the vast majority of people will come to realize that government doesn’t need to be a coercive monopoly, that we can have “liberty of governance” (analogous to liberty of religion) without society falling apart.
Larry Ruane | Oct 29, 2009 | Reply
I write in reply to Larry Ruane’s points in the 54th comment.
Firstly he equates the current disfavour of anarchistic government to the lack of religious freedom (more than a few hundred years ago), with the assumption that, at some future time, we will all/mostly favour anarchy in the same way as we all/mostly now favour freedom of religion.
Firstly, this only works if one assumes that there is an adequate parallel between government and religious practice. I don’t, he does. Oh dear!
Now, I could rely on the USA Constitution, a wonderfully thoughtful constitution and one that in the short span between 4th March 1789 and 15th December 1791 set up the basis for both national government and freedom of religion.
However, Larry stipulated against actions in the last few hundred years.
So, I’ll briefly do with the Wikipedia article on Religions in Ancient Rome.
The opening paragraph begins:
And it goes on, and makes quite an interesting read, referencing animism, paganism, ancient Greek religion, ancient Egyptian religion and, eventually, Christianity. I also recollect that Judaism was widely tolerated across the world for millennia, as well as being persecuted. Actually, I think that over time and place, there has been both a lot of religious tolerance and a lot of religious intolerance.
So I challenge Larry’s analogy: firstly on the grounds of relevance (certainly undemonstrated, and also contested); secondly on grounds of clear evidential inaccuracy, for a major empire over an extended period and for a minority (but important) religion over an extended period in many places.
Also, I do think we are moving rather far from Robert Higgs’ original posting, and also my critique of it and suggestion on a possibly improved version of democracy, that I argue should help tackles some of the excesses of democratic government as we currently have it.
Best regards
Nigel Sedgwick | Oct 30, 2009 | Reply
Original Defect:
A bunch of business owners not wanting to pay taxes decided to revolt. Noting that none of them died, but many of their soldiers did, I reserve the right to call them “Great”, with the exceptions of Paine, and Jefferson.
Secondary Defect:
If you pay a retard money who refuses to go get a real job (e.g., “Politicians”), be not surprised when he robs you. This is not a defect of the system per sey, though the system WAS built by people who never let the common man run it. Ignoring cool monikers such as “Democracy” or “Republic”, look at the system in the light of right: Who benefits the most?
Answer: Not you. The guys who run it.
That is, after all, why they built the system, and fight you to stay in control of it.
The last 200 years have been nothing but naked power grabs by the Feds to control the States, and the States to supress their populace. Control = Money, Money = Control. If in doubt, ask who benefits most by current laws, taxes, etc. Answer: Not you.
We have slowly been converting to Communism, or at least, a Dictatorship of the few, under the guidance of The One. Yeah man...the Army of One. Ha! If in doubt, ask WHO wins no matter what happens, recessions, depressions, bank failures, housing crash....
Answer: Not you.
No System of Government is evil.
No indeed, the morons who infest the system, and the retards who put them there...THAT is the evil. The same is true of Religions, Police.....take your pick of “control” poisons.
Without “rules of the road”, we collapse.
As you know, humans are stupid collectively and in the singular. We build systems to monitor each other. They then fail because they were built by the stupid, for the stupid.
So when our current system fails, remember why it did. It was supposed to, as it was defective when created, by the defective. Being maintained, and run, by the defective.
It is not a clock that winds itself, it is a clock that winds DOWN. All empires exist to fall, it is the inevitability of humanity. The undeniable history at work in the present.
Ask Rome how that turned out.
In case you went to college, let me help you:
They collapsed. From within first, then without. As every empire in history has done so.
ChumpyGumps | Oct 30, 2009 | Reply
Nigel, I think you took my analogy too literally — no analogy is perfect, or it wouldn’t be an analogy, it would be the thing itself! I never said there was a single religion in the world (just like today we don’t have one world government), or even within all of the Roman world. I only meant to say that in the past there have existed communities — villages, towns, Greek city-states, nations — in which the prevailing, unquestioned opinion was that everyone had to be practice the same religion, otherwise there would be chaos. (Even if elsewhere in the world religious tolerance existed; of course communication wasn’t good then either.) Today, the general opinion in most civilized areas of the world (there are exceptions even today, places where there is a state religion) is that religion does not have to be granted monopoly status.
I do not pretend that this proves that liberty of governance (non-monopoly government) is the correct view — it may be that religion and government differ in some fundamental way. I only wanted to make the point that it is possible (we have this example from history, religion) for nearly everyone in a society (which might be quite local in scope) to think an important institution must be a coercive monopoly, and yet today we can agree they were mistaken. So again, I’m making a fairly narrow point, but still I think a valid one. And I am hoping it leads you (and others) to consider the possibility, perhaps for the first time, that maybe government IS similar to religion in this sense.
As far as the USA Constitution is concerned, my view is they got the freedom of religion part right and the national government part wrong.
Larry Ruane | Oct 30, 2009 | Reply
See Joe Peden’s article on Ireland. He describes a period of a thousand years, prior to Cromwell’s conquering, where anarchy prevailed.
Kifaru | Oct 30, 2009 | Reply
Excellent, excellent.
You should be talking with Craig Cantoni who writes articles for an Arizona newspaper.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
THE ANSWER IS Kick Them All Out?
Charles Labianco | Oct 31, 2009 | Reply
Why is everyone talking about a Democracy? I thought we have a Republic. Or were we unable to “keep it” ?
KCZ | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
Dear Dr. Higgs,
This is as good as it gets. I especially liked the point you made (as Vin Suprynowicz has made regarding guns) that the government has no powers that are not first delegated to it by us. And, we can’t delegate powers that we do not ourselves already possess. Since we do not have the power, or the right, to murder or rob our neighbors, then the government, by the mechanism of delegation, can’t do those things, either.
This is so crystal clear that any statist ought to be able to understand it. Alas, as you stated, the biggest obstacle to the propagation of our ideas is the conflict between what people understand as individuals and the application of those principles to actions of elected officials.
Great article!
Antonio
Antonio | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
—Benjamin Franklin
David Theroux | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
You’ve put me in mind of a quote by Wilton Alston, “If ‘working inside the system’ was a viable step, then I—or someone who could ‘pass’ for white—should have joined the KKK a long time ago and cleared things up for black folk all over the South.”
William Beck | Feb 25, 2011 | Reply
As per the crux of Mr Higgs and several replies…
“if I alone do not have a right, and neither do my neighbors, then we cannot grant that non-existent right to someone else.”
FALSE. Any group of people can contract voluntarily for anything among themselves (even where the “what” is perhaps considered ‘immoral’), *they just can not do it for unwilling others also*. Conceded, the right is *granted* by permission, however, this is the alleged basis for political associations. The unjustified logical leap is in asserting that a polis or demos–or what have you–*necessarily* or by definition contracts among itself for *anything* that the system produces, and that what it produces is therefore legitimate.
Dan P | Jan 29, 2012 | Reply
Dan, You are certainly correct that individuals can contract among themselves to establish rules that apply to everyone in the group. However, such rule-making does not extend to those who have not agreed. And if those administrating the contract step beyond the agreement for those involved, they become aggressors, trespassers and criminals to those affected. The bottom line is that no group of people ever obtains some rights that do not exist for each individual and any contract is simply a consensual agreement in which such individual rights to peaceful use of property are exercised. Please see the following on this tenet of natural law:
The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
David Theroux | Jan 29, 2012 | Reply
Democracy does not have any defects. But we should have a new definition for democracy. What is democracy? Democracy has two bases of wisdom and justice. Wisdom of democracy is free and not an agent of religions or ideologies; and its mission is saving humanity and human survival forever. The minimum of justice of democracy is Human Rights. So voters should elect on the bases of wisdom and justice. If people make any mistake they will fix it by many ways even without waiting for the next election. Taxation is democratic if tax amount is wise and fair.
efsha | Jan 29, 2012 | Reply
I totally agree that democracy have a lot of defects, but i also think that we can really happy about the point that we can live in it because there are more bad forms of the gouverment.
Rubbish Clearance
Brian | Apr 25, 2012 | Reply