Is good government a myth?
Submitted by atrickpay on Sat, 11/15/2008 - 19:01
Lew Rockwell thinks so. He writes in his article from today:
"One of the great and most persistent errors of classical liberals is to believe in "good government," a government that does "what it is supposed to do."
There is nothing the state can do, which society needs done, that cannot be done far better by the market."
Click here to continue reading.
»
from Rothbard's "Society Without a State"
In my view, the anarchist society is one which maximizes the tendencies for the good and the cooperative, while it minimizes both the opportunity and the moral legitimacy of the evil and the criminal. If the anarchist view is correct and the state is indeed the great legalized and socially legitimated channel for all manner of antisocial crime — theft, oppression, mass murder — on a massive scale, then surely the abolition of such an engine of crime can do nothing but favor the good in man and discourage the bad.
A further point: in a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. Furthermore, the more that people are disposed to be peaceful and not aggress against their neighbors, the more successfully any social system will work, and the fewer resources will need to be devoted to police protection. The anarchist view holds that, given the "nature of man," given the degree of goodness or badness at any point in time, anarchism will maximize the opportunities for the good and minimize the channels for the bad. The rest depends on the values held by the individual members of society. The only further point that need be made is that by eliminating the living example and the social legitimacy of the massive legalized crime of the state, anarchism will to a large extent promote peaceful values in the minds of the public.
http://mises.org/story/2429
I don't think the problem is the gov't itself
it's the people running it.
"If good government is to be restored all Masons must be purged from public office". - Rayback
__________________________________
New World Order for Dummies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA
13 Bloodlines of The Illuminati
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/
The Biological Basis of Elitism and "The Divine Right" Rule
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_div...
Two-seed theory: The origins of the psychopathic elite
www.dailypaul.com/node/68954
Political Ponerology and Psychopaths
www.dailypaul.com/node/53506
The Secret Order of The Illuminati (good overview)
www.illuminati-news.com/moriah.htm
Secret Societies and the REAL driving force behind the New World Order
www.dailypaul.com/node/59200
Also check out America's original "third party", The Anti-Masonic Party :
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/62031
America has never come closer to stopping them than it did over 160 years ago - and most Americans have never heard of it.
I disagree -- The problem IS the government itself.
Structure determines function
In order for the state to exist, there needs to be a certain structure in place. The structure determines how it functions. The state will always function sub-par, no matter how good and well-intentioned the people who run it are, because of the fundamental structure of the state. As Lew stated, there is nothing that the state does, that the free market can't do better.
The state can only function via the initiation of force. The free market operates via consent and is voluntary.
The state forces taxation and has a monopoly on defense services (courts and police).
For those interested - google Murray Rothbard and google "non-aggression axiom"
Yes, governments have perverse incentive structures
It an an inherent feature. When a person (or group of people) have the power to rule over others...
Possibly
First of all, realize that I do agree with you and probably most others here that gov't is for the most part ineffecient, or sub-par and there are very few things gov't does that can't be done better by private companies.
However, I do not ascribe our gov't problems to incompetency or the fact that it functions merely in some sub-par manner. Fact is, our gov't is run by mostly evil people who abuse their power and make sure our gov't better serves the agenda of the bankers and mega-corps.
DON'T DO IT!
So is your solution to "vote the bums out"?
And even if that works, what will happen when bums will be voted in again later on? Another "vote the bums out" campaign?
Who says that the majority vote should decide how the rest of us should be forced to live?
Voting is when you give consent to the state to use force on the rest of the population. Don't vote, it only encourages them. And if you do want the state to rule over you, then please tell them to only aggress you and leave the rest of us alone. Thanks.
I believe in the non-aggression axiom -- "No one may initiate force or fraud (or threat of force) against me and my property."
Thanks
I hadn't seen that. Great video.
So as long as there are "good" people
running an institution that violates peoples' right, it is all OK?
Secondly, if you agree that violating people's rights is some kind of necessary thing, how do you get people to agree on a common definition of good?
No
Because if good people were running it, this wouldn't be happening.
As far as a common definition of good, it's already there...don't lie, don't steal, don't kill.....
Excuse me, even the Constitutional gov't back in 1776 was
violating peoples' rights.
How?
The people who didn't consent to it (the anti-federalists, among others), were bound under its rule by physical force (or the threat thereof).
When Good Government
and Trust Me are uttered it is cause to worry. LOL
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
And even then, it's still not good
If everyone consented, it wouldn't change the laws of economics. Government would still be a destructive force. Simply put, government doesn't work - even if everyone supports it. The market is always better.
"The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution."
-Ludwig Von Mises
So, either the market (logical conclusion is anarchy), or government (logical conclusion is total socialism). Mises demonstrated that the middle way (some government) always leads to socialism.
Anarchy or total socialism? What's your choice?
In the short term there is
In the short term there is 'good government." It is in the long term that it inevitable fails because power corrupts. Hence, elections, though not even that is impenetrable when civic responsibility becomes nonexistent.
Why is it good in the short term?
How is an agency that violates people's rights with what is calls "taxation," good in the "short term"?
No I meant government can be
No I meant government can be altruistic and socially beneficial in the short term, but in the long term it will always inevitably fail. Hence, again, that's why elections exist. If government couldn't at least be able to do anything beneficial in the short term, there wouldn't be government altogether, let alone elections to constantly change it.
EDIT: Maybe I should be more specific to your issue of taxation. I'm speaking in more general and purely functional terms. However, the taxation issue is the result of an erosion of government in the long term, even in a nation with elections. As I said, even a system with elections can be subverted over time if the individual, or people becomes disconnected, which is what's happened, if we ever were "connected."
Taxation is an erosion of government in the long-term?
How so? Was not the American republic formed with taxation powers? If there was taxation at the beginning, why do you say that taxation is the result of a long-term erosion?
The characteristics of the word "good" are open to such
a wide variety of definitions, among the body politic, that no form or body of actions of a given government are going to judged as "good" by everyone. I want only a government that scrupulously follows it oath and does only what the U.S. Constitution specifically allows it to do. To me that would come as close to "good" as I would have any right to expect. For most others of our fellow citizens, such a desire on my part would be viewed (and currently is viewed) as a return to the past or a rolling back of history; no doubt, I would be accused of advocating a return to human slavery. The "good" then is in the eyes of beholders and currently the incoming beholders have something quite different in mind as to what will constitute "good" government.....not at all in keeping with my desires.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."
That is correct that it is open
to different definitions. However, Rockwell points out that by "good" he means that "it does what it is supposed to do."
Good government is not impossible!
It is not impossible IMO. Good government with an inmoral society is impossible. The personal battle front that we all have for freedom starts by making choices that keep us "free" from sin. Sin, by my own definition, is choosing an alternate path from something you know to be correct and true.
There was an overall sentiment that I observed within the Libertarian party that was kind of dissapointing for me. It seemed as if the party just wanted "good government" so they could get back to "eating, drinking, and being merry". Constitutional government (in the tradition of the founders) will not work without having a high moral society. Discussing what morality is, is fertile for contention on this forum, but I beleive that we all can aggree to one degree or another that the general U.S. population is morally bankrupt.
“I’m fully diversified. I’ve got some under the mattress, some under the floor boards, some in the backyard.”
“I’m fully diversified. I’ve got some under the mattress, some under the floor boards, some in the backyard.”
nice comments
thanks for sharing. something to contemplate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
learn how to create your day.... even more delicious... learn how to eliminate pesky things in your life ... www.ramtha.com
"Good government with an
"Good government with an inmoral society is impossible."
True.
Wouldn't government be unnecessary if the society was moral? What about a moral society would make government necessary, or even desirable, knowing that government is wasteful?
And if the population were moral enough for a small or "good" government, then wouldn't it moral enough for no government?
Just things for people to think about...
Oxymoron
Good government is an oxymoron in my book.
Web Developer
www.writetoredress.com
Take Back Your Country!
www.RealityUnKnown.com
No doubt!
I used to be a minarchist but was quickly convinced that the free market could completely replace government and do so spectacularly. Now I am astounded at how many strong arguments there are against government (in all it's forms).
As Rothbard used to say: Limited government is a chimera.
obviously
in america.......
it is.
But it's not
elsewhere?
Controlled Anarchism doesn't exist.
What anarcho-capitalists constantly propose is a government that doesn't call itself a government.
The only true anarchy is a non-system that arises spontaneously by itself with no game plan. Anything else is a government. Even tribalism is a form of government.
So, as usual, the anarcho-caps are accurate in pointing out what's wrong with government, but unable to propose an alternative. If it's proposed, it isn't anarchy--it's small government.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
I think you're getting confused with the definition of anarchy
Arch = ruler; Anarchy = no rulers
Anarchy can have a game plan, so long as it's voluntary (ie. no rulers). Most likely, an anarchist society would not be centrally planned, but would arise spontaneously through the plans of entrepreneurs and organizations. So, anarchist institutions would not be a government because nobody would be forced to associate with said institutions.
P.S. While I prefer a constitutional government to the current leviathan, the Constitution is an evil document that outlays the plans of a gang of criminals to loot the rest of the people. (See Lysander Spooner's complete refutation of the document: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority)
That's your personal definition.
I'm using the commonplace definition.
Wikipedia's opinion:
Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
Without government or law
A society free from coercive authority of any kind is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
It's actually the etymological definition...
As you referenced: "without ruler". This is the root word definition that I adhere to. There is also the slur definition that conflates anarchy with lawlessness or chaos. The key point is that no rulers does not mean no rules.
What is your def'n of government? Can you backup this claim? I can't see how an an-cap society would be governmental.
Kev Tuma
Anarcho-Capitalism is not Minarchism (Gov't overseas Navy - No Regulatory Power in the Markets).
I've never heard an A-Cap wanting "gov't" they think everything can be privatized or is it that even "privatization" is "governance" and thus against the anarchist credo?
I guess as soon as you start proposing how things "can be handled" it is "organized" and thus no longer "anarchistic?"
I think the next logical step is a Minarchy (Fed Gov only overseas Navy - No Regulatory Power in the Markets -- States oversee Army and Air Guard and Criminal Investigation) everything else is privatized. I can go into great detail but I'll stop here.
Octobox
Wisdom is the anticipation of consequences! Tara Mata
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." Thomas Paine
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality