There's no government like no government
I have something of a dark confession to make: if I had my way I would be a classical anarchist. I absolutely believe in the supremacy of the individual and that every individual should be free from the constraints of the forceful regulation that organized, compulsory government demands.
Unfortunately, the reality of large-scale social interaction denies the application of universal anarchism in any practical way. What a pragmatic anarchist is left with is working toward some sort of extremely limited government wherein personal liberty is maximized.
I am blessed to live in a nation governed by a constitution that makes the best attempt to maximize individual liberty by enumerating the powers the government has and remanding any other powers to the states and the people.
Under this constitution, it is at least possible to imagine the kind of federal government I would create if it was up to me. The easiest way to imagine this government would be to imagine how much it would cost.
My federal government would be one where its primary function was national security--the guns and intelligence pointed out to keep the inside secure. The only thing it would collect direct taxes for would be to perform this function. These taxes would be levied in the form of a per citizen bond scaled to the net worth being defended (kind of like a property tax but with a wider definition).
In my federal government, any other function it performs, rigidly bounded by the constraints of the constitution, would be paid for on a per use bases. Want to use government roads? Buy a government license. Want to use government sponsored schools? Then pay the appropriate fee. This structure would include states buying into government arbitration for things like trade disputes.
My federal government would remand all other authority to the states and the people where it belongs. Notice, that this government does not include any mention of federally mandated programs for anything, let alone social welfare.
Now, I understand that some people may recoil at my vision of federal government, but I wonder if they ever consider what the current version means. The current version plans to spend $3.1 trillion on $2.5 trillion in receipts in 2009. Barack Obama wants to add a trillion dollars in new spending to that number (over the course of four years). $4.1 trillion per year represents almost 30 percent of the United States annual GDP. If we add in the true, long term cost of the recent financial bailout, the current version of the federal government could end up controlling almost half the total GDP through spending and stock holdings in once private institutions.
Numbers like that do not just make me sad, they make me angry and fearful.
If we take a look at these numbers, the current federal government will spend $13,667 per person living in the United States right now per year if Obama gets his additional spending. That is $35,400 per average household per year. Subtracting the roughly $660 billion per year currently planned for military and homeland defense spending, that is $11,500 per person per year or $29,700 per household per year.
Even if one takes a reduced number based only on the FY 2009 budget with no spending increases and with defense and homeland security taken out, the federal government plans to spend at least $32,500 on my behalf over the next four years. That's 8,133 gallons of $4 per gallon gas, or seven years of filling my gas guzzler once per week.
Is the current federal government providing me $8,133 in annual services beyond defense and homeland security? I contend the answer is no.
Now, consider what you would do with $8,133 extra dollars a year. Even if that money went to taxes to your state or local government, imagine what the difference might be.
Of course, not everyone would just have $8,133 dollars in hand. Instead, that money, all $2.4 trillion of it, would be back in the economy. That would be $2.4 trillion in business investment and jobs. We would see that money in the form of higher wages, lower prices, and more personal economic autonomy.
Perhaps as importantly, that would be $2.4 trillion available to Americans to help themselves and each other. That kind of money could raise millions of people out of poverty. That kind of money could ensure people could afford their own health care. That kind of money could help millions of more people go to college.
I understand that all of these numbers are a simplification. I understand that there are probably some other federal programs that might deserve some kind of guaranteed funding. I understand that many people believe that the only way to ensure certain people are treated fairly is to invest that power in the federal government.
What I want those people to show me is a single government program outside of the Department of Defense that has conclusively improved the lives of the demographic it was designed to serve. To me, the evidence of this success would be that the demographic no longer needs the program because its circumstances have improved beyond the need for it.
I believe there are no such programs. Instead, we have more people living in poverty, more people struggling to make ends meet, and more people without the ability to pay for health care. Even worse, we are not secure. We cannot even control our own borders let alone keep tabs on and deter our enemies.
This is the kind of result that demonstrates the failure of our current federal system, whether that system is run by a Democrat or a Republican. This kind of result is why I reject the idea that somehow I should believe that things will not be so bad under an Obama presidency. I want the government to barely exist and he wants to grow it by a trillion dollars.
Sure, I supported McCain for president and, in many ways, he was just as bad, but at least he paid lip service to the things I want the government to do for me. Obama has promised to do everything but what I want, and for that reason alone, I cannot be content with him as president.
What does this all really mean? It means, for me at least, a critical line has finally been crossed. It means that I can no longer sit back as I have hypocritically done for so long and hope things will go my way. It means that I must now actively work to deconstruct the $4 trillion monster that our federal government has become. It means that I can no longer accept the status quo, even if that means my opinion, my actions, and my vote become marginalized by the monster enthralled mainstream.
Maybe it means that I will have my way after all. I will be the practical anarchist trapped in a socialist democracy. At least I will have an excuse to justify being cynical and angry most of the time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Denny,
That was an interesting post. It raised a lot of questions and thoughts for me. I'll share a few.
First, I know how you feel. I felt this way when Bush took over, when he, in my view, stole the 2000 election. I felt this way when he took us to war needlessly. When he allowed the use of torture. When he spied on us. When he urged us to let the telecoms off the hook for breaking the law. I felt this way when the country, against all evidence that we had screwed up the first time, elected him again.
Don't bother rebutting what I just wrote. I'm not laying claim that any of what I just wrote is factual (I believe much of it is, but that's irrelevant to my point) or saying that I think the same way that you do on policy issues. I mean simply that I felt like you do now. Angry. Worried. Depressed that so many others couldn't see what I saw. I felt a little hopeless too, especially as time went on. So while I disagree with you, I feel ya.
All I can say is don't let the anger get the best of you. Stay clear-headed and focused, and don't worry too much. As you've pointed out a number of times, the system is working. We had a bloodless change of government. Time will tell if anything substantive will change, but we ushered out one government and ushered in one with a different mindset and did so without much fuss. The world is proud of us, not because we elected a Democrat, but because we just showed that our system works.
Second, a question: just how devoted to personal liberty are you? For example, do you support individual liberty to the extent that you'd be willing to allow gay couples to marry and have the same legal benefits and protections as straight couples? Do you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus? How far does your fidelity to individual liberty really extend?
Third, another thought. I think it is interesting that we seem to share a suspicion of government, but that we are suspicious of very different things. I think that speaks to a fundamental difference in how we see things, but I'm not sure how to put my finger on just what exactly it is. Any insights?
Fourth, it also seems that we can agree on certain broad points, but the particular inflection of our views is where we part ways. I find it interesting that we can agree on so much, yet get so angry at times about our areas of disagreement. I say this not just about you and I, but about all of us here and in the country as well. What's that all about? How can people get so pissed off about a 4% difference in income tax, for example?
Anyway, interesting post. I have to say, I'm glad we don't live in your republic, but I will concede I'd like to see changes to the one we do live in. :)
Second, a question: just how devoted to personal liberty are you? For example, do you support individual liberty to the extent that you'd be willing to allow gay couples to marry and have the same legal benefits and protections as straight couples? Do you think a woman has the right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus? How far does your fidelity to individual liberty really extend?
I cannot claim to speak for Denny, but I'll chime in on this. And I suspect my views will be fairly close to his, as they often are.
In a republic such as what he described, there would be no legal standard imposed by the government on marriage, be it gay, straight, or intergalactic. There would be no concern over any legal advantages or governmental recognition of such a union, because the government would have nothing to do with it. Whether or not a homosexual marriage would be permissible would be left up to society, or at the extreme the states. And honestly, I believe that's how it should be. What business does the government have in the private union of two individuals?
The abortion question becomes more complex, because of the contentious issue of when human life begins. I believe, and have long argued, that life begins at conception, and thus I view abortion as the termination of a human life, which obviously is not permissible by law. However, the abolition or permission of abortion by the government treads too close to the legislation of morality for my taste. Like all other moral issues, I would rather that the responsibility for resolution be left at the lowest level possible, in this case the states. Or even better, that each individual community could decide whether to allow such a practice within their bounds.
Unfortunately, we have come to a point in our nation's history where the apparent first recourse of both sides of the political spectrum seems to be federal legislation. The republican concept Denny described is truly an admirable idea, and one that is closely aligned with my own beliefs, but I have no real hope of attaining it, barring the unforeseen fall of our current system. Until such time, we must try to revise and improve the system we have.
David, I completely understand what you were saying in your second paragraph. I presented this post to more accurately portray my own view, which like yours,is based more in opinion than fact but which forms the foundation for most of my views and, therefore, my writing on this weblog and elsewhere.
I agree that the system, in some sort of twisted way, has worked. That it still functions under the duress we have placed it under is a testament to its flexibility to accommodate not just my views at one extreme, but the apparently popular view at the other. That being said, I am angry not with the system, but at myself for playing a part in letting the system get where it is. I do not plan continue playing that part, so theoretically, that anger will subside.
Second, a question: just how devoted to personal liberty are you? ...
I am unabashedly pro-life, but my view of life and abortion causes me to run afoul of both extremes of that war. I'm always bothered by the use of abortion as a test of the belief of personal liberty because it, in essence, forces me to concede that ending the liberty of one life in favor of another life represents liberty's free exercise.
However, I also believe that the question of abortion is a moral one not a legal one. We can pass all the laws we want, but if people still believe murdering one person for another person's liberty is morally acceptable, then what use are the laws? My view of ending abortion has always been that it will happen because we believe as a nation that it is wrong, not because we made it illegal.
As for gay marriage, if my republic was the one that existed, it would be a non-issue. Legal marriage is a construct used to explain how certain tax laws apply to people in a certain lifestyle arrangement. From my view, legal marriage is an incorporation of the assets of people who choose to live together. It could apply to straights, gays, or monks.
The problem, as I see it, is that the definition of legal marriage is being confused with the definition of religious marriage. An arrangement with specific tax benefits really has nothing to do with the moral belief in a permanent union formed before God and supported by the religious community for the purpose of producing children.
If gays or any other group want tax protections, let them have them, though I find the idea seek tax shelters in that way ironic. The government, however, has no right to regulate what religious marriage means.
Third...
I may be completely wrong here, but I think the difference lies in that I believe there is no good form of government while you believe there is an ideal form of government. I believe that people, when left to their own devices, create natural arrangements that allow them to coexist peacefully and productively. I think you believe that some for of government is necessary because my form of coexistence allows the strong to harm the weak.
Perhaps why the difference exists is that I believe it is possible, at least on a small scale, for groups of people to coexist in a way where everyone is equal, so long as everyone at that scale shares a common moral and ethical philosophy, while you, very pragmatically, believe that the government is a necessary referee between groups like mine who are very different.
I'm not trying hang philosophies on you, so if I am off base, I apologize.
Fourth...
I think the anger results from those moments when the debate finally transgresses into areas that we believe are absolute or even sacred about our own views. Your example of a 4% difference in taxes is a perfect one.
To me a 4% difference in taxes translates into a 4% difference in what I am able to do for myself, my family, and my community. Once upon a time, I made enough money where these kids of changes affected me directly, and when the Bush tax cuts came into being, I saw a tangible change in my immediate worth as a result.
Sure, in my current position, such a change will not affect me at all, but I know exactly what that kind of a change looks like. I know how people potentially facing that 4% change feel, and I think it is wrong. Because of my views on government, that change becomes nonnegotiable, so continued challenges to compromise seem impossible, hence the anger.
I think the same thing happened with the wiretapping debate with the same results.
Fortunately, no one has to live in my republic because everyone has an equal say in the actual republic. What I hope is that, at some point in my lifetime, each of us pulling from our own direction manages to pull the republic to the best place it can be.
Cephas wrote: Like all other moral issues, I would rather that the responsibility for resolution be left at the lowest level possible, in this case the states. Or even better, that each individual community could decide whether to allow such a practice within their bounds.
A nicely framed comment, Cephas. On the quote above, I'll just say that the premise of the Constitution is that the individual holds the most irreducible form of liberty. I would say it should rest here. But, I agree that abortion is the true sticky wicket, because once you believe that conception = life, then you have to oppose abortion. I don't think that is properly an area that we can make a legal determination on at this point, so I've leaned toward "Pro Choice." That said, I've waffled to both sides of that issue based on two related statements: 1) "We don't know when human life actually begins, so we should favor the liberty of the individual we are sure is an individual." 2) "We don't know when human life actually begins, but the risk of our being wrong is too high so we must not allow abortion to take place."
Denny, I see the level of liberty you describe as an advantage of your system. I'm not sure it's enough to offset the disadvantages though.
though I find the idea seek tax shelters in that way ironic.
I don't think homosexuals want to have their marriages legally recognized for the tax breaks. They want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals do (procreation aside) and they'd like to be vested with the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as everyone else.
I may be completely wrong here, but I think the difference lies in that I believe there is no good form of government while you believe there is an ideal form of government.
I'll have to think a bit more on this to determine if it is true, but this was a wonderfully insightful and well stated supposition. I think you're right. Maybe not ideal, but a best, and I think we have it right now, despite how poorly we use it.
I believe that people, when left to their own devices, create natural arrangements that allow them to coexist peacefully and productively.
I'm sorry, I truly don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but this statement makes me laugh. Not at you, just for some reason it strikes me as funny in a joyful way. I just had a pizza, so maybe that's it. I think you're right and I think forming governments is one way they do this.
Perhaps why the difference exists is that I believe it is possible, at least on a small scale, for groups of people to coexist in a way where everyone is equal, so long as everyone at that scale shares a common moral and ethical philosophy,
Again, you make me smile. Read what you wrote and pretend it was written by someone with long hair smoking a doobie. That sounds like a 60's commune to me. I never would have believed I'd have heard that from you. That's not a criticism, just surprise.
while you, very pragmatically, believe that the government is a necessary referee between groups like mine who are very different.
I think this more or less summarizes my belief. I think you did a very good job of presenting at least the outlines of my thoughts.
Because of my views on government, that change becomes nonnegotiable, so continued challenges to compromise seem impossible, hence the anger.
I'm not sure of the validity of what I'm about to say, maybe you can help me hammer it out. I think you may be aiming too far down the chain if a particular rate of tax is what you call nonnegotiable. It's kind of like that old joke about the prostitute, "We've already determined what you are, now we're just haggling over the price." I can definitely see how your views would make you resistant to an increase in taxes, but once you're paying the tax, calling it nonnegotiable seems, I don't know, just stubborn. I don't mean that in some absolute way. I think there is a lot of ground for reasonable anger over an increase from 35% to, say, 75%. I think you can believe that taxes aren't a bad thing and still think 75% is too much. But to be nonnegotiable over 4%? Maybe I'm taking you too literally there. I also supsect this is exactly your point about why you're angry at yourself. Like maybe you sense that you've already conceded too much of your principle. Is that right? Like you, I'm not trying to hang something on you.
To extend by just a bit the ideas I have, I would add to your analysis that I think people have proven throughout history that they will seek their own advantage over time. We can never be so equal on our own that there won't emerge a strata of strong and weak. One of the truly wonderful things about our country, flawed as we are in its execution sometimes, is that we have, for quite awhile, managed to create a society where the strong are employed (literally and figuratively) in defense of the weak. In many societies, this is not how it works or has worked.
As a scholar of the founders you know that their genius was in envisioning a government that was just strong enough to promote and protect individual liberty, and with enough checks and balances to keep it from getting too strong.
We see different aspects of it or believe the danger lies in different areas or to different degrees, but we agree that our government has become too strong and that we rely on it for too much. There's still a wide gap in our assessments, but I think we agree on the principle (at least to a point.)
Again, you make me smile. Read what you wrote and pretend it was written by someone with long hair smoking a doobie. That sounds like a 60's commune to me. I never would have believed I'd have heard that from you. That's not a criticism, just surprise.
The irony there, for me, is that I think your image proves that our linear political spectrum is insufficient to describe what people really believe. Unfortunately for me, 60s socialists co-opted my vision of protestant independence and turned it into something else.
Even still, I think I could coexist with an intellectually honest pot-smoking 60s hippie more easily than I could coexist with most of my fellow ideological conservatives. At least the hippie would try to get along.
Like maybe you sense that you've already conceded too much of your principle.
That's exactly were I am at. I first came to realize I was an individualist (wow that sounds wrong somehow) when I was a sophomore in high school. Since then, I've just kind of sat on it, and now here we are. Granted, actively agitating for my views would not have changed anything, but at least I could rest on not having compromised.
Denny, thanks for sharing that. It was a guts move, putting all that out there. I'll keep it in mind during future discussions.
It goes without saying that I wouldn't want to live in your world. Rather like Plato's Republic, it sort of sounds good on paper... kind of. But history has a different lesson to teach in that regard.
Unless I could guarantee that your optimism about human nature would hold true that the least among us would not starve and suffer in the outer darkness, that The People or the Smaller Societies of which you speak could be counted upon not to abandon them to their own devices, I would probably emigrate.
"I don't think homosexuals want to have their marriages legally recognized for the tax breaks. They want to marry for the same reasons heterosexuals do (procreation aside) and they'd like to be vested with the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as everyone else."
I'm not so much concerned for their motivation to be married as I am curious what other rights and benefits they expect to enjoy. Aside from the obvious tax advantages (if they can be called that), what other advantages does one gain by having their marriage legally recognized? I may be missing something, but I can't think of anything.
Unless I could guarantee that your optimism about human nature would hold true that the least among us would not starve and suffer in the outer darkness, that The People or the Smaller Societies of which you speak could be counted upon not to abandon them to their own devices, I would probably emigrate.
In perhaps different ways, I share your concern, but I have always wondered if it is not a modern concern. Most of human history, however one thinks it might have unfolded, has been dominated by the Smaller Societies you refer to (although it is important to note that those same societies have also been dominated by dictatorships), and for most of that human history, the majority of people have survived and done rather well for the standards of their time.
I postulate, then, that the problem of the potential of the less fortunate starving is really the result of the rise of dominating, centralized government. When people no longer look to their own well being and rely on a distant entity with no real reason to care, the result cannot help but be something very much like we have now.
We do not have to look to far into our own past as Americans to discover a time when people helped themselves and each other and the government had no part in those activities. Again, I postulate that, if the government was removed, people would naturally gravitate back to a state where they would organize in small groups for their own well being.
This is not some kind of utopian idealism, but rather an acknowledgment of historically documentable human behavior. This behavior is just as selfish and self-serving as any other kind of human behavior, but I believe it is more productive than dependence.
Now, I agree that a transition from what we have now to what I imagine could be would be difficult, but I doubt it will be no more difficult than the transition that will take place when the dependency system we have now becomes so large it collapses under its own weight.
I am curious what other rights and benefits they expect to enjoy. Aside from the obvious tax advantages (if they can be called that), what other advantages does one gain by having their marriage legally recognized?
Since you asked...
Death benefits for a spouse under pension/Social Security plans,
Joint Insurance benefits,
Automatic Medical Power-of-attorney,
Probate rights as legal next-of-kin,
Spousal privilege under court rules...
Just to name a few.
Post a Comment