Let us perform a thought experiment to arrive at the following conclusion regarding “limited government”Â: that it is given virtually unlimited power and will inevitably morph into a cancerous growth.
Assume a large group of people are able to travel to Planet Liberty, a newly-discovered planet, similar to earth, where resources are plentiful. However, the group has not yet been exposed to governments or societal arrangements as are now known. Before the group travels they hold a meeting on how they will organize themselves, and on what sort of social arrangements should be maintained.
A certain group who call themselves Power, having thought through the matter carefully, speak up and argue that “we need to think very long and hard about the possibility of everyone initiating war against others.” They state that “it will pit man against man, and warfare will be incessant; conflict between men is simply inevitable.” And others are starting to agree with them. “But, what can we do?” they wonder.
“Well, fortunately, we have a solution,” replies Power, with a hint of a smile at their cleverness. “In order to prevent men from war we need to take away any weapons and then outlaw the use of guns and weapons. We will provide the defence and protection necessary. Yet, unfortunately, since conflict is inevitable we must also place the power to define people's rights and ultimate decision-making power in our hands. This will ensure that the general welfare of society is maintained. How else could conflicts and disputes be resolved? The only thing we ask is that we may be paid for our 'services'; we will call such payment taxes, and, lest anyone not pay his 'fair share,' you will be forced to pay a certain amount-it would be theft if you did not pay.”
The more this group attempts to persuade others, the more others start to see through this argument. One individual speaks up and questions the contradictory argument. He says, “If conflict between men is inevitable, and you are nothing more than a group of men, how can we be protected from you? To make matters worse, you would have all of the weapons and ultimate decision-making power. Who is to stop you from great conflict with all of us? How are we protected from you if you can take our weapons . . . especially if you have the weapons!? What happens if the conflict is between our group and your group-where your group has the power to make decisions regarding the outcome? You would be in charge of handling disputes, even when the disputes are between you and us. Surely the very notion is foolish.”Â
Thus is the absurdity of “limited government.” A group of men who have a monopoly on the use of force, whether taking weapons, determining people's rights, or making ultimate decisions-however limited-is bound toward a greater and greater usurpation of man's rights. It is inherently contradictory that the very organization who supposedly acts as guarantor of property, in the name of promoting liberty, steals property (and thus liberty) through taxes. The very group responsible for defending property exists by robbing property! It institutionalizes theft on a massive scale.
Libertarian political philosopher Murray Rothbard explains this in The Ethics of Liberty (p. 175):
If, in fact, we cast a cold and logical eye on the theory of “limited government,” we can see it for the chimera that it really is, for the unrealistic and inconsistent “Utopia” that it holds forth.
Truly the Government-as-Emperor wears no clothes. There are great reasons to be against any form of government where one man uses force against another, no matter the rationale. Rothbard later (p. 176) offers a reminder of the horrible record of States:
Surely the bloody record of States throughout history should have demonstrated that any power, once granted or acquired, will be used and therefore abused. Power corrupts, as the libertarian Lord Acton so wisely noted.
Or, as the Doctrine and Covenants states:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:39)
Limited government is a fallacy and destined to unlimited power; instead of guarantor of liberty it becomes destructor of liberty. Henry David Thoreau had it right when he stated the following:
I heartily accept the motto,-”That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,-”That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. (Civil Disobedience, 1849, p. 1)
———————————–
Chris Brown is a lecturer and management consultant at the Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship. He also centrally plans a blog at http://www.austro-libertarian.com and maintains the works of Murray Rothbard at http://www.murrayrothbard.com. Send him mail at austrolibertarian@gmail.com.
