34 votes

Why I can't argue for Limited government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." — George Washington, allegedly

I believe the root of our problems revolve around force and coercion. The ability for some to coerce others - through the threat of violence - into action that they would not voluntarily take, most people agree, is wrong.

The entire structure of our government is based on the ability to use force. As George Washington (allegedly) points out, it is force. The core of what makes government government is its ability to steal to fund its operations and its ability to initiate force to carry out its agenda. The perceived authority to use force is what makes the organizational structure of government unique.

We teach our kids that theft and coercion is wrong. We don’t accept this behavior from our friends and we condemn it when we see others doing it. We have this reaction because reason, which government is not, tells us it is wrong. Reason tells us that peace won’t come through theft and force. In order to find peace we have to respect others and show tolerance even when we may not agree with their actions.

When the very heart of our system of “order” and “justice”, the system used to “keep the peace”, the system that protects us from unjust force and coercion... when this system is based upon force and coercion, should we expect a successful result? Is this possible, or will it only create more violence?

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” – Albert Einstein

When people argue for “small” or “limited” government it seems that they are trying to solve problems using the same kind of thinking we used to create them. In fact, it is the same kind of thinking that big government proponents use, just to a smaller degree.

In both cases emotions are driving the abandonment of logic. The mistake isn’t in the size or scope of government, the mistake is in acceptance of force and coercion to solve a problem. To accept limited government is to accept some amount of force. The difference between small government proponents and big government proponents is the extent to which they are willing to use theft and force to solve a problem.

The motives are good. The desire to feed the poor, help the elderly, provide for the common defense are all noble. But our emotions let the false promises that theft and coercion give seem necessary. When you are arguing for small or limited government in favor of big government you aren’t condemning this evil, but merely trying to change one’s emotional attachment to a specific issue. You are trying to convince them that certain things are too important to not use force for, but the issues they feel passionate about aren’t important enough. That’s a tough argument to make.

Often times we use the argument of the evils of theft and force on certain issues, but fail to take this principle to its logical conclusion. This slight amount of hypocrisy is confusing and hurts ones credibility. How can something be a principle if it has exceptions?

“Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction.” – Albert Einstein

It's simple. It's not complex. It's not violent. Theft and coercion are wrong.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
TwelveOhOne's picture

+1, please make a Post out of it

I would be interested in obtaining this information. Thank you.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Will do.

It might take a week or so.

limited government doesnt mean some handouts

The limited gov that I invision revolves around the judiciary system. The only law that needs to exist is simply that your rights go up until they hit someone else's rights. At this point if there is a dispute then allow the courts to handle it. You would be surprised at how well people work their problems out. So a limited government would have no legislative branch. As for the executive it would deal with foreign countries. People could decide if a war was worth fighting and they could donate or fight. Charity would be private. Taxes would be zero. Cities would be like covenants charging people a fee if they chose to live there or they could just be random pieces of private property with people cooperating with each other.

Just don't give power to the government.

Yes, Yes, Yes. I too see the Legislative power as the crux of th


It doesn't fit with the delegation idea.

How can the People delegate the power to make law when they don't possess this power themselves?

Can I make rules for YOU to live by, or you to make me live by?

Of course not.

So how can we delegate this to a legislature?

We can't.

Thus this power is illegitimate and must go.

If there is no legislative, there is no need for an executive.

This leaves us with the judicial power - what government is really limited to - securing inalienable rights.

This doesn't even need a large apparatus as we have now.

It likely doesn't even need permanent courts.

And it can be handled nearly entirely on the local level, save what perhaps might be needed to handle interstate or international disputes.

One could credibly argue that

One could credibly argue that any human interaction will result in a "winner" and a "loser."

Minimal government is at least Constitutional. You will never see a successful long term anarchy. The human mind demands order and humankind is all about imposing order on chaotic reality.

Why I can't argue for Anarchy.

Even Natural Law is a governance that is ruled by force. Natives and "naturals" have always held tribal laws and offices of leadership. Human beings are neither good nor bad as a sheer nature of themselves - they are whatever choice they make at any given moment in time. Those who make bad choices concerning the lives of others will always exist - you cannot remove this factor without removing the individual freedom of choice for all. All you can hope for in matters of community is to bring equilibrium to justice, so that the weakest members are not exploited by the strongest. Anarchy dictates that an atavistic beast should rule as the authority of human beings, with force - this is not the justice that I myself value as a human being. Do you believe that I am alone in this?

This equilibrium of justice can only come from a body that consists of members of the community, a small body that has an understanding of the place, the scope of life there, the values and culture held by the people. This is "Small Government" - not a brute force or a blind one, but a necessity where human beings who are free to make their own choices are concerned.

So, instead of accepting the problem of necessity that is not alleviated by this assessment, all you have done is decried it. What you have hinted at in this assessment is that government as an object is the problem, big or small, which concludes to only one answer. Written laws, too, must then be at fault. Understanding should only come by some mutual agreement that does not include a shared context of meaning within language. And then, as expected, something or someone else stands up to rule the people by merit of their own understanding, their own force. It was Einstein who also said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions." The whole of human history has been that 55 minutes, and many examples of Government v. Anarchy are presented there. Both sides are failures. What we are left with is a solution that defies human understanding - faith. Remember now, God does not play dice.

bigmikedude's picture

Indian Chief “Two Eagles” was asked by a white U.S. government


“You have observed the white man for 90 years. You’ve seen his wars and his technological advances. You’ve seen his progress, and the damage he’s done.”

The Chief nodded in agreement.

The official continued,

“Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?”

The Chief stared at the government official then replied,

“When white man find land, Indians run it, no taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water. Women did all the work. Medicine man free. Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing, all night with woman.”

The Chief leaned leaned back and smiled, “Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Sounds good to me!

White, Black, Indian, or whatever, Have fun!


"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

Yep, Lol

Worked for close to 26,000 years! Longest stable culture and society ever.

Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

TwelveOhOne's picture

Are you aware of the ~26,000 year cycle?

David Wilcock talks about this in his excellent book, "The Source Field Investigations". Apparently the sun has a companion star; they take (if memory serves) 25,900 years to complete a cycle. According to his book, we are entering an area of space that has a higher energy/vibration/etc., which has something to do with the global awakening as well.

I wonder whether there is a connection between these two numbers.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Hello my friend!

Just recently in the last ten years they have found proof of the native tribes in both South America and North America having a culture of at least 26,000 years.

There are many different theories like you suggest. I think the most fun is the thirteen crystal skulls. It reads like the end of times set forth by the Bible and revelations.

I truly think in the end we are just afraid of death and would like to know what happens and explain it. All faiths are derived from this lack of "knowing".

Everything is based on superstitions and visions while in an altered state of consciousness. Visions, dreams, revelations,etc. all are based on fear.

Once fear is mastered, this becomes no more. The cycle you speak of may just be another prophesy of the unknown. We as superstitious humans tend to do this over and over throughout time.

My answer would be maybe, If we believe this to be possible. Then to us it could happen and be relevant to our future. It not, then why try to change something we cannot change.

In the end it is good to ask the questions of the unknown but do not allow your normal day and responsibilities to be influenced by the fear of possible death or these theories.

I get ran over by SUV's every other night in my dreams my friend. But then I work on the side of the freeway 24-7 in my line of work. My curse is to once again wake to do it all over again the next day for years on end.

But I would not trade it for anything.

Unconstitutional War - "The story you are about to hear is true; the names and places are being changed to protect the guilty."

To assume that the negation of

Government means the negation of force/ coercion in society is a false dichotomy, or perhaps a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy.

Force is prior to any structural entity, people will always initiate in it against each other. Government while yes paradoxical in these regards when meant to be a protector of rights, and liberties, I think it is rather essential.

It's essential at least until Human Beings in large maximize their rational capacities to fully rationable creatures. This last sentence is sort of rhetorical, because I don't think that we as a species will ever become fully rational creatures; this is a limitation to our human race. Humans yes while we have the ablity to
reason, doesn't mean we always will or those with more power will either. Humans act on emotion like you said, and this leads to many of the troubles we have in the world.

Government serves a valuable purpose though. While yes in some regards by it's nature it has to use force/ coercion and this is quite paradoxical to a government that is supposed to protect indivvidual rights. It never the less protects rights when it is justly run, and while this may sound somewhat utilitarian I think it does a far better job than if there merely wasn't one.

Well said.

Well said.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Though I like it, that quote from Washington is Bogus

just like a purely voluntaryist society of any size is, at least this side of heaven.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Your reasoning would argue the founders were wrong for using

Your reasoning would argue the founders were wrong for using force to protect the colonies from the English, in which case you use his own quote to discredit him.

Understand what they did, the difference between force and violence.

Romans 13:

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.

4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

My point is:
Do not mistake the just act of defense for violence. The role of government is protection of rights and we HAD that and failed to prevent it growing out of control. Self defense is not violence, but it IS force. A right that is God ordained, and yes, in natures "survival of the fittest" anyone convincing you, that you do not have the right to defend yourself has already convinced you, that you do not have a right to your own life. So why argue the point at all?

How many...

...people does it take to form a 'government'? Say we could push a button and the entire world was suddenly reconfigured as an entirely voluntarist society. How long would it take for two or more people to voluntarily come together to form some kind of arrangement facilitating their protection from others or their trade with others? As soon as such an alliance is made, hasn't another bit of government formed? What will keep these little bits from gathering together again into even larger alliances?

"checks and balances"?


" As soon as such an alliance

" As soon as such an alliance is made, hasn't another bit of government formed?"

No, you have formed an organization that protects you and your interests. when people are voluntarily organizing, that is good, when you take the voluntary association out there is nothing to prevent the people running the organization from abusing their power or working counter to the interests of the people. The people then have no free will, they are forced to comply, THAT is what I think is wrong.

What if...

...someone uses the voluntary association, and the powers/duties they are delegated within it to take advantage of others? What if they're the member of the alliance with the most guns, most money and most dominating influence? What if they decide they won't let you break the alliance without a fight, or turning the rest of the community against you? All of these things can happen even with initially voluntary associations between only two people, let alone more.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't be long before corruption began rearing its ugly head yet again, with strongholds and pockets of it growing as the weak cower before the strong. Governments, both limited and tyrannical would reemerge.

Kind of like oil and vinegar dressing :) -- you shake it; the little drops of oil disperse, but inevitably they start clumping back together until you have separate layers of oil and vinegar again -- a large government and everyone else. You can shake the dressing again, but you can never get rid of little fragments of government completely, or the tendency for them to recombine.