"It is collectivism that is the unrealistic expression of utopian belief systems. In its worst form -- the state -- collectivism is the institutionalized exertion of violence to compel living beings to behave contrary to their natural self-interest inclinations. So strong are the motivations for individual preferences that the state must resort to attacks upon the very nature of life to satisfy the ambitions of those who see others as nothing more than resources to be exploited for such ends." ~ Butler Shaffer
Column by Jim Davies.
Exclusive to STR
There's a theory that holds that a government is okay provided that the people in its domain agree for it to exist and rule, and I thank David Eagle for my title, though the reasoning and conclusions are my own.
The theory seems to have two forms: One is the familiar "Constitutionalist" position that says that America was just fine when it was set up, but that bad people have snuck into government and corrupted it so that it no longer heeds the limits that charter set. That is true enough; it was G.W. Bush who called it just "a goddam piece of paper." Every limit listed in the Bill of Rights is now being trampled underfoot.
The other form this theory takes is that it would be quite in line with libertarian principles for society to fragment somewhat, with one part of America having no government at all, while other parts continue much as they are today, as the inhabitants wish. Possibly this division might take place along the borders of present states.
Does either of these variants make sense?
Take the second of them first, because it's the stronger argument. Libertarians are nothing if not tolerant, so if folk in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts really want not to run their own lives, who are we to try to stop them? (Even though that's a contradiction: a decision to surrender control of most of their lives is still a self-made decision. But let's not get too complicated.) Suppose that happens, but that they become surrounded by anarchist areas, of the former New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island--and even New York, over there in the far West. How will that work out?
All that I understand about free-market economics says that rather quickly, that free surrounding area will enjoy a fast-rising prosperity that will eclipse that of the remaining governed enclave. Within a few years, news of that will be known to all. Now consider the effect of that news on the two sets of people, and on the Boston government.
The free folk will be quietly satisfied with the burgeoning proof that our decision to manage on our own was exactly right. We shall not be surprised. Those in Massachusetts, however, will begin to wonder: “Were we wrong, after all?” Finally their government will be far from silent, for its members will recognize a threat to their continuing jobs. An action plan will be drawn up. Massachusetts faces crisis! Our way of life is in danger! Aux armes, citoyens!
It's hard to think of any government in history, anywhere, that did not resort to war when it perceived either an opportunity or a threat, and where waging it appeared feasible. War and government go together, always have and always will. So before long, the propaganda will flow, censorship will control its content, and weapons will be made ready. What will happen next is the most interesting part of this scenario.
The effect on MA will be strongly negative, for pouring resources into war preparations will prevent them being used elsewhere; probably that will be disguised by the printing of extra currency, and so inflation will take hold, to be "solved" by price controls and rationing. I kid you not; that is exactly what the US and other governments did during WWII. Now, since the population chose to live in a controlled condition, most of them will accept those deprivations, but some--at the margin--will begin to wonder. Is this all worth it?
Then the War Council will meet, to decide where to strike first and what to do with the people and territory conquered--for victory is assured (it always is, before the shooting begins) and everyone knows those peasants in New Hampshire don't even have an organized army. As the discussions go on into the night, however, the planners stumble upon a problem. There is no organized or socialized defense system in the surrounding societies, but intelligence reports have made it very clear that virtually no household is without a set of guns, and many have boxes in the basement full of RPGs, and who knows how much plastique is in private ownership? They also report that the old New Hampshire motto "Live Free or Die" has been dusted off, and that if an invasion takes place, no Massachusetts soldier will be safe from IEDs. Seems a few on the Council remember Vietnam, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, and even occupied Europe of the early 1940s. Occupation is very costly.
Furthermore, nobody can deny that having thrown off the ruling class, nobody in the target territories can be expected to work for the invader, to administer his conquest. If any gain is to be enjoyed, Massachusetts people--first the army, then others--are going to have to relocate and administer it all. The freshly-conquered freedom zealots can for sure be expected to ignore orders. Where, therefore, will be the net gain?
After days of fruitless discussion, the War Council will report that none can be foreseen. More will be lost than gained; war is not a feasible option. It's possible to conquer states, but not to conquer non-states, with any resulting advantage.
So--from the margin, inwards--the people of the governed state will gradually realize that they have bought a pig in a poke. They made the wrong choice, government is a dead loss. Their living standards will continue to decline relative to that of their free neighbors, and the brighter ones will emigrate to join them leaving the duller ones to suffer ever deeper poverty, and at some point--hopefully sooner, not later--even they will conclude that freedom is the better choice and Boston will be rid of government because nobody will work for it any longer.
So much for the "Libertarian" version of the theory that government is okay if it responds to its public. Now for a look at the "Constitutionalist" version.
The theory is that We the People delegated certain powers to the Feds and if only the latter had exercised them and them alone, all would be well. We can easily agree that all would be a lot better than in fact it is. I see a few things wrong, however, with this theory: (a) there was no such delegation, (b) the powers allegedly delegated were certain to be used to acquire other powers over time and (c) there is not the slightest hope that any real-life government will obey any limits to which it is supposedly subject, when it perceives an opportunity to exceed them.
I offered detail about (b) in Constitutional Rule, and invite anyone to contradict (c) by citing an actual example of a government that respected limits on its power when it didn't have to (for example, they often respect geographic limits but only because to violate them would involve war). So let's consider (a): the alleged delegation. Was it valid?
In Terms of Association, I reasoned that it was not, because there was nothing close to unanimity by the populations affected by the ratification. It was a majority vote by people who supposedly represented a few, select people. But there's an extra reason why this delegation of power was bogus: the population did not possess the powers they were allegedly delegating! And obviously, nobody can give away something he doesn't own.
Take the first "power" supposedly received by Congress: in Article 1, Section 8, it says it shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. Who delegated that power, in Constitutional theory? We the People. And which of They the People had the power to tax his neighbor? Not a single one of them. And nobody can delegate something he doesn't have. Therefore, the delegation of that power was bogus; Congress does not have the power to tax. Not validly or rightfully.
Apply the same reasoning to the other powers listed in that Section; which individual had the power, ready to be delegated, to borrow money "on the credit of the United States" or to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (ha!) or to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and so on down the list of "delegated powers"? Not one person had any of them! So the entire delegation was impossible and fraudulent. In reality, on the basis of the theory that the Constitution endorses, Congress has no valid powers whatsoever.
What's true for the Feds is true for the other levels of government in the US. To the extent that it's pretended that government's powers derive from popular consent and delegation, not one of them has any at all. The whole system is a massive con job, a complete fabrication and fairy tale. Even if a "Constitutional" America, in whole or in part, could somehow be restored, it would be no more rational (or stable) then than it was originally.
Whichever version is picked, the conclusion is unavoidable: a minimum-government society is not a viable option. MinGovia is, and will forever remain, imaginary.