I attended a debate in Vancouver BC week ago last Saturday night in which Dr. Block argued for anarchy and Dr. Grubel argued for minarchy (a minimal amount of government: police and national defense.) Dr. Grubel echoed Kirk on politics as the art of the possible, and deemed Dr. Block utopian, and Dr. Block argued integrity demanded Dr. Grubel profess anarchy.
Of course they are both right, we are not going to get anarchy, so why not work on what we can get? Dr. Grubel says his studies shows govt is optimal, and the economy is most beneficent, at 22% of the economy, this after a survey of the last 80 years. (I'd like to see a bit longer test, the last 7000 years would be better.) But think about it: Dr. Grubel says we can have a better life if we cut government in about half. Dr. Grubel not only teaches what is possible, he is in Canadian parliament pushing for it. Admirable! Dr. Block teaches anarchy, and is true to his beliefs. Admirable!
I depart from Dr. Block where he allows for private provision of courts, I say our inalienable rights forbid us to turn our welfare over to anyone else. My actions very well may get me shunned, that is people may universally decline to associate with me, which may lead to me starving to death in the wilderness. This level of enforcement of norms is necessary and sufficient. As a matter of free association, people may or decline to have truck with me, and that is my fate. But I cannot turn my fate over to anyone else to decide, nor can I allow anyone to arrogate this power unto themselves. I can certainly go with an adversary to a third party and for help on sorting out a problem, but i cannot ethically be bound by any other decision. If some sense gets talked into us, and we willingly agree, then good. If not, I cannot agree beforehand to be bound by the decision. (Now of course this is all theoretical, as a practical mater the state has guns and are delighted to use them, so I am not allowed to elect to be a martyr either.)
At this debate (argument, really) fear was expressed for the strong man villain, the Adolf Hitler, the Saddam Hussein. Both would be no where without their governmental power. Al Capone got his power by bribing government servants. Bad guys need government to aggregate power. No government, bad guys are mere nuisances, who may find it difficult to get a ham sandwich anywhere. Earlier I defended free market violence, which is likely to be necessary and sufficient. For those who theorize governments started as self-defense organizations, prove it. The historical record shows otherwise. The most likely genesis of govt power is the story in 1 Samuel 8, I know it is only the bible, but it is superior evidence, written, than mere ideas.
And power is the problem, isn't it? When the TSA searches me at the airport, they do not have the right, but they have the power. It is a process of aggregating power, sought and unsought in Eisenhower's immortal interjection, that governments monopolize, to our discredit. Any allowance of government begins the process of inevitable enslavement, like a new graduate, with student loans, in USA.
The more I resist government, the closer to death I'll get. As a Christian I am not allowed to choose martyrdom, so I must back off, like in shipping, where the more maneuverable must yield to the less maneuverable. Between me and the persons who take government jobs and execute the actions of government, I am more maneuverable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment