Can the Rampaging Leviathan Be Stopped or Slowed?
By Robert Higgs • Monday November 2, 2009 11:09 AM PDT • 38 Comments
In a recent commentary titled “Diagnostics and Therapeutics in Political Economy,” I endeavored to show that an analytical understanding of past growth in the government’s size, scope, and power does not permit us to prescribe effective means of stopping or slowing this growth, particularly any simple “silver bullet” remedy, and I specifically disclaimed any personal knowledge of “what is to be done” toward this end. Responses to this commentary, some of them from keenly intelligent friends of mine who insist that diagnostics and therapeutics must be firmly linked, lead me to believe that I did not make myself sufficiently clear.
One respondent wrote, “Higgs must be speaking with tongue in cheek, for a man of his intellect simply must have a few solutions at least.” Well, yes, on one level, I have many “solutions” to propose. The problem comes when we ponder why I’ve just put quotation marks around the word solutions. The reason pertains to the links that connect my understanding of why government has grown with measures that might be taken to stop or slow its ongoing growth.
My understanding of the process by which government has grown in the United States and many other countries since the late nineteenth century is not easy for me to summarize briefly. It involves (1) a structural-ideological-political process operating in a persistent manner to produce long-term trends, (2) a crisis-ideological-political process operating during a series of discrete episodes of “national emergency,” and (3) interactions between these two processes, which should not be understood as independent of one another, but as identifiable aspects of the single herky-jerky historical evolution ― sometimes regular, sometimes erratic ― of a politico-economic order. One upshot of this complex process might be seen if we were to examine a series of “snapshots” at, say, thirty-year intervals. Each snapshot would show us a society with a different composition of economic activities, production techniques, occupations, demographic attributes, and so forth, a different composition of ideological identifications, understandings, and loyalties, and a different configuration of political leanings, organizations, and institutions reflecting these structural and ideological differences. To oversimplify, we might say that the overall process creates ― usually gradually, but occasionally abruptly ― a changing set of “vested interests” among the population, but in this characterization we would have to interpret the idea of vested interests more broadly than usual, so that it includes not only people’s interests in pecuniary payoffs, but also their interests in ideological outcomes of various sorts. (My views in this area have been developed in a series of personal engagements [as a teacher, consultant in regulatory proceedings, and expert witness in legal proceedings] and in a series of research efforts, the most prominent results of which are reported in my books Crisis and Leviathan, Against Leviathan, Depression, War, and Cold War, and Neither Liberty Nor Safety, to which the reader is referred for a more detailed account of my views on this matter, among others.)
Now, with this rather desperately compressed vision of the complex process by which the government has grown as our background, let us return to my “solutions,” that is, to my proposals for stopping or slowing further growth of government. In doing so, however, we must recognize that political “solutions” that clash strongly with the currently prevailing array of vested interests (broadly construed) probably cannot be implemented. For me to suppose otherwise would be inconsistent, because doing so would be tantamount to rejection of my own interpretation of how those interests came into being in the course of the historical process just outlined. At least within somewhat flexible limits, a society’s socio-economic structure, ideological postures, and political institutions must cohere. At a particular point in time, many conceivable (and in my view desirable) political reforms are not feasible.
At the moment, many people are enamored of the solution that calls for abolition of the Federal Reserve System. I certainly agree that the Fed has played an integral (but not an indispensable) role in the growth of government in the United States since 1913. But once one has demanded “abolish the Fed” and subsequently found that it is still in operation, what does one do?
Various next steps might be suggested, such as sponsoring lecturers who explain how the Fed has adversely affected economic prosperity, peaceful international relations, and liberty. From time to time, I have myself given such lectures to audiences that ranged from ordinary Americans to social scientists to Latin American bankers, and, of course, many other speakers have presented similar lectures. All right, we’ve given our lectures, and the Fed is still operating, so what should we do next? Give more lectures, in an attempt to influence the thinking of more people? Or perhaps mount a political movement aimed at abolition of the Fed?
If one chooses the direct political option, where does one get the financing for it? Who will organize it? Who will lead it? What actions will it take? Will it try to place sympathetic candidates on the ballot for election to Congress? Will it attempt to influence sitting members of Congress by bribing them with campaign contributions or by threatening to recruit constituents to vote against them in the next election? My point is that once we select a specific means of stopping or slowing the government’s growth, an endless series of follow-up questions presents itself, as we encounter one problem after another, each of which must be solved successfully if we are to make headway.
No doubt the greatest obstacle of all to any such effort is that thousands of organizations are currently working, directly or indirectly, to promote further growth of government. A 2005 article in the Washington Post placed the number of registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., at more than 34,750 and reported that their business was booming, creating “a gold rush on K Street.” Many of them have well-equipped offices, large capable staffs, including legions of lawyers, and established connections with incumbents in Congress, regulatory agencies, and other government offices, not to mention their friends on the courts. They also have millions upon millions of dollars to pour into their efforts to win friends and influence people, including the same mass electorate that an anti-Fed or other anti-government-growth political movement presumably seeks to influence. At this point in the historical process, anti-Fed proponents face a fabulously wealthy, tightly connected, deeply entrenched conglomeration of opponents who would sooner confine you, me, and all our friends and relatives at Guantanamo for nonstop torture than give up the Fed, which has long served, and continues to serve, their interests exceedingly well. So, yes, we can try to mount a political movement to abolish the Fed, but, given what we are up against, what chance of success do we really have? One in a thousand? One in a million?
Given this reality, if I offer as a “solution” to the ongoing growth of government that we abolish the Fed, my proposal solves nothing. It only raises a series of other difficult questions, each one of which leads to another and another and another. No political realist was surprised when, according to an October 30 Bloomberg report, “Ron Paul, the Texas Republican who has called for an end to the Federal Reserve, said legislation he introduced to audit monetary policy has been ‘gutted’ while moving toward a possible vote in the Democratic-controlled House.” If the powers that be are not even willing to permit a vote on a bill with 308 co-sponsors aimed at making the Fed’s decision-making more transparent, does anyone really believe that those same powers would stand idly by while the Fed was abolished?
Nor is abolition of the Fed unique in this regard. One might propose abolition of any number of government departments or agencies ― for example, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Food and Drug Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and countless other government bureaus ― and find that in each instance one runs up against another fabulously wealthy, tightly connected, deeply entrenched conglomeration of opponents.
One might alternatively propose simply to reduce government spending across the board, without trying to reconfigure the government’s organization chart. The obstacles here, however, are if anything even greater, because thousands of powerful interest groups are currently seeking to increase government spending. Of course, each wants mainly an increase in the portion of government spending that enriches its own members, but the budgetary process has evolved, along with the committee structure of Congress, to facilitate a gigantic logroll, so that each year nearly every predatory interest group of any consequence tacitly agrees to refrain from blocking the other predators if they will refrain from blocking its own raid on the Treasury. Committee chairmen and ranking minority members are paid off as required to achieve this massive predation. Hillary Clinton used to complain about a “vast rightwing conspiracy,” but if one wants to see a genuine mega-conspiracy, one need look no further than the nexus of members of Congress and the thousands of well-organized and well-financed special-interest groups that support these politicians’ perpetual reelection in exchange for their direct or indirect channeling of almost unimaginably huge amounts of the public’s wealth into these special interests’ coffers.
So, yes, one might propose, say, a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution ― indeed, by now this proposal is hoary with age. Political realists understand, however, that getting support for such an amendment is diabolically difficult, and, even if one were to be ratified, the members of Congress would simply install the appropriate smoke and mirrors to conceal their violation of this constitutional restraint, as they installed such circumventions on previous occasions to violate their own rules for spending restraint. Does anyone still recall the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985?
It appears, then, that among the critical difficulties of restraining the growth of government is the obvious fact that even when restraints are enacted into law, the government will not obey that law. Needless to say at this point, constitutional amendments are not worth the parchment on which they are inscribed. After all, the Constitution still contains the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. With those amendments and three or four bucks, you can get a latté at Starbucks.
I trust that by this point I need not belabor my point at greater length. To recapitulate: “solutions” to the ongoing growth of government are available for a dime a dozen. I have a bag full of them myself, and every one of them is utterly worthless as a means of achieving the ultimate goal. Every genuine solution must be carried through, and any serious solution will require enough people and money to carry out the activities necessary to bring it about. Marshalling people and money may in turn require ideological conversions on a substantial scale, which themselves may require a great many people and a great deal of money, if such conversions are possible at all, given the existing configuration of vested interests (broadly construed).
Moreover, another potent constraint always lurks in the background. Although we need not spend much time at present in dwelling on this issue, the fact remains that if any truly effective measures were approved to rein in the government, the rulers in all likelihood would resort to whatever legal or illegal violence proved necessary to prevent those measures from taking effect. Thus, I am quite sure, for example, that if Ron Paul were ever, by a miracle of miracles, to be elected president, he would not live to take the oath of office. Opponents of the government’s ongoing growth must bear in mind that we are dealing with violent, heavily armed, utterly unscrupulous people who, if pushed to the brink, will stop at nothing to retain their power and privileges.
I welcome anyone’s proposed “solutions” to the ongoing growth of government, and I wish all such proposals success, however much I doubt the likelihood of their success. I do not believe, though, that a substantial prospect of success is necessary to justify one’s efforts in resisting the ongoing growth of what is at bottom a gigantic criminal enterprise. To resist its further growth is simply the decent thing to do, regardless of whether one expects to succeed.
And even those who believe, as I do, that the chances of success in such efforts are extremely small can take heart from the knowledge that ultimately this criminal enterprise will attain such bloated size and scope that its own survival will no longer be possible, and it will implode, as the Soviet Union and other similarly overreaching politico-economic orders have imploded. Governments that grow and grow ultimately find that their predation becomes greater than their prey can support, at which point such predators are doomed. Thus, the present system of government in this country and many others contains the seeds of its own destruction, even if those of us who abhor it cannot stop or slow its continued growth in the near term.
Some of the younger people among us may live long enough to help in picking up the pieces and beginning anew. One hopes that the new beginning will rest on a less coercive, more voluntary basis than the present system. Otherwise, it will be destined only to trace the same predatory rise that the present system has followed and to arrive at the same self-destruction that ultimately awaits our own politico-economic order.
Tags: American History, Budget and Tax Policy, Constitution, Corruption, Federal Reserve, Law, Politics, The State 
Amazing! The first time I can recollect anyone having the courage to write the truth (at least as I perceive it). It makes a welcome change from the fantasy delusionist’s of ‘change’.
Mike Craggs | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
Your closing remarks make me think of New Zealand, where I lived for a number of years.
Their deregulation in the 80′s came about because the state was going bankrupt and on the verge of implosion rather than any ideological mass believe in free markets. In fact, most New Zealanders would embrace a cradle-to-grave gov’t system.
When I first moved there I was puzzled by the general distaste for ‘free’ markets and hatred of the ‘brutal’ Roger Douglas years, which in my family’s free market circles was held up as an example of a country who’d reversed government growth.
It was actually the Labor Party-led government at the time (not the conservative party!) which spearheaded deregulation and privatization over two administrations.
New Zealand is relatively free of the corporatism we find here in the U.S. and consistently ranks as one of the countries where it’s the easiest to start a business.
It’s not perfect by any means, and the social welfare and public healthcare burdens are huge. But perhaps a hopeful example in some regards.
Ron Paul can bide his time (stay healthy, Ron!) and once the US feels the impact of the government freely printing money, propping up favored corporates and spending what it doesn’t have, perhaps we’ll be able to similarly clean house. Ha ha
PLJ | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
I agree, Dr. Higgs. Reforming this monstrosity is a fool’s errand. It is simply too large and has entirely too much inertia to alter its course.
But, as you’ve stated, Leviathan is not smart enough to know when to stop. It will kill itself eventually, and it will likely happen with mind-boggling speed.
The key is to educate enough people to take advantage of the opening this catastrophic event will present. It’s a shame that we have to wait for the idiots leading us to destroy everything, but that is what happens when you give ignorant do-gooders political power and a standing army to enforce their idiotic schemes.
Time to get prepared for a very bumpy ride.
Steve Hogan | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
Mr Higg’s analysis points to the question of cultural change, because, as his piece points out, politicking has its limits.
Right now we’re declining. We’ve been declining since the eighteenth century. But how did we originally arrive at such a high point to decline from? The culture changed from what it was before – it changed from culture dominated by religion and obedience to, briefly, one of reason and liberty.
Ultimately, cultural change came from a change in the fundamental ideas of the people. It came from a renaissance of reason. We can have that again.
The Ayn Rand Institute has a strategy designed to inject its ideas into the base of the culture – the universities. It’s a principle of their philosophy that philosophy is primary; that it affects the culture. It is the intellectuals that form the bodyguards and enablers of statism.
This, of course, is not a new idea. It’s the ‘march through the institutions’.The Mises Institute follows pretty much the same method. I bring it up simply because it’s truely the best long term solution we have.
Alastair Jardine | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
Here, here. Finally the truth.
But after the curtain comes down on our present act, what does the transition look like and how do we ensure that a more liberty driven, freedom loving outcome over a move to totalitarianism?
Patrick Davis | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Every time Dr. Higgs post something on this blog I am reminded why he is my favorite author. Dr. Higgs, for me, will always be “that guy who personally debunked Keynesian economics.” I thank you for sharing your studies with the rest of us. You can take comfort in the fact that even if we never seen a reduction in the size and scope of government, you have provided us with the intellectual ammunition to denounce all statist arguments for the growth of government. Your work will live on even if it is continued to be ignored by the statist roobs that run everything these days. Timeless works such as Crisis and Leviathan will lead others to pick up the cause of advocating for a more peaceful and voluntary world regardless of the success of the cause.
I hope you find it entertaining that if we are to go to war to preserve Leviathan and tyranny is used to squash any intellectual opposition, your books would be the first to be burned.
Keep up with the scholarship and writing and we will continue to take comfort that we have the best of the best on our side. They can keep Krugman.
Wes Dillard | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Kevin Williamson, deputy managing editor of National Review on Glenn Beck yesterday saying 80-90% of incumbents will be re-elected...The host, and Kevin casually sat back an opined that Michelle Bachmann’s call to come to Washington D.C. Thursday will be of NO EFFECT – just like the 9/12 Tea Party march was.
So, again; the only glimmer of “hope” is what I heard on Morning Joe, from Scarborough himself...”the national party bosses DO NOT control their base anymore”...are we really going to take over the Republican Party with TRUE conservatives committed to the Constitution and the morality, boundaries, and recommendations of the founders?...with the long term goal of DESTROYING what immoral persons have built...and start a NEW nation?
This nation has indeed become a top-down destroyed, self-serving political system; run by juvenile adults...that will “implode”!
“We The People” have never realized(as our founders did) the risks, sacrifice, hard work, determination, and LIFE-LONG endurance it was going to take to get the Republic back where it needs to be!
As fired up as I allow myself to become from time to time...my money has to remain on the belief that a North American Union will be implemented, as this Republic seemingly is in a hurry to fail; another fiat currency will be issued...and another CHOICE to have a civil war will present itself, and quickly disappear...just like 9/11, the Patriot Act, and pending Health Care Reform...I sadly contend that the people; being so defeated, lacking adequate resources, docile and controlled by the government, media, the entertainment industry and churches will once again CONFORM because we realize our nation was looted long before this generation “woke up” to the evils of the Federal Reserve System.
If “We The People”, permitted to remain “free” within the NEW borders; want to work at ALL, have food, and the freedom to enjoy any creature comforts at all, versus going to a debtor’s prison – we will COMPLY with their mandates and accept the new government our apathy ELECTED.
Population control, squashing dissent, eliminating competition is the goal of where watering down morality leads! The government deliberately went after the churches FIRST, controlled their political speech; because they KNEW where the dissent arose from in early 17th Century Europe!
We will still have political parties, we will still have churches,and our social functions; but the America our founders envisioned, and realized, will be no more...because there isn’t sufficient DEMAND for it...only by impacting local government and defeating the higher-ups(an impossible task because of the fiat currency system and license to create), will America ever be revived, preserved, or resurrected. That is going to take TOO LONG!
In the end, under whatever government system this world dreams up; that my family and I are forced to live under – no matter how tyrannical – my obligation is the same...I have to preach the same Gospel I have accepted as truth to every creature first and foremost(even the illegal alien that has been given INSTANT amnesty) while I have the mind, knowledge, and limited freedom and resources to do so.
The pointing of fingers is over with, the development and pondering of “solutions” is over with...I see it all has become a BIG business; just like American Christianity and even being a fundamentalist Baptist has!
These guys have known just how far to encroach on our liberties in order to keep us obedient serfs...I will continue to strive and take moral stands; but I will remain ever-mindful of the reality that if I REFUSE to give my consent, or conform – I personally will exists in a conquered state of financial ruin for not going along to get along”.
Nonetheless; His Divine laws and His Gospel will live on after me!
I have learned enough now, where I could become an “asset” to whatever opposition; so I have satisfied myself that I can discern when I am being suckered or lied to!
Either way, you can be assured, I will remain a SEPARATED individual from corruption.
John Eleniewski | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
This is pretty much what I am telling people now, although I still think that abolishing the FED would solve the majority of the other problems. I think that our political and economic salvation will come from that entrepreneurial spirit that will not, cannot, be killed by the Leviathan. When Leviathan takes its last breath, those entrepreneurs will be there to begin the process of building a free and voluntary society.
I wonder Mr. Higgs, what do you think of expediting the process through starving the beast? The legal giveaways and tax breaks for certain segments of our society could be utilized to drain its lifeblood more rapidly...or are you of the opinion that independents and libertarians should not take any money from the beast’s booty?
Ed Burley | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Depressing but true – there are vast numbers of well-funded people who want more government. For that reason, I prefer to focus on much more personal objectives: home schooling, self-defense, financial security, and community-building. Each of these strengthen individuals and voluntary associations, and take away the “need” and “justification” for the State. When government schools empty, when people stop calling 911, when the police become as idle as the fabled Maytag repairman, the State will be that much closer to implosion, and the institutions to replace it will already exist.
terrymac | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
This. I’ve been thinking along these lines for sometime. We can’t stop Leviathan, maybe we can slow it down, but eventually it will destroy itself. Hopefully, it wont be a bloody nightmare.
Steve Verdon | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Bob,
I love your clarity. Thank you for this article.
It reminds me that all of us who Love Liberty and, in our own ways, take some action every day are akin to throwing pebbles down a mountain trying to start an avalanche.
In our case we are trying to start an avalanche of Sanity and Peaceful Cooperation.
What else can we do?
All the best,
Michael McKay
Michael McKay | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
You have the very well articulated the cause of the problem. You have very good reason to be paranoid about the fate of a would be reformer such as Ron Paul not making it to the oath of office. I believe that you are in fact in error here. The forces driving growth are not so evil or so powerful as you describe. It is just the shear size of it. Dr.Paul, and perhaps you, can’t see the path because you are focused on the detail. Ending the Fed won’t be the political point that wins the presidency for our hero. And we need a hero. A candidate that is committed to saving the republic and who can make the average voter understand that a job needs to be done without boring him. We need a Paul in Obama’s clothing. What did Obama say he was going to do? Nothing at all specific. Somehow he got elected. When Dr. Paul starts talking about the Fed, people go to sleep. Nobody whose main concern is what the Steelers are going to do Sunday, is going to get turned on by “End the Fed”.
We need another Reagan.
He must be out there.
Richard Howard | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
Very cogently written, as always. Perhaps there exists–to try and find some point worthy of guarded optimism–that some of the “solutions” analyzed in your article, i.e., the gradual evolution of public opinion, open hearings to limit the Fed’s power, the dissemination of information about the power structure, etc., will coalesce to a level which actually culminates in civil disobedience. Imagine what would ensue, were some six-to-eight million people to refuse to pay the income tax, and if states–as is currently happening in the area of gun legislation–simply nullified federal statutes and regulations.
Carl Garrett
Carl Garrett | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
“Opponents of the government’s ongoing growth must bear in mind that we are dealing with violent, heavily armed, utterly unscrupulous people who, if pushed to the brink, will stop at nothing to retain their power and privileges.”
Wow. and well said.
Randy | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Randy,
I think that that idea is paranoia.
Bags
Richard Howard | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
Richard,
I’ve studied history. It seems like an obvious truth to me. The wow isn’t shock. Its delight in finding a fellow a-political.
And by the way, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me.
Randy | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
My proposed effective solution to regaining small government is two-part: establish a majority of voters who favor small government and remove all those who favor large government. Selective placement of small yield neutron bombs throughout the nation (with about 50 in Washington) probably is the most practical method, though there would be significant “collateral damage.”
Just remember when you place those neutron bombs to adjust the yield. I live near, but not in, a city whose population likes big government. Please don’t nuke me with them.
An alternate, nonviolent solution would be for people favoring small government to move to Wyoming. We would then proclaim that Wyoming is a new nation. This didn’t work in New Hampshire, but the libertarian influx was negated by an influx of Massachusetts tax-avoiders. And, it didn’t work in 1861 because, as Robert Higgs noted, the 9th and 10th amendments don’t mean anything. So, this is a low-probability-of-success approach for those who don’t like nuking most of the population.
Dr. T | Nov 3, 2009 | Reply
If the most plausible outcome is that the Leviathan will ultimately grow to large & destroy itself, then why not help speed up this process? In the name of small government, do everything you can to expand our government until it bursts. Is that not, based on Dr. Higgs’s assertion, the most expedient way to bring down our massive welfare state?
Chris | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Richard,
We don’t need a hero. No one man can change the direction of our failed state. If we need to sell a person or a personality to get a real liberty lover in the White House than it means we are not intellectually ready to be free. The reason Ron Paul was always honest about the message he carried and explained it to all who would listen was for one reason, because it is all about the message and not the man. If elected, Ron Paul would only be a figure head for an intellectual shift in the American public. We didn’t vote for Ron Paul, we voted for liberty! All the issues that Ron Paul talks about are all tied into one another and always represent the real problem, the massive government. People get bored when Ron Paul talks about liberty because they have no idea what is best for them. They still think government can solve problems without creating bigger ones and the wheel keeps turning. It takes too much thought to understand the message that Ron Paul carries so most people just tune out and nothing changes. It is the people’s fault that they think preserving their rights and freedom are boring. They would rather watch Jon&Kate+8. Since you, Higgs, and I happen to share citizenship with the masses that fall for the political games, the media BS, and look at politics through the left-right paradigm there is very little we can do except sit back, enjoy our personal lives, stay informed, and watch it burn. When the fire heats up like last fall, the people get scared then we get half-witted roobs like Glenn Beck to play on their fears and get rich off it. As Dr. Higgs once said, “Call it democracy in action or utterly corrupt governance; they are the same thing.”
Wes Dillard | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Richard,
Reagan was great with the rhetoric, but did very little peel back the size of government. You should read Ivan Eland’s new book, Recarving Rushmore.
Wes Dillard | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
This is an excellent article by a superb author, Dr. Higgs, as usual—and many excellent comments, as well. Here’s my two-cents as a freeman:
It is fortunate when an individual subjectively determines the true value of their freedom, liberty, privacy and holds to private property rights—and yet they come to the crossroad that requires action. It may not always be pleasant action in the beginning. It is a fact that you only have one life to live. Believe it or not we, you and I make “free choices” about living that life. And yes, some choices aren’t free huh? Tribal inculcation follows after sustenance and sex, in that order. ALL government-controlled school systems subtly instill a profound illusion of “freedom and liberty.” You’re hooked and most don’t even know it! I left the U.S. over thirty-years ago. I was age 45 when I left. I broke free. I valued my life, free from the legalized plunder, enforced ultimately at the end of a gun barrel. Why would any sane, rational, freedom-seeking individual put up with such crap? It all deals with two very important issues: citizenship and jurisdiction. Get rid of one—and stay out of the other. Stop “hoping.” It’s poppycock!
Don’t “worry” about the mule; just load the wagon! Meaning: stop concerning yourself about trying to “fix, replace or change” a VERY broken system. It’s a waste of the “only life you will ever have.” LEAVE! I didn’t say the required action was pleasant or easy to accomplish. It can be done though. How much do you really VALUE your freedom, liberty and privacy? Enough to leave?
Otherwise I suggest that desperation, angst and continual “hope” result in the downtrodden living under the master’s yoke, subject to the lash at whim. Is that any way to live life? Only you can answer that. VOTE ONLY with your feet. Leave. The very best to each of you.
C’est la guerre,
Capt. A.
Principaute de Monaco
GMT +1:00 CET
“Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn’t deserve to be.” ~ L. Neil Smith
Capt. A. | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Higgs. While I DO agree with your basic premise and most, if not all, of your corollaries, the one thing I can’t figure out is what you are actually advocating. If I take you at face value I have to conclude that there are only 3 possibilities:
1) Let things take their course and wait for the collapse in 30 years or so
2) Seek a spiritual revival back to the roots of our government — the Christian faith
3) Use the nuclear option... literally!
I am placing my effort into option #2!!!
Manly Christian | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Excellent article Dr. Higgs. Education is paramount!!
Robby | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Dr. Higgs -
Thanks for this article, and your other pieces I have been following the past couple years.
There is only one thing that can stop what you are describing, and that is a revolution. Wish me luck.
I’m no Ron Paul, but do me a favor—cross your fingers and hope I don’t get shot. As Murray once said, some people prefer the type of revolution that you watch on TV :)
Jake Towne
Mises University ’09
towneforcongress.com
Jake Towne | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
“Opponents of the government’s ongoing growth must bear in mind that we are dealing with violent, heavily armed, utterly unscrupulous people who, if pushed to the brink, will stop at nothing to retain their power and privileges.”
I’d like to think, given what I’ve read about the current composition of the Armed Forces (i.e. hardly on the Pelosi side of the aisle) that if push came to shove (some form of popular revolt against continued government predation), the military (or much of it) would ally itself with those of us who prefer smaller government and far less collectivism. Or is this just wishful thinking?
CJF | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
In your article you mention abolishing the fed, and describe why any attempt to do so (at least by frontal assault) would fail.
Perhaps an attack on the flank would succeed, or one could subvert it. Go here and consider that my Normalized Housing Units and Umbrella orgainzations could come to subvert the fed. Possibly.
Doug Nusbaum | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Any political change will first require a change in moral principles from the American people. As long as most people believe that it is the duty of each individual to live for the benefit of others and that it is proper for the government to implement that sacrifice by force, then no political change is possible. When the cries of “what about the poooooor?”, “what about the oooooooold”, “what about the poor chiiiiiiildren???”, or “that plan will benefit the evil rich” fall on deaf ears, then political change will be possible. Until then, nothing but total collapse will be necessary to reform the system.
Ed P | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
The human problem
The human problem is simple and repeatedly results in our current condition: Good people are only willing to do good things to try and stop bad people. Bad people are quite capable of enduring all the good things good people do to try and stop them. And bad people are quite willing to do bad things in order to get whatever they want. Good people are not willing to do the bad things that are necessary to stop bad people from doing bad things to them. So bad people end up ruling over good people who only do good things to try and stop them. This will remain a fact of life until good people are willing to do the bad things that are necessary to stop bad people.
With rare exception, no amount of civil efforts by dedicated citizens will amount to success against governmental power brokers who are dedicated to maintaining their power at all costs and by any means. They have planned their contingencies and have mechanisms in place to thwart every good effort to stop them. The unfortunate truth, as history has shown, is that they will only be stopped when they are dead.
Hari Heath
J. Slaughter | Nov 4, 2009 | Reply
Chris,
I have been thinking along the same lines. If the productive class started overwhelming the system with entitlement claims the system would soon collapse. Or another way to look at it, why should we remain slaves to a system of exploitation that is totally dependant on us? That is, Ayn Rand’s argument, with the addition of the idea of exploiting the exploiters.
Randy | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
CJF,
Have you heard of Oath Keepers (www.oathkeepers.org)? Their whole mandate is to encourage LE and Military people who have made an oath to uphold the Constitution, to follow through with that oath by NOT obeying orders that would deprive citizens of their constitutional rights even if that means laying down their arms. That sounds like a pretty good start to me.
Manly Christian | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
“People get bored when Ron Paul talks about liberty because [they have no idea what is best for them].”
Scary sentence. Sounds just like so many of the statists: We know better than the people what’s best for them. We’ll do it right, we’ll make sure they brush their teeth and go to bed on time.
Ultimately, if people don’t have the right to be stupid and really foul things up, then they aren’t really free, are they?
Diane Merriam | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Diane Merriam,
You are missing my point. I was saying the complete opposite of what you assumed I meant. I’m saying that they don’t know what is best for them because they still have faith in gov’t and gov’t solutions and not in the individual. Their belief goes against the grain of history and historical facts and if you don’t agree with that then I fear you are yet to read any Rothbard, Mises, or Higgs. People look to the gov’t to solve their problems and don’t even seem to care if gov’t was the cause of the problem in the first place.
I’m not saying that people need to be forced to understand that faith in the state is a faith that will lead to the destruction of the individual, and I thought I made that clear in my previous comment. I AM saying it is a damn shame that they are yet to understand that this is a historically proven fact. People have the right to be stupid and foul things up; the problem is that other people such as elected officials think they have the right to foul up my life using powers that an individual does not posses. I never alluded that people do not have that right to be stupid, but it is a shame that they are stupid. This is the way I see the world which is a conclusion I have derived though my studies. As long as I don’t allude to the notion that we should use force to make people see the world as I do, calling me a statist in incorrect.
Wes Dillard | Nov 5, 2009 | Reply
Societies, like organisms, decay and grow cancerous over time as well documented by Mancur Olson and C. N. Parkinson. Young, healthy institutions need to be created anew. Paul Romer is suggesting the importance of fresh upstarts in his Charter Cities Blog.
Roger Parker
R D Parker | Nov 6, 2009 | Reply
I always enjoy the clear thinking and writing of Prof. Higgs and his last two blogs have been particularly well done. But its not just the leaders that would use force to stop a reduction in government growth and power. At sharedprosperity.org, Virginia Reno touted the success of social security by stating: “Social Security has the unique strength of being sponsored by the federal government, the rare entity that has the power to tax and will never go out of business.”
The beneficiaries of social security realize its ability to steal from everyone thru taxes is the reason for its “success.” They can benefit from this theft without the stigma or jailtime that theft would normally result in.
This drive to benefit themselves at any expense including theft and even killing (if they can get away with it) is part of human nature. A kind of biological efficiency, observed in other species by Darwin but certainly more pronounced in a species as successful as the human species. That is a tendency to maximize life thru minimal exertion.
Human nature is not going to change and so there seems even less hope than Prof. Higgs would suggest when he says “...if only people can be made to understand...”
Brian | Nov 8, 2009 | Reply
It would indeed be the most efficient way. The problem is most people live a pretty good life these days. If we sped the process (assuming we actually have a effect on the outcome) then things would most likely be worse for us in our lifetime before the system was reset. Also, at the time things are reset it seems like there would be so many dependent boobs in society that a dictator would be a more likely outcome than a smaller republic.
freb | Nov 10, 2009 | Reply