29 Oct The Imbecilic Notion of Limited Government by Bill Buppert
Publisher’s Note: I cannot recall all the hundreds of times I have had to respond to the minarchists who crowd the libertarian ranks regaling me of their Rube Goldberg contraption that would make limited government the final solution to all the world’s political problems. Newsflash: none of it works. Fiction tends to craft a narrative framework that essays can’t get close to in communicating ideas. If you get a chance, read Eric Frank Russell’s masterpiece, “…And Then There Were None”.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out… without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
– H.L. Mencken
A week until the latest slave ballots are cast and then I can stop being surrounded by the annual nonsense of voting for vandals. I can’t drive anywhere in my small burg without spying all the campaign litter cluttering the roadside trumpeting the joys of selecting either dumb or dumber to rob you, tell you what to do and wage war on everything you do or say.
Funny, it’s like all the private criminals running for office locally so they can go ”legit” but once ensconced in the elected throne, they will do what they always do; screw a figurative gun into you temple while they grab your wallet and threaten you with fining, kidnapping, caging, maiming or kill depending on your level of resistance. And, of course, they will employ their legions of attack coproaches that you and your unborn progeny pay to prowl the streets looking for new residents of the gulag.
I think I have written enough over the years about the gulag totalitarian state that everyone enjoys calling America. I’ve published a book that speaks to the imbecility of limited government and its brain-dead adherents. Mind you, I used to be paralyzed from the neck up myself and believed in the nonsense of voting, limited government and the distinct possibility that if we got just the right humans in office, we’d skip down the yellow brick road with no need for anything while politicians would spew magic fairy dust out of their asses and we’d think it was air freshener.
But, no, grown ups have discovered that all politicians are psychopaths and sociopaths; it is only the parasite class of the political nomenklatura who continue to be the nation’s largest gathering of adult toddlers outside of Hollywood.
So if you haven’t read my book, I wanted to provide the reader’s digest version of why limited government is impossible. There is no historical precedent whatsoever east or west of a statist entity arising out of the ashes of the latest secessionist movement and able to control the size it grows to as the cancer of the state metastasizes with time. None. Revolution either wholly transforms an existing government or rends chunks of an existing polity into another totalitarian aspirant in its embryonic stages squealing to grow into the abomination that is government today and has been government always.
I am technically an anarchist but the term grates me. Not only because it is weighted with historical contexts that make people fill their pants but because of the lack of specificity in definition. I am an abolitionist. Let’s clear up the semantics. Abolitionism is far clearer than the muddied nonsense of anarcho-communist, -syndicalist, -socialist and all the other Judea People’s Fronts crowding the aisles of Libertarians-R-Us. It bears an especially sharp contrast against all the other collectivisms. I am certainly 95% an-cap as a philosophical species and I also suspect I am the thinnest of libertarians.
Harness the Austrian critique to Rothbard and that distills the philosophy. I never use the term voluntaryist because I think one could be a commie and faithfully employ the term much like the IRS fiction that the income tax is voluntary. It is also mispronounced constantly. It is why you can look through all my writing and rarely if ever find me using that as an identifier. I practice linguistic specificity because as my mind ages I get more and more addled and try to keep it simple.
Abolition means that the ownership of other humans is wrong whether chattel, regulatory, tax or whatever conditions you wish to apply. It also means I possess no rights that force others to do my bidding which is why I think modern juries are a sham not only because of the behavior of robed government employees but the penalties of not complying when summoned by the King’s men to “serve” in the kangaroo courts is heavy with threat and malice for non-compliance. How appropriate though for the injustice system in the USSA.
In that very limited context, any transaction that obviates the ability to opt-out and involves coercion to action absent consent is wrong. The sole exception is the informed consent of a contract and even that must respect the Zero/Non-Aggression Principle (Z/NAP).
That being the case, any statist government is wrong and only self-governance applies.
Minarchists are the wild-eyed utopians, not abolitionists. Day after day, I am queried by the usual suspects in a panicked falsetto “…but, but who will [fill in the blank] if the government isn’t there to bully me to action or screw a gun to my temple? ANSWER ME!” It proves to me again and again that collectivism is the creed of the adult toddler.
Limited government is the impossible dream because it never happened anywhere on Earth.
Once the most apparently banal notion in a tacitly (BS) consensual document like the Constitution empowers a central government to do anything, it will metastasize like a cancer. Thought experiment: what if all the Constitution read was simply:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Nothing else…nothing. In 1794. Washington would have used that as pretext to march against the tax evaders using some penumbra he deduced from a government panel (ten years before the Supremes granted themselves that right ex post facto ergo propter hoc in 1803).
Fast forward to the ICC in 1887 and then the infamous Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 and all the nonsense in between and ever since. From one sentence, the Feds, Hamilton’s merry band of Communards, would erect a huge formerly limited government apparatus to gobble up all the liberty and freedom it could consume and raising taxes along the way to fund their regulatory excesses. Of course, all of this would be attended by enforcement mechanisms for local consumption and enormous armies and navies to enforce “border protections” for extra-interstate commerce and all the justifications for leviathan government the bureaucrats would fabricate to build the monster.
Limited statist government is IMPOSSIBLE.
So if you are still dim-witted enough to go to the polls on Tuesday or worse, think the Constitution is an engine for freedom; you have some explaining to do to your children on why you insist on making their adulthood so miserable and wretched.
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.”
– Joseph Sobran