May 20, 2005

(Editor's note: A new reader was looking over the archives and came across my article "Are We All Wasting Our Time?". He wrote the following response. I invite you to send me your thoughts on this too. It's a question we all need to consider.)

The article asked these questions:

2. Is there ever any moral justification for using the force of government (the only thing it has to work with) to impose the will of some people on others? If not, then of what use is government at all?

3. If we can be convinced that a central government is indeed necessary, and given that human nature does not like limitations on their power over others, how can we set it up to prevent the abuse and destruction caused by the governments of the past and present? The original Constitution has proven itself totally incapable of controlling those abuses, so it is no use going back there.

I would like to take a stab at these. The answers to the first two questions are rather simple. A single resounding NO should suffice. Normally I understand that explanantions and justifications are required as simple answers are often rejected because they are, indeed, simple. Do not take this as an answer born of arrogance or some supposed intellectual hubris or some other maddening egomanical trait. Perhaps my simple and unexplained answer is born of the weariness that comes with arguing and expounding upon my position on a daily basis. More likely, my reluctance to offer explanations and justifications is based on the idea that people who wish to argue for the existence and implementation of government are the ones who need to provide the explanations and justifications for the fear in their own lives that drives them to seek protection from evil by way of government. After all, man came into being without government. If we are to have government, that need should be thoroughly explained and justified by those who believe that government is indeed needed.

History is in fact the record of government. A record that is replete with failure from the days of Babel to this moment. Wherever and whenever government has existed, all of the worst traits of mankind have been brought to the fore of man's existence and magnified. Government in all of its forms, from simple tribal chief to a representative democracy, exists to do one thing and one thing only... to serve as a tool to control the actions of others. It always exists as a tool of imposition. Whether as cajoling or coercive force, it is always a force imposed on individuals that is not only unnecessary but, in fact, detrimental to the existence of humans.

Unfortunately, this is seen as the radical view of an ultra-small minority. Many simply cannot comprehend the concept of being stateless. A condition of true anarchy, not the chaos that so many fear.

Some writer, maybe Sunni Maravillosa, wrote an article about the lack of frontiers on the earth. Undiscovered lands where freedom and liberty are as natural as the sky and air. These no longer exist on the earth today. Every square millimeter is claimed by some government entity. No part of the earth is without the imposition of some level of control claimed by some government. In a perverse way this is the logical outcome of the claim of property rights but, perhaps we can save that for another discussion. The point here is that there are no new lands to occupy for the purposes of pursuing freedom and liberty.

(Someone suggested Antarctica as a possible new free country, but the conditions there are not particularly inviting otherwise and living there would be very expensive. Space and other planets are naturally other possibilities, but we've a long way to go to make that even remotely doable. For the foreseeable future, then, it would seem we will have to take back at least some of the land we already occupy. Editor)

With all land, and by extension all people, having been polluted by the existence of government, in a very practical way we humans may never be able to escape the tentacles and ruse of government in some form or another. Even where true anarchy was the foundation of a society certain elements conspired to bring about some form of government such as the examples of Viking Greenland and Iceland. Among men there is always the drive to bring about a controlled order out of what they percieve as disorder. It simply cannot be avoided. As long as humans exist then we will ever be forced to endure some form of government. This is the practical reality of life.

So what then? Anarchy, a true anarchy, is condemned to remain forever an ideal. An elusive goal that may occasionally be viewed, perhaps even touched for an all too brief moment in time and then, a swift return to the reality of fending off those who would make merchandise of us. I was told that this is an old saying of native Americans, that it is better to aim at the moon and hit an eagle than it is to aim at an eagle and hit the ground.. The origin of this saying is, of course, irrelevant to it's wisdom. In the affairs of men and societies few absolutes can exist. There is one absolute however, men will have government. Despite the most sound reasoning, in the face of impeccible logic, men will choose to allow for government. Despite how foolish you or I may deem this choice, truly, if men are indeed free then they are also at liberty to organize in any manner they find agreeable. Perhaps the ultimate catch-22. Hence we have clans and tribes and villages and towns and cities and states and nations. These are the results of the freedom to organize that are chosen by people.

Then to start the answer to your third question it is that the purposes of these types of organization must be clearly and logically defined. Do you organize for commerce? Shared defense? To spread the burdens of costs? Or perhaps a combination of these and other purposes. Once these and other questions are satisfactorily answered then comes the task of how to organize the structure of this government. Committe? King? A spreading of authority among differing entities? Then comes the real meat and potatoes, what authorities will be granted to the new government? The details of the answers to this question must effectively support the desired purposes of having government. Amazingly the Devil DOES live in all these details. It is also worth noting that along with the answer to each and every question necessary for forming a government comes another link in the chain that binds individuals. The goal then would be to heap many more chains onto the proposed government to keep the burden on individuals much lighter. Of course, this depends on the purposes for having government.

The full answer to your third question will take many pages filled with many wide ranging thoughts from all across the spectrum of human endeavor and action. Since such a document would comprise the foundation of a government there would necessarily have to be many absolutes disallowing actions and expectations of both government and people. Examples would be that government absolutely cannot control the money or the economy. There must exist an absolute right of free POLITICAL speech. Government absolutley cannot tax property or income. The individual person must have an absolute right to keep and bear arms. This is just an example and not recommended wording. The idea is to put up insurmountable walls that defy transgression by either government or individuals. Moreover, there must exist a mechanism to hold government persons accountable for transgressing the limits of their authorities.

In our circumstance as Americans, the ideals, the heart, the spirit of America is best enshrined in the Articles of Confederation. This is not to say that it is a perfect document. Indeed it has several glaring flaws that are not conducive to keeping the government restrained and supporting liberty.. Nevertheless, it remains superior to the US Constituton as embodying those ideals held dear by Americans. This document along with the contrasting US Constitution would be a good place to start pulling together ideas in developing a better form of government than we have now.

On other questions, such as police, the questions should not be framed as to their constitutionality but, on the basis of asking if those functions are conducive to a peaceful, functioning society then asking if those functions, if adopted, are better handled by the people or by the government. Above all, it must be kept in mind that we are NOT developing a new nation in some previously undiscovered land. There is much that already exists and it demands the attention of those who would seek to implement a new form of government. From Weights and measures to the disposal of military equipment and other "government property/assets" there is a long list of considerations.

Regards,
Ross A. Schott

Archives

Changes

An Invitation To Participate

For Her Safety

The Valley of the Shadow of Death

Are We All Wasting Our Time?

Standing By Our Mission

Free State Project - What is going on?

A Gift For Granny

Forced Righteousness?

The Meltdown of Western Medicine part 1

The High Cost of Medicine part 2

Don't look now (is it already too late?) Part 3

Take Charge To Get The Best From Your Health Care Providers

Who's Body Is It Anyway?

Who's Pain Is It Anyway?

Send Government Bureaucrats A "Termination Notice"