Anti-Government

23 March, 2007

In the course of a recent conversation, I was somewhat indignantly accused of being “anti-government”. Considering many of the subjects I talk about, and my opinion on those subjects, such an accusation shouldn’t have come as any real surprise. So, lest I be pounced upon by Homeland Security, let me clarify any possible misunderstandings… no, I’m not anti-government, I’m anti BIG government. My idea isn’t that government is particularly evil and must be overthrown or destroyed, but rather that the best government is the least government, and that government should be severely limited in what it’s allowed to do. That comment is, I’m sure, going to upset a lot of people with a more progressive political agenda than I have.

Anytime people interact, they require a few basic ground rules to limit their interpersonal conflicts. When only a very few people are involved, customs and taboo’s work fine, as long as everyone understands what the rules are. When larger groups are formed, things change slightly. First the customs have to be codified (the law) to minimize misunderstandings, and a mutually agreed upon individual (a judge) is usually selected to arbitrate disagreements. Lawyers, or their predecessors, developed when those codified customs were allowed to get to complex for the ordinary citizen to readily understand. Then again, obviously someone was needed to enforce the rules, so enter the police, by whatever name they are called. “Government” exists to direct those functions, and almost always a local tough guy stepped up to make new laws, push everyone around, and “coordinate” things, becoming the Chief, King, or whatever. The King usually surrounded himself with a small elite that ruled the rest of the population in the kings name. In most cases this elite gained their position because they had ancestors who were better hunters, better warriors, smarter, or more likely were bigger and stronger bully’s than the rest of the group.

Religion also had to get involved. There was always somebody around who claimed to speak in the name of “The God’s”, and due to a gift of gab, could quickly explain everything from a crop failure to a spectacular comet in terms that any superstitious villager could readily understand. In return for constantly impressing upon the commoners that the Gods had ordained that the King should rule, the King let the local Shamans collect even more taxes, grab up a lot of prime land, and pretty well do as they liked. Even today, much of the world’s population still believes in the “Divine Right of Kings”. Apparently some of them still believe in the sacred aspects of comets as well.

As the rulers consolidated their power, things got very simple. The “Law of the Land” was such that a Nobleman could do pretty much as he wanted, and the only illegal activity was for a commoner to protest. The rulers and their warriors had a monopoly on weapons and armor they needed to survive a knock down drag out fight, and went on to develop their self-proclaimed authority. They got to extort “taxes” to support themselves with, and push everybody around. In most societies the educated priesthood developed into an entrenched bureaucracy that got to rub elbows with the rulers, live quite well at the expense of the working commoners, and not incidentally, to push everybody else around. The folks without weapons and fighting skills got to be pushed around, pay taxes, and were allowed to be the servants, serfs and slaves. Then, as now, government is little more than a small group of people ordering another, larger, group of people around. This is accomplished by intimidation, through control of the police and armed forces.

According to political theory, government exists to do those things that the people can’t do for themselves. Things like selecting leaders, creating borders, collecting taxes, starting wars, negotiating with the folks on the other side of the river, and passing even more of those innumerable pesky laws I guess. Fast forward to our modern era and you’ll note that while many of the names have changed, things are still pretty much the same. The United States government was formed to arbitrate disagreements between the states, oversee national defense, handle relations with foreign countries, coin money, run the postal service, and similar tasks. For the most part it did its job in a competent manner, with a minimum of fuss and feathers. As time passed however, our government grew into a bureaucracy that assumed more and more of the duties that rightfully belonged to the individual states. Following the Civil War, states rights were effectively ended by a powerful centralized government that has constantly grown larger and assumed most of the rights and duties of the states, making state government more or less superfluous. Rather than concentrating on the duties specifically assigned to the national government, and leaving us to handle our own local affairs, we find the feds now trying to control most aspects local government as well, and even interfering with our private lives, “for our own good”. Personally, I think I’m much better qualified to determine what’s good for me, than is a do-gooder bureaucrat located several thousand miles away!

Since the failure of the “Contract with America” a few years back, we haven’t heard much about Term Limits. I however, still consider that idea to be well worth enacting. The Republican “revolutionaries” of 1994 started with the best of intents, and wound up beguiled by the perks and privileges of national office. With term limits, those perks wouldn’t have nearly as much meaning, greatly reducing the temptation to continue increasing federal power. Then to, if we could put a five or ten year hiring freeze on federal bureaucrats, and then lock the government into that manning level, they wouldn’t have enough people to do much more than what the national government was intended to do in the first place! Plus we could save a lot of tax money as well, on the grossly oversized federal payroll.