An option to the arguments of Joel and Walt. by Gene DeNardo
(libertarian)
Thursday, February 25, 2010
We have heard arguments from the "we need bigger government" side and we have heard arguments from the "we need smaller government" faction. Both well written and both containing excellent points, but the truth is humans need no government. In fact the statement "no government is the answer" has been proven countless times thru history: no government has ever been successful in bringing to those who it governed what they desired. The present time is no exception.
The reason for this is very simple: as humans we only know what we want as individuals, we have little knowledge of the whims and desires of other humans. And, even if we did, few of us have any reason to bring others what they want unless it benefits us. So in the end, we act in our own interests. Most would never try to argue this point. Then why is it we allow others to act in our behalf, either by consent or force, in the form we refer to as government, and somehow expect them to do that which we wish to do for ourselves? There is absolutely nothing in our nature that even hints that allowing others to make our decisions for us, instruct us in our daily behavior and actions, intervene and decide which actions are proper and which aren't is anything other than a form of insanity.
However, we aren't all somehow insane at the same time. By definition, government is a "monopoly of force within a region". We do not choose this insanity; it is forced upon us from the outside. It is true that ideas such as democratic or republic governing have been exalted as wonderful ideals. But, they are simply marketing tools used by those who benefit from the monopoly of force to convince others to give in to this force and give up the fight for freedom. Defining the term "liberty" as somehow different from freedom is also part of the spin. There aren't "forms" of freedom, simply freedom or the lack of it.
The larger percentage of the population that can be hoodwinked into believing that those who are telling them what to do have only the common good in mind, the less force that is necessary to carry out the wishes of those holding power. This allows any surplus force to be used to either further entrench the oppression or even expand the region the force is applied to, bringing others under the same forceful umbrella. Any doubt about this? Give history a quick read.
The notion that freedom can somehow be enabled by others is an absurdity. Freedom is very simple: it is the ability to do as one wishes. The only thing that can be enabled by others is the ability to group together and deny the freedom of those outside the group or those within the group who are not acting "properly", according to those within the group making up the rules, usually as they "go along". Freedom enabled by the group or "collective" is always only a "relative" freedom; it is the freedom gained by some in relation to the loss of freedom by others.
If freedom is the lack of restriction of individual action by outside forces then how do we come to grips with one individual using their freedom to restrict the freedom of another? The most obvious example is that of ending another's life through an aggressive violent act. Isn't this the reason we give up some of our own freedom to a governing force, in order to prevent individuals from using their freedom to take away other's freedom?
This is a fallacy and a contradiction. Never in history has a entire population consented to give up their freedom in part or whole, in exchange for protection from aggressive actions from either those within the group or outside of the group. In fact, there has never even been an occurrence when a "majority" of the people has consented to relinquish their freedoms to a "monopoly of force".
The belief that populations have "consented" to being governed is due to the confusion between anarchical forms and "monopoly of force" forms. There are countless examples of anarchical forms in which small groups have banded together in complete and mutual consent and used the power of the group to protect themselves from others. But, this has never occurred on a large scale and is impossible by definition.
Monopoly of force within a region is just that: those that reside within the region of force have no choice in the matter. In fact, we can draw the line between anarchy and government simply by noting whether anyone within the region under force does not agree to be governed. If they have not consented to be governed and yet still are under the "umbrella of force" and have no option on whether they can retain or surrender their "freedom" we have government. If all have consented to the group or all have complete freedom or both, then we have anarchy.
Anarchy is freedom. Not always neat, but always free.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Gene DeNardo only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Gene DeNardo is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-25 14:46:48
Hi Gene,
As always, I stand as an example of the fallacy of your position. The only way I can be prevented from joining my efforts with like-minded neighbors is if someone applies constant and overwhelming physical force that prevents me from doing so. Since no individual anarchist is up to the task it will take anarchists acting in unison to apply such constant oppression of my free will.
You can dream about anarchy just as you can dream about a world with no gravity or death. The rest of us have to deal with the real world where liberty includes the ability to unify for competitive advantage. You can't simply eliminate a basic fact of existence then propose a solution from that imaginary starting point. Liberty is NOT a mathematical abstraction that can be contained by assuming away real world circumstances. Nor is it a philosophical abstraction that can be brought to the material world by the force of the faith of its followers. Liberty is the result of actions and consequences in the real world. Liberty can only be assured by limits on government, not by oppressing all who desire government. Can't you see the blatant hypocrisy in your "better" solution? Maybe not. However, since I am the one who would be subject to the unified forces of anarchists it is perfectly obvious to me. -Jahfre Fire Eater
"However, since I am the one who would be subject to the unified forces of anarchists it is perfectly obvious to me."
The last sentence of your comment, which I have quoted above, is completely in opposition to itself. A 'unified force of anarchists' which by your statement seem to be making you their subject would not be anarchists at all. that would be a government, a monopoly of force within a region which imposes its force on all, whether they consent or not.
"joining my efforts with like-minded neighbors " is a quote well within the definition of anarchial behavior. you seem to be having an argument with yourself!
In an anarchist existence, who would be the guarantor of liberty? Governments aren't the only entities that steal liberty. Each individual or collection of individuals can do so, as well. In your anarchist utopia, what am I to do--to whom shall I turn--if another stronger individual or collection of individuals decides to press me into servitude? If there is no governmental entity, my only alternative is to join with others and seek safety and redress through force of numbers. At that point, your anarchist utopia degenerates into 'might makes right.' Liberty (and security) would then belong to the group with enough bullets to press the point.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-02-28 11:54:05
I have to agree with mike, No government is not the key.I agree with what are founders made our government to be through the Constitution. The Constitution put our government smack dab in the middle between Anarchy and Tyranny. Because of this we do not want to lean toward Anarchy since the country will go into Anarchy. This is what happened with the Articles of Confederation, it gave the government to little power which almost turned into disaster. At the same time we do not want to be leaning toward Tyranny since it will give the Government to much power and control over the people. Unfortunately we are leaning toward Tyranny right now and we see the disaster that is causing.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-01 23:51:50
Hi Mike,
government is the "force of numbers", in fact, that is all it is. Anarchism is hardly utopia, and neither is the state. Humans have been under anarchism through their history many times longer than they have had government. Liberty and security DOES belong to the group with enough bullets, simply observe the present tense.
Hi no name,
The is always tyranny when there is force. Until we have given up on force, there will be tyranny, whether we are governed or in the state of anarchy. It is foolish to believe others will free us from this force if we just allow them more force than the force we fear.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 17:54:48
This is what George Washington said about government-"government is a necessary evil"-what this means is that the government is necessary,if you want to know why read the Declaration of Independence. The reason government is evil is that it can take over and take your liberties, freedoms, property, and control the people with an apsolute Tyranny. Once again why would we want a government when that could happen, if you want to know why read the Declaration of Independence. To continue on that point even the Declaration allows you to decide if you want a government and if you do what kind. Now lets go back to the comment of George Washington, because of the evils of the government the People must be the Master of the government, the government can not be the master of the people since that creates an absolute tyranny.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
