Is limited government possible?Submitted by dabooda on Sat, 11/20/2010 - 15:29
I posted this open question on Yahoo Answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkXfR93tbb1vsCQ... . I got only feeble responses. Anybody here want to take a bash at it? Only one day left to answer (until Nov. 21, 2010)
UPDATE: the question is resolved now.
This is the posting:
PHILOSOPHICALLY SPEAKING, IS LIMITED GOVERNMENT POSSIBLE?
I heard a great argument recently from author, anarchist and all-around troublemaker Larken Rose, asserting that limited government is not possible. It went like this:
"Government is a ruling class. It doesn’t matter how much rhetoric it’s hidden under and whether you say “it’s representative” or “our master is really our servant.” The shorthand version is: If there’s somebody who can boss you around and take your money, HE'S NOT YOUR SERVANT. If he CAN’T boss you around and take your money, he’s not “government.” And as soon as you have someone above you, as soon as you have a master, as soon as you have a ruling class, even if you have a Constitution that you can wave around and say “these are the things you’re supposed to do” – WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN HE DOESN'T??
"As soon as you accept the premise of government and authority and a ruling class, the only thing keeping it "limited" is the conscience of the master. Like if you’re a slave, and you say, “I accept that I’m your slave, master, I belong to you, but please be nice to me.” Well, maybe he will and maybe he won’t -- but it's not up to YOU any more. And that’s the problem with “limited government”: As soon as it’s government, it’s the master."
My question: What, if anything, is wrong with Mr. Rose's reasoning here? Logic, please.
If anyone is interested in listening to the live broadcast, it's here, http://www.larkenrose.com/media/audio.html in the section titled "Larken Rose - Freedom Frenzy - 11/9/2010 - Hour 2 " The quote comes near the end at 44:30. But the whole interview is pretty good.