MD: With a proper MOE process government cannot sustain itself on counterfeiting. It must sustain itself like every other responsible trader (like you and me) does. That is by making trading promises and delivering as promised. So just looking at the title of this article, the writer tips his hand. He would not write an article about “Anti-Liver-and-Onions” or “Anti-Brussel-Sprouts” would he? Those are trader’s choices. If people don’t choose to trade for those items then traders who provide them are in a spot, aren’t they. So what is it about government that makes it “anti-able” in the eyes of this economist? Let’s see if an economist has a clue. I don’t hold high expectations of the value of reading this article.
Varieties of “Anti-Government”
MD: Right away it gets scary. He is getting his thinking published. He is part of the “propaganda” arm of government. I think he writes about government’s use of “force”. Propaganda is government’s go-to tool. It only resorts to force when the polls show the effectiveness of the propaganda is not sufficient. By my poll (only 17 out of 298 people I’ve personally polled know anything about WTC7 falling down), the propaganda … and suppression of information … is working just splendidly.
A slice:
A libertarian’s – a Jeffersonian’s – “anti-government” stance reflects mainly a strong presumption against using force to direct peaceful people’s affairs.
MD: Why not leave people to direct their own affairs? Why is a government solution to issues (which always proves to be the least effective choice) always proposed first to the exclusion of all others? In my space it wouldn’t be that way. Iterative secession.
The libertarian objects first and foremost not to particular policies of a large and constitutionally unconstrained government, but to its very existence.
MD: Two issues: What does “constitutionally constrained” mean when that document is blatantly flawed … note it has no buy/sell agreement? What is “government” when it is openly occupied by our enemies … witness the mysterious collapse of WTC7? And an issue probably not covered herein: why is any level of government involved in directing anything that the level above it can deal with … the individual being at the top. Virtually 100% of what every level of government deals with today can be handled at the level just above it.
Even if such a government were today to behave in no ways that the libertarian finds objectionable, he remains opposed to it, understanding that such power is destined to be abused.
MD: So he’s saying libertarians are opposed to the camel getting his head under the tent. I wonder if he gets into why the camels want into the tent in the first place. And whose camel is it?
Of course, the libertarian is indeed “anti” many specific government policies – tariffs, subsidies, minimum wages, occupational licensing, K-12 schools’ funding and operations. This “anti-government” stance reflects no prejudice against an ethnic group, no favoritism for a culture or way of life. It reflects prejudice only against using power to secure special privileges, favoritism only for maximum scope to live, work and play as individuals peacefully choose. It is, in short, a pro-individual-liberty policy.
MD: So if governments didn’t use power to do these things, libertarians would be ok with it? If you’re pro-individual-liberty, why is there any government at all? Why isn’t everyone “pro-individual-liberty”? And why must those of us who are have to be in the same space with those who think there is a place for government. Read the Federalist Papers and at the same time read the Anti-Federalist papers.
The founding children surmised that if the states were left as separate entities their differences would result in fighting and wars. So their solution was to force them into the same space instead of letting them have their separate spaces in which to go about their separate ways. Now really? What kind of thinking is that???
Iterative secession. We took the wrong fork in the road when we formed the union. We must go back and try the other fork. This one has proven itself not to work … and globalization initiatives are proving the problem to be chronic.