Democracy in America?

I touched on this subject last year in a Facebook post, but it is a question that deserves serious consideration in a place where more in depth discussion can take place: should we allow everyone to vote? It is an inflammatory question, given the deep reverence Americans place on the right to vote, but I'm not asking this just to poke people in the eye. Democracy is the rule of government by the people; government itself involves the monopoly of the use of force. Government is extremely complex in operation and theory, but the electorate of this nation barely knows the basic facts, much less the theory behind what constitutes good governance or the empirical record of the history of governments.

Let me put it to you this way: would you let a group of 18 year old kids who have never worked on or even examined how vehicles work repair your car? Would you drive that car afterwords?

If you are like me, you are thinking of course not! That's a sure way of getting killed, along with whoever is in your car and whoever you happen to hit. Government is far more complicated than cars and the stakes are much higher: over a hundred million people died due to tyrannical governments in the last century. That doesn't include war. That is just governments butchering their own people.

My recent experiences in a history classroom have revealed just how little many students know about history or government. And they are two years away from voting. Many of the advanced political science students cannot tell how many female justices are on the Supreme Court (hint: if you can't, I'm heavily implying you are not qualified to take part in government). Doubts I once had about this study disappeared quickly. If anything, I think those numbers are skewed towards the brighter Americans, as those more likely to do poorly would refuse to take that test in the first place.

I'll grant that implementing restrictions on voting would be difficult. Politically, in fact, it would be impossible, as those who would lose that right would certainly use any chance to vote before implementation to protect that right.

But as a matter of principle, shouldn't we only encourage people to vote if they have made a concerted effort to understand good governance and current events? Rather than telling everyone to go vote, shouldn't we set a societal norm that those who do not put any effort into knowing shouldn't be deciding with matters of natural rights for other people?

I'm of the opinion that if you haven't read at least one of these books, you shouldn't head to the polls: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, Publius' Federalist, or de Tocqueville's Democracy in America.

Again, I understand that the universal right to vote is a basic principle of American democracy now. But if the basic principles are wrong, everything built upon them is likely to be wrong as well. Just because a principle is basic to the populace does not mean it should go unquestioned.

52 to 48

I remember this collection of photos, 52 to 48, came out right after the 2008 election. I recall not reacting well to it. Somehow or another, it came to my mind again today, so I took a peek around, wondering if I would react better towards it.

I didn't. If anything, it may irritate me even more today than it did then. Mostly it is a bunch of young Obama voting hipsters putting up messages of how we all need to come together. You know, days after declaring Republicans warmongers, liars, corporate whores, bigots, and fools.




Sure, just like you did under Bush. And implying we were not putting the country first prior to the election just kind of irks me.


This guy votes. Proof positive democracy can be a bad thing.


You had my back when Republicans were the second coming of the Nazis? Sure, I have your back, just like you had mine. And it is spelled fifty two.


We were prior to that election, too. Just a thought.


ObamaCare is all that comes to mind. That, and Obama declaring "I won" when Republicans offered ideas.

What gets me is so many young people actually bought into Obama's promises to move the nation into a post-partisan era. Have none of them read Federalist 10? There will never be a post-partisan age; we are never going to be permanently united, a "purple" country if you will. Considering how "48" was treated, 52 should not have been surprised that the opposition would be dogged in their fight to oppose the new leadership. It frightens me that so many could honestly believe that they could be so downright partisan and nasty for years prior to an election, win absolute power, and think posting a few cutesy pictures about reconciliation would somehow defuse future partisanship. And they overwhelmingly tend to be young people. I do not think so many blatantly uninformed citizens have ever come out to vote prior to that election and it downright scared me. Having seen the results, I should have been more scared than I was.

I try not to use this blog to blow off steam, though it has happened a few times. The actual lesson here is that my generation and younger seem to have had a piss poor education and that so long as people exist, they will disagree passionately on policy. All the pictures of happy hipsters in the world will never change that.

Religious Insanity

Oh my God. What an unimaginable mess this Ground Zero Mosque has become. Let us just get a few things straight:

1) Thousands of Americans were butchered at the Twin Towers by Muslim terrorists. Any opinion not recognizing this fact as being very salient today should be rejected out of hand. The vast majority of Americans remember that day vividly; anything resembling a victory monument is going to go over badly.

2) This mosque looks like a victory monument. The history of Islamic conquests show prominent places in the Western World being converted into mosques (Hagia Sophia was a former church; the Al Aqsa Mosque is built on the ruins of the Jewish Second Temple). The Twin Towers were prominent symbols of America's wealth and prosperity; they most certainly were not attacked at random. No, this mosque is not literally at the site of the Towers, but it is as close to it as possible and at a site destroyed by that terrorist attack. The complete lack of willingness to negotiate on this point by the mosque builders lead me to believe that it is intentionally built close to the terrorist site. It does not matter what the actual intent is, mostly because it is not possible to know; the point is, the optics are horrible.

3) Americans do not hate Muslims. Given everything, the remarkably low rate of violence against Muslims shows we do not blame all Muslims for 9/11 or our current War on Terror. President Bush made great efforts to separate terrorists from peaceful Muslims, both on the battlefield and in our minds. Yes, isolated incidents of hatred can be found, but just as many against whites, protestants, males, the wealthy, Latinos, or any other grouping can be found, and such anecdotes are not proof of widespread hatred among the populace.

4) Opposing this mosque is neither a violation of 1st Amendment rights or proof of hatred. The vast majority of those who oppose a mosque being built at that site have made the caveat that Muslims have the right to do so. The principle is that Americans must allow such things legally; it has never meant that Americans must like what other people do or that they should not apply social pressure to change that offending behavior.

5) This mosque is not about bridging divides and establishing community healing. The community has made it clear that building a mosque at this spot sticks in their craw; a religious leader truly dedicated towards peace and community would not become adamant that the community just deal with it, sticking it to that community again.

6) Americans are tired of being accused of hatred. Christmas cards given out by teachers can land a person in trouble for not being sensitive to other cultures, but asking (asking! not attacking, asking!) another religion not to build on what is basically a graveyard of Americans killed in the name of that very religion is proof of hatred? Regardless of where you stand in this cultural battle, the optics are pretty clear that Christians must be sensitive to any potential sore point (real or imagined) of other cultures but at no point are other religions required to return the favor. People are sick of that arrangement and this mosque is where a line has been drawn.

7) Despite that, Americans will not support blatant acts of hatred. This Qu'ran burning fool in Florida garnished roughly 0% of Americans to his side. People on all sides of the political spectrum and vast majorities of Churches, Mosques, Temples, and other religious institutions have condemned this act.

This situation is getting out of control quickly. The perception alone that Muslims do not care about a very sensitive issue to most Americans, or perhaps worse that they are intentionally jabbing at it, is going to breed more prejudice against American Muslims than 9/11 itself did. The terrorist attack was a clear example of lunatics; this mosque is supposedly being built by "moderates." After decades of being prodded to be more sensitive towards others, Americans expect the favor to be returned.

As for the Qu'ran burning: stupid, but it proves my point. The American government burns a bunch of Bibles last year; George Bush is shown defecating on Jesus in South Park (an episode that drives the censorship point home); Dogma. Do Christians respond with violence? No! But draw a picture of Muhammad and people end up dead. A group burning Bibles wouldn't even get notice in the news, but a very few lunatics in Gainesville decide to burn a few Qu'rans and the entire world goes into a hissy fit.

In short, the Ground Zero Mosque is doing irreparable damage to our society. Opposition is based on very raw feelings concerning this area and Islam, not on an outright hatred of the religion. In the name of peace, sensitivity, and community, the leaders of this mosque project should accept one of the multiple offers to build the mosque elsewhere in an effort to show they do indeed respect the opinions and mores of the American nation.

Buck The Greenback?

During my random searches of the Internet, I came across this interesting project seeking a redesign for the American Dollar. Granted, replacing our currency would be a huge pain in the rear and add more uncertainty to a market that doesn't need it, but some of these designs are pretty impressive. Two particularly good designs pointed out by Heather are by Michael Tyznik and Dan Swenson. Swenson's $100 is gorgeous. The lines in the background (I'm not an artist and so have no idea what term to use there) give the impression of being in a glass building which generates an amazing effect with John Trumbull's "Signing of the Declaration of Independence." This image of an event that occurred 230+ years ago appears remarkably modern with that backdrop and I do not need to explain the symbolism there.

Tyznick's design includes Amendments from the Bill of Rights on the reverse of every bill. I very much like the idea of putting some statement of American ideals on our money apart from our Latin motto and "In God We Trust" but these Amendments are a bit clunky. They are also paired with American Presidents and politicians who did not create those Amendments, which might lead to unnecessary confusion with an audience not particularly well informed concerning history.

I have little to no artistic skills. Any design I actually tried to create would probably end up looking like this. That being said, I am curious: if we were to redesign our paper money, what should we put on it? I would like to see individuals beyond politicians, but very solid Americans would have to be chosen in such a way as to not generate controversy and not appear to be token appreciations to minorities. There are also a hell of a lot of choices to choose from, both for the individual on the obverse and the image on the reverse. I would like to see dollar bills generally following the Tyznick/Swenson model (Swenson being inspired by Tyznick's design) with the following figure, image, and quote on these denominations:

$1: George Washington/Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze/"The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

$2: Clara Barton/Bald Eagle/"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. " Daniel Webster

$5: Abraham Lincoln/Lincoln Monument/"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in"~Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address

$10: John Paul Jones/USS Constitution/"I have not yet begun to fight"

$20: Frederick Douglass/Statue of Liberty/"The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous." Frederick Douglass

$50: Ralph Waldo Emerson/Grand Canyon (not sure which image of it would work best on a dollar bill)/"The best moments in life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawing of nature before its God." ~Emerson, "Nature"

$100: Benjamin Franklin/Signing of the Declaration of Independence (basically Swenson)/"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I really wanted to add Henry David Thoreau but I can't imagine him being happy about being on a dollar bill. I've also avoided using anyone within the last 100 or so years. This isn't a slam on them; there have been a hell of a lot of great Americans in that time period. When I think of money, though, I think those who appear should be almost mythical in their stature. In terms of actual people, time is really needed to establish that. Putting more modern faces inevitably leads to propaganda and controversy, which is about the last thing we need concerning our money. The Romans used to put images of Roma (the god personifying Rome) and other deities on their coins up until the collapse of the Republic, when they switched to the faces of current politicians instead.

Having attempted to create such a list, I can say it is a lot harder than one might imagine. I can certainly imagine some of the criticisms that would come my way for proposing this list. With such a minimal amount of space on seven separate types of bills, something important will inevitably be left off. If for no other reason, that seems like enough to not actually rework the subject matter of our dollar bills for the time being.

Missouri's Prop C, Federalism, and Nullification

On August 3rd, the people of the state of Missouri voted on a statute known as Proposition C. The statute asked if Missouri law should be amended to "deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services?". The people of Missouri overwhelming approved of this measure, with 71% supporting. This new law was specifically designed to deny the federal government the ability to force citizens to buy health insurance. Similar measures are to be voted on in November in Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming.

While the proposition is labeled "symbolic" and not specifically called nullification, it is in fact a rare example of a state denying the federal government power within the territory of that state. Supporters of ObamaCare clearly see this proposition as a case of nullification; Dana Milbank said of Proposition C: "the initiative essentially declared null and void the federal health-care reform's requirement that individuals have health insurance." He calls nullification "a temper tantrum" and says those supporting Prop C "are jettisoning Article VI" of our Constitution with respect to the supremacy clause.

Milbank is wrong, both in respect to Prop C supporters "jettisoning Article VI" and with nullification being a "temper tantrum." Article VI only comes into play when laws are made in accordance with the Constitution; when the federal government attempts to overstep the boundaries placed upon it, Article VI no longer applies. The "Tenthers" (referring to the 10th Amendment and those who rest their argument against ObamaCare upon it) do not say states can just nullify any law they dislike; the argument is any power not delegated to the federal government belongs to the states and the people thereof. As Milbank may not have noticed, the power to force people to buy products is not one delegated to Congress, the President, or anyone else at the federal level.

Nullification, far from being a "temper tantrum", is actually a theory of federalism that deserves reconsideration. Nearly everyone who knows of nullification automatically ties it to antebellum (that bellum being the Civil War) South, with the better informed remembering South Carolina threatening to nullify tariff laws and prior to that Thomas Jefferson arguing that nullification was necessary to stop abuses of power of the Adam's Administration (with respect towards the Alien and Sedition Acts). The issue of nullification is generally lumped in with secession and then slavery, though it need not be, just as government efforts to fight tobacco use need not be tied in with the Third Reich. Nullification attempts to deal with a flaw in our federal system: what happens if the federal government oversteps its bounds? What remedies exist?

Our Founding Fathers set up a system of government via the Constitution that attempts to limit the concentration of political power. Checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch are one way of achieving this end. The second is by dividing power on another axis, between local and national leaders. At the time of ratification, states were quite jealous of a possible central government; indeed, their first attempt at creating a central government, the Articles of Confederation, failed because of that jealousy of power. While a clear need existed for a central government capable of at least raising revenue, states were still not eager to create a powerful central government. In the end, they created a federal system in which the federal government would have predominance over foreign affairs and streamline commerce and trade while the states would control most internal matters. Powers which the federal government would have were specifically spelled out; the 10th Amendment was passed to make sure any power not mentioned belonged to the states. The federal government, when acting within its delegated powers, would have to be followed (a la Article VI), but beyond those powers it had no authority.

Governments are composed of people and in particular politicians. Everyone wants more control and politicians in particular, so it should come as no surprise that those in government would try to expand their powers. Within a decade, the new federal government was expanding its powers, much to the chagrin of Republicans (old school, as in anti-Federalists Democrat-Republicans). The problem faced by Thomas Jefferson is the same faced by John C. Calhoun and the same facing us today: what do we do if the federal government attempts to overstep its bounds?

Those bashing nullification generally have one answer to this problem: seek remedy in the courts. Which courts? Why, the federal courts, of course! The problems here are obvious. For starters, the federal courts are a part of the federal government, one of the parties involved in the controversy. The second, much more salient problem, is that the Supreme Court may make a ruling based on policy, rather than legal reasons. Just because a majority of justices wish to see the federal government expand for ideological reasons does not mean the states actually consented to the central government having that power. If anyone should know what the state delegated or did not delegate, it should be the state itself.

It is rather shocking the Founding Fathers should have left out a mechanism for determining such controversies. Of all people, the Fathers knew that governments are not by nature prone to protect the rights of others out of the goodness of their hearts. But a lack of a clearly defined mechanism does not mean we should default in favor of unchecked federal expansion.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, largely seen as the definitive authority in what the Constitution means and why those provisions were made) authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 against the Alien and Sedition Acts. I want my reader to go through their argument here. The state of Kentucky adopted two similar resolutions (again largely written by Jefferson) in 1798 and 1799, which should also be read. In particular, consider this statement from the Kentucky Resolution passed in 1799:

That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy...

Nullification and a judiciary upholding the written Constitution are the only checks on an ever expanding federal government; we know from history that the judiciary cannot be trusted because more often than not justices wish to see the government expanded regardless of the contract of the Constitution. The only defense against such abuses is for the states to oppose such laws within their own jurisdiction. This is the natural check placed on an expanding federal government, no less so than judicial review, though never mentioned in the Constitution, clearly follows from the concept of checks and balances to keep the legislative and executive branch from exceeding their powers. The Kentucky Resolution of 1798 emphasizes this point: "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

What Milbanks confuses for a temper tantrum is in fact what should occur when the central government oversteps its bounds and attempts to wield power the people of this nation never granted them. Were nullification more widely accepted and practiced, the federal government would indeed have a difficult time micromanaging internal affairs of states and people far beyond their delegated powers or ability. Those seeking a government with unchecked power certainly fear nullification; those seeking the preservation of liberty will likely find no better friend.

I intend to stop here. My reader should know that I am aware that incorporating nullification into our current political culture would be very complex and probably require reworking the federal government's ability to use funds as carrots and sticks. That will require a longer, more in depth work than I present here. As of now, with a federal government once again expanding its powers into unprecedented (and not delegated) waters, it is enough to show that some mechanism is needed to preserve the balance of powers set forth in the Constitution and that nullification is the only logical means towards that end.

The Declaration of Independence

This Independence Day marks the 234th anniversary of the adoption of our nation's Declaration of Independence. With parades, fireworks, friends, family, and much fanfare and patriotism, we celebrate not only our independence but the principles laid forth in one of the most remarkable documents ever written by human hand. The main purpose of the Declaration was to explain to the world why we would be willing to sacrifice our lives and fortunes in order to separate ourselves from the oppressive yoke of a foreign government. Most of the Declaration is no longer meaningful to Americans outside of a historical understanding of the events leading up to the Revolutionary War; the second paragraph, however, defines the very point and purpose of government in this nation or any nation. In a federal democracy, where the people elect representatives into office, it is of the utmost importance that those citizens know why we have government at all, what legitimate government would look like, and what actions are beyond the pale so that office holders seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the citizens of our nation and justice itself may be held accountable and removed from positions of power.

Let us consider this paragraph and the universal truths contained within it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Let's consider these self evident truths:

1. We are all created equal. This statement has been a source of confusion for some Americans, but let us think about it. We are created...this implies a Creator. We are equal...at the moment of creation. This is not a promise that we shall be equal in all aspects, but rather that we are, from the moment of our birth to the moment of our death, equal in the respect that we are human beings.

2. As human beings, we are endowed equally by that inferred Creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and equality of result are incompatible with one another. If we cannot all be awesome baseball players like David Ortiz, the only way to create equality of result would be to restrict the liberty of great baseball players to use their skill until we are all down to the skill of the weakest player. The same goes for inventors, doctors, teachers, businessmen, physical looks, social ability, and anywhere else inequality exists in skill, talent, and wealth. We are equal in our unalienable rights; we are free to use our liberty to rise above others so long as those unalienable rights are not violated.

3. To protect those unalienable rights, we establish government. The fact is, we cannot trust the honor system that each of us will not violate the unalienable rights of other people as we try to advance our own positions. We create government to limit our range of action to anything that does not violate the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (effectively property, for those familiar with John Locke). Government has the right to restrict us because we consent to these restrictions; we consent to these restrictions because it removes us from the State of Nature; we give up the right to harm the unalienable rights of others so that ours will not be harmed, either. This is the purpose of government, this and nothing else.

4. Governments are run by men, men who have the same passions and desire for advancement as the men being governed. Should governments abuse their power and become a threat to the very lives, liberties, and properties they were created to protect, those governments become usurpers and rebels against which the people have every right to oppose and remove. Governments must protect the unalienable rights of all citizens; the rights of no citizens may be sacrificed for the advancement of others. Every citizen has unalienable rights and no majority ever assembled has the authority to deny any minority, however so small or hated, their proper rights. Redistributing with the force of law the happiness of men, earned by honest labor and voluntary trade, always involves a violation of the unalienable right of the pursuit of happiness of those whose wealth is redistributed away from them.

5. Revolution is a nasty business. Lives, liberty, property, the very things we wish to preserve, are all put on the line during times of war. Our Declaration does not clearly say when the line is crossed between transient causes and a long train of abuses; the best we can do is gleam what information we can from the context of the Declaration itself and the history leading up to that war in determining where the line is between foolish uprisings and a noble overthrow of a tyrant.

My fellow citizens know well enough what event we celebrate (our independence from Great Britain); I write this to remind them what principles inspired our Founding Fathers to create the greatest nation, a nation conceived in liberty and based on universal ideals all may participate in rather than ethnicity or religion. I write to remind my fellow citizens of these principles and that our nation is great only so long as we jealously guard them against those who would ignore them, either out of evil intent or mislead desire for good.

Review of Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

The Ethics of Liberty (full text online)
Murray N. Rothbard

This is a complex book and I am not honestly sure how I feel about it overall. There is a great deal of good in this book, in particular for one who has never seriously considered the origins and propriety of property rights. Rothbard's criticism of the state is penetrating to such an extent that even minimal state libertarians will have difficulty justifying their positions. However, I think the case for an anarchist system is not particularly well made and that a critical eye on par with Rothbard's would find as many, if not more, problems with his solution than he has come up with the concerning the state. I could spend the better part of a year going into each intellectual crevice opened up by this book, but rather than going into such detail I will point out a few of the more interesting topics that the reader would certainly benefit from chewing over.

Rothbard's theory is that all rights are derived from a human having an intrinsic right to his own body and the works thereof. As anyone who follows the courts knows, even widely accepted rights, such as the right to free speech, religion, press, etc., become fairly complex when argued before the court. Why is this? Rothbard sees the problem as the courts looking for a mystical right out of thin air rather than basing these rights in the person and his property. So long as I own the property I use to speak, write, or worship on, it is nobodies business how I do so and nobody, but nobody, may deny me the ability to do so as long as their property right is not violated. This clears up a great deal of confusion concerning gun rights, freedom of speech and press, among others. I think that such an analysis makes sense. Consider the FCC/Citizens United case that was decided earlier this year with a surprising amount of controversy. If a corporation, using its own money, decides to buy political advertisements, they should be allowed to so long as somebody is voluntarily willing to sell them a forum. It is the business of nobody else to deny them the use of their own property.

Punishment for crimes against a person or their property is to be dealt with "proportionally" in that the criminal will pay back what was damaged plus lose from their own personal property an equivalent amount. Rothbard comes up with some interesting ways of applying this to situations of assault, murder, kidnapping, and other situations where a literal tit for tat would make no sense. In his section concerning children, however, Rothbard fails to apply his own theory when it comes to abortion. Concerning proportionality, the only case justifying the death penalty is in a case of murder, according to Rothbard himself, but he then allows the "crime" of "invasion" committed by a fetus upon the mother to also be punished with death. With this exception, his theory concerning children does logically flow from his theory of property rights, harsh as it may sound. I believe children to be the bane of political philosophy. In children we have a human being incapable of taking care of themselves yet with the future ability to do so, who did not bring themselves into existence, who will depend greatly upon their parents for what sort of life they will end up living with. No ideology seems to really know what to do with them.

My problem with this book lies generally in that I have no idea how wrongs will be redressed. I fear such an anarchist society would devolve into gang warfare, as individuals will collect into groups for mutual protection and see that group as the source of authority. All groups follow the iron law of oligarchy in that they will always pick leaders, who will then have incentive to abuse their power, often at the expense of those outside of the group. The state apparatus, for all of its problems, does provide a means of executing justice without competition. This is important because competition in terms of executing justice will not come just in the form of a lower price; it may also come in the form of a different judgment. Rothbard seems to believe that be describing those groups enforcing justice incorrectly as criminals means something. Labelling them criminals means nothing if they are the most powerful group. Replacing the state with a very powerful gang or groups of gangs does not really solve the problem of reducing and eliminating illegitimate force. Such a society would also be at the mercy of other nations, in particular those that develop advanced military forces. Rothbard never deals with this problem; presumably he would look to volunteer militias or security forces. The former would have no chance against professional soldiers, the second creates a powerful force that could abuse the people.

Rothbard's attempt to create a political philosophy based on the nature of mankind has many successful points concerning property rights but fails to really take in the nature of mankind itself. We are a violent species and are willing to use violence to gain what we like. While social ties do tend to negate this, it is not a cure all, and violence between societies in the same geographic area may actually be increased by this organizing power. Anarchy fails to prevent groups from forming and abusing their own power; obliterating "the state" leads to a situation where many little "states" come into existence. Whoever has power will always be able to abuse that power, even (or perhaps especially) in anarchy. Libertarianism is the best of all possible outcomes, but it does contain an emotional letdown in that the 'promised' land type outcome isn't included. At best, we'll have a world where abuses of justice will be kept lower than in others but not entirely wiped out. It is a lamentable aspect of our species that the need for politics will always be with us and that the best solution we have is a vigilant, perpetual guard against abuses of our liberties. That all being said, I think Rothbard does an excellent job defining what those liberties are, even if his solution to protecting them is not top notch.

Companion Reading

Rothbard vs. Strauss: Libertarianism, Rights and Reason (free download)

Generational Problems

For ages, mankind has struggled to create a "perfect" society where all would be treated in a "just" and "fair" manner, leading to a high quality of life for everyone involved. As you can note by the quotation marks, the ideals we strive for tend to be vague, which makes identifying the means to those ends also vague. Though I do not believe in the perfectibility of human society, I do find such attempts fascinating. It is, in my mind, an equation without a solution, but that does not stop individuals from believing there is a solution and from coming up with intricate ways of solving the puzzle. To help those folks with their search, I will illuminate the problem of generations with two questions. I would not say this is the most difficult problem facing statist philosophies, nor that these two questions are the only ones requiring an answer for the generational problem, but I think it will help people who believe either in the possibility of a perfect utopian or those who believe government intervention can lead to more limited gains see the extreme difficulty they face. The first question is geared more towards socialists and while I would like to see the answers given for that question, I believe the second will be farther reaching in that anyone who supports the notion of a state will need to find an answer to the problem. The questions are by no means new (the first was contemplated by Plato, the second by Jefferson, among many, many others), but I hope people will be willing to examine their own ideologies in light of these questions.

1. In order to create a "just" society (by which justice means equality of conditions or equality of starting positions), inheritance beyond genetics cannot be allowed. Is it truly just to take away a parent's ability to leave their children well off? Are children in equal starting positions who have parents of different parental skills? In short, can the family exist in such a system and if not, what can replace it? What problems would exist?

Models for Utopian states tend to focus on single generations of people. Wealth and opportunity among those currently living will be redistributed as to create a "fair" balance. A great many problems have been levied against this idea, usually revolving around the idea that those who have more produced more, ergo they 1) deserve to be richer and 2) will have no incentive to work hard in a system that does not benefit them, leading to an overall decrease in the production and standard of living of society. I think it is worth pointing out that, even were this achieved, the children being born would not be born into equality with each other. For starters, children provide a great motivation to many parents to work even harder to leave their children well off; socialism destroys that motivation because all such wealth would be redistributed. Moreover, even if financial equality is achieved, parental skills, love, affection, etc., will not be equal. Genetic inheritance will also create inequalities, in particular among social and physical traits. Without the ability to become financially superior, children with social and physical weaknesses will not be as competitive in the social and romantic realms. Even with financial equality, the quality of life each child will receive will be unequal.

Can the family exist in such a "just" state? It is worth pointing out that Marx, More, and Plato all resorted to the obliteration of the family due precisely to this problem; parents will never be willing to sacrifice giving their children a better life for any ideological reason. What would replace the family, though? There is no evidence that children would be better educated, either in the intellectual or the social realm, in a state run communal setting rather than the nuclear family and a great deal of research indicating exactly the opposite.

Any theory proposing a result of equality of results will have to deal with the other forms of inequality as well, along with replacing the entire structure of the family, dealing with emotions of affection among its populace, figuring out a method of breeding future generations that does not lead to parental love leading to parents desiring better for their children, and a way of doing all of this so that those making the decisions cannot be excepted from the rules. Those arguing for equality of opportunity face an arduous road as well. These theories are particularly prone to the generational problem in that they allow for inequality so long as everyone starts equally, which is considered "fair" by those theorists. Problem is, those inequalities will lead to parents of different experiences and qualities that will lead to social inequalities for the next generation. It would also require limiting what a family could do for their own children, a law so contrary to human nature as to require extreme enforcement measures and constant surveillance to force people against their basic instincts. "Earned" inequalities by the 1st generation will lead to unequal starting positions among the 2nd unless the "earned" inequalities are taken away from those who did better to equalize the playing field for the second generation. This would certainly lead to a reduction of births among those who perform better and an increase among those who do worse, creating a system which favors breeding among the least talented and discourages it among the brightest.

Any theory proposing equality of conditions, whether as a starting position or as an end results, will need to explain how that equality will be maintained through subsequent generations, dealing in particular with the unequal division of genetics and parental love/skill and the natural tendency of parents to seek a better life for their children.

2. Laws created by one generation pass on to those born after their passage. Can we really say we had their consent to create laws over them? Is this not evidence that we ought to pass as few laws (in particular economic regulations and social spending) as possible in order to mitigate this problem?

Most of us live under hundreds or thousands of laws passed long before we were conceived. Simply put, are these laws made with our consent, and if not, are we bound to follow them? Unlike the former question I find I must attempt to answer this question, as I am one who still believes in the necessity of the state, whereas I am not a believer in the necessity of equality of starting positions or end results. This is how I deal with this problem; other thoughts are more than welcome.

It cannot be said we consented to the creation of such laws. Consent requires a conscious, sentient being, which by definition we were not prior to our own existence. To prevent the collapse of society or the need to renew every law each time a new person is born, we follow the concept of implied consent, whereby if we choose to remain in this nation we also consent to the laws passed prior to our participation in politics. This requires a free nation to allow citizens to leave who choose not to consent to the laws. While an important fix, implied consent is very, very broad in its scope. Either you accept all of the laws, or you leave. There is no getting around this problem; we cannot give a veto to each citizen upon reaching the age of majority for particular laws, for obvious logistical reasons.

Given that we cannot get rid of this problem, our only solution is to mitigate it. It is not just to impose rules, regulations, and in particular debt upon those who cannot consent, but at the same time we must have some rules and regulations. The best solution we have, then, is to reduce the number of injustices we commit to a bare minimum possible that will ensure the survival of our life, liberty, and property. By reducing the numbers of laws, regulations, and debt, future generations will need to give their implied consent to fewer laws they were not around to consent to in the first place. While the problem still exists, it will be smaller than it otherwise would have been.

Libertarian Paternalism?

This article by Glen Whitman over at Cato Unbound is a must read.

Mr. Whitman makes the argument that individuals are not in a position to be making better decisions for other people far better than I have. Those proposing legislation punishing people for not taking the "right" decisions in their own lives, not affecting others, need to read this first and prove legislators know any better what they are doing than the people do.

The Limits of Democratic Government

Democracy is the key component of the American ethos. Since the founding of the American colonies, it has been a precept of all citizens that they have an equal say in the make up and conduct of the government. A government democratically elected by the majority of its citizens appears to have a greater claim to legitimacy to rule over the people than any other form of government. I love our democracy as much as any other citizen, which is a point I ask the reader to keep in mind. A strange request? Yes, but for most readers, this will be a strange project, as we need to take a critical eye towards democracy to define its limits and its perils. Democracy has the potential to be the most beautiful form of governments, but is also has the ability to be among the worst horrors of the world when abused.

I am by no means the first to make this distinction between a good and bad version of the same form of government. Aristotle was among the first, creating three divisions of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) with a good and bad version of each, leading to six potential types of government. The particular types of government is not relevant here; there are enough variations and mixtures in modern governments of these three types as to make them obsolete in discussing our world today. That any particular form could be good or bad, however, is an idea citizens need to understand today. Monarchy and aristocracies can be better for their people than some democracies have turned out to be; democracies can, indeed, be bad. The different types of governments have different virtues and drawbacks, but all of them can be good or bad. I believe that all governments, regardless of form, can be viewed as good or bad depending on their scope and involvement in the lives of their people. Governments that protect and respect the lives, liberties, and properties of their respective people's are good forms; governments that fail to do this or become a threat to those rights are bad.

It is my intention to disabuse my readers of a number of preconceptions about democracy that are dangerous to our society. When we are finished, I honestly believe my reader will have a stronger love for the good form of democracy and an unwillingness to accept the corrupting influences, either in their own political philosophy or on that of others with whom they discuss such subjects.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." ~Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions." ~James Madison, Federalist #51

Government is the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Were there no government, each and every one of us would be the simultaneous judge, juror, and executioner in all instances in which we perceive wrong to have been done. Maybe a very few individuals reading this would honestly use that power well and never for selfish advancement, but I believe most would be like me and know in their hearts they would steal or maybe even kill for self advancement if there was not a superior force to stop us. We create the government specifically to be that superior force to stop each of us from abusing the lives of each other; the problem is, such a superior force itself is now free to abuse others because there is no superior force to keep them in check. We institute democracy to keep the government in line with the will of the people, but how will we keep the people from abusing certain factions of the people?

A tyranny is a government which does not respect the rights of its own people. While the anarchy of places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and post invasion Iraq have captured the imagination of many for their horrors, anarchy is not the worst situation imaginable. Anarchy is a situation where everyone may declare war on anyone else, Hobbes famous State of Nature, but tyranny is worse still in that it sets up a situation where everyone is at war against you. As bad as a war of all against all may be, it is preferable to a war of everyone teamed up against you.

Democracies are by no means immune from such a problem; indeed, they may be more prone to them as elections clearly define an "us vs. you" situation where the majority take power and the minority are left with few chances of defending themselves. Monarchies and aristocracies rarely capture so many people within their fold, whereas the leaders in a democracy by definition have the most supporters of any particular faction. Though democracies tend to avoid threats to life and limb, they are far more likely to abuse property rights, as elections often bring about new governments that know they will exist only for a short time and must extract as many of the rewards of having power as possible in that short time frame, usually at the expense of the minority groups or future generations. Ultimately, democracies are governments, and all governments are evil for the very reason that they force people to take actions they otherwise would not do.

Far too often, supporters of expanding the role of government in a democracy claim legitimacy for their power grabs by hiding behind the claim that they represent "the people." I ask my reader to cover this section very carefully and if I err in any respect please politely let me know, because "the people" is among the most dangerous phrases ever spoken by politicos. We are, as Lincoln put is, a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", but what is "the people?" The most incorrect and dangerous assumption is to believe the government actually represents the will of all the citizens of a particular state. While the government does legitimately govern all of the people by their tacit consent, its actions are very likely in diametrical opposition to the will of many of its citizens. Government is indeed instituted for the good of all of the citizens, but in every circumstance the government will take actions that unjustly harm certain elements of that society.

Since nearly all democracies today are representative in nature, we need to note that elections are only brief snapshots of the political leanings of society. Elections are also not particularly precise instruments; we vote for a candidate who most closely represents our current views, almost always disagreeing on some issues with those candidates. Moreover, we do not know specifics concerning the bills that will come before those legislators. While a majority may put a legislator into office, there is no certainty that legislator will actually vote along with the majority of his or her constituents on any particular piece of legislation. After a few months or years, a legislator may not even have a majority approval of his or her own constituents, but will still be considered a representative of "the majority" because of a snapshot election some time earlier.

All of this should not be seen as me wishing to do away with elections. I cannot think of a better method of holding officials accountable to the individuals whose lives will be impacted by government action; I merely wish to show such methods are cumbersome and very imperfect. The claim of supporting particular government actions in the name of "the people" is tenuous at best.

Even in a democracy, then, with the people as close to in charge as possible, we will have situations where the government treats its own people unjustly. In most circumstances, this will come about by a majority faction in government seeking to reward its voters at the expense of those who supported others, mainly by punishing or withholding rewards from large segments of the society that generally tended not to support the current government. Ironically, members of those segments that did support the government will be punished because the government cannot act precisely enough to actually identify individual supporters.

So long as there is government, the people in those governments will be tempted to use their powers to aggrandize themselves and their supporters at the expense of others. Even in the legitimate actions of government (protecting life, liberty, property, and enforcing contracts), there will be disagreement over policies. The best solution to this problem is to limit the opportunities for government to act to those legitimate actions and little else. As I just said, this is not a perfect solution, but it will reduce the abuses of government. It is a very simple maxim of politics: the more the government can do, the more it can abuse its powers. Regardless of the form of government, the citizens of all nations best protect their liberties by denying the authority of government to take actions beyond a very small subset already mentioned. To expand beyond these realms is to open up doors of opportunity for abuse in areas government was not instituted to act in and in which it is not capable of making improvements.

I have done my best to keep this explanation simple. It is my sincere hope that those who have read this will recognize that democracy is not in and of itself a good thing. Within certain bounds, no government can be considered more just, but once those bounds are left democracy becomes a nightmare of exploitation by temporary majorities. Within those bounds, citizens will have a wary respect for the institutions and a love of the office holders; outside of those bounds, government will be an object of contempt even by the majority faction. We, as citizens, are caretakers of the government when in the majority and are honor bound to keep that government within its proper role. Those who fail to do so cannot claim to love democracy, no matter how much they may use it in their demagoguery.