(click on ads for more details)

Governments R Not Us

by Pat Pending (7-16-01)

Do you ever hear politicians saying “We should help the poor”, or “We should not trade with China”, or “We should control how much water is used per flush”?  Do you ever wonder who this “WE” is? 

There is a huge difference between the “WE” being the government and the “WE” being individual people.  But, you may say, in a democracy such as ours, we are the government, so there is no difference. 

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!  THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

As George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force.”  Government is the legalized use of force in a society.  It is not the people.

As individuals, in our private lives, we generally deal with one another on a voluntary basis, not on the basis of force.  For example, I might say to you that we should use our seatbelts as I try to persuade you to buckle up voluntarily for your own safety.  Or I might say to you that we should help the poor as I try to persuade you to join me in contributing to a scholarship fund, or to help mentor a child, or to gather household goods for a new immigrant family on a voluntary basis.

But when government says “we should use our seatbelts”, it means that a policeman will have the right to pull you off the road to see whether you are wearing your seatbelt and then handcuff you and take you to jail if you are not wearing your seatbelt, and shoot you if you fail to obey.  And when government says we should help the poor, it means that it will take your money by force and give it to someone else, theoretically to benefit the poor (but mostly to benefit government social service employees and to keep the poor dependent) whether or not you think that is a good idea.  And, again, if you do not comply, you may be jailed or shot. 

If there is no intention to apply force to the situation, then there is no point in involving the government, since individuals are perfectly capable of taking voluntary action on their own, without government “help”.

Furthermore, since government officials are usually elected by a small portion of eligible voters (usually fewer than 25%), and since government officials frequently do not do what they promised during their campaigns, any particular action taken by the government may be supported by only a small portion of eligible voters.  The vast majority of the people may be opposed to or even unaware of whatever the government is doing.  Even if the majority of voters were to vote in favor of a particular government action, that usually means that about 49% or some sizeable minority are opposed.  Thus, when government acts, it is certainly is not “us” that is acting.

There are many, many actions that are taken by our government that most Americans would not choose to take if given a choice, and, if we chose such an action, we would be punished.  For example, very few of us would have decided to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan, destroying property and innocent lives in order to take the public’s mind off of Monica Lewinsky, and, in fact, if any of us did commit such an atrocity, we would be tried, convicted, and put in jail.  But our government did it, at Bill Clinton’s behest, and we don’t see former President Clinton suffering any ill effects from ordering that atrocity.

Recently, a local newspaper reported that a group of people who had been involved in a voluntary pyramid investment scheme was caught and jailed.  However, when the government forces us to participate in the pyramid scheme called “social security” on a coercive, very non-voluntary basis, nobody is tried, convicted, or put in jail.  Consider which pyramid scheme does the greater harm – the one that is done on a voluntary basis or the one that is coerced? 

What is very ironic is that the people who claim to care the most about other people, to be compassionate about minorities, to be the most tolerant of differences, etc., are the very same people who promote the greatest use of government force.  By mistakenly confusing the government with “us”, they promote the widespread use of coercion against innocent people, forcing everyone to go along with what they think is a good idea. 

But our thinking that something is a good idea does not give us the moral right to force others to do it our way “or else”.  Furthermore, we who think we are so smart might just be wrong.  Remember the flat earth people, or the recent panic about global cooling?  The “experts” regularly change their minds.  Remember whole language reading programs and “new math”?  Whole generations of children lost out on a good education thanks to these brilliant theories.  The so-called “intelligentsia” are frequently full of baloney.  If they were left to test their theories on a voluntary basis, they would do little harm, but, if they are able to use government force to coerce large numbers of people to use their methods, they can do great harm.

Also, a program that might be a great idea if handled on a voluntary basis can create serious harm if handled on a coercive basis.  Take, for example, charity, which can be so helpful when carried out on a voluntary basis, as opposed to welfare, which, handled on a coercive basis, creates a multi-generation underclass devoid of basic job skills and forever dependent upon government handouts.  Or take religious instruction, which, if handled on a voluntary basis, can be extremely beneficial, but which, if handled on a government-controlled, coercive basis, is a disaster, as we see in our government schools today, where the religious belief in government as savior is regularly taught.

There is a huge difference between thinking something is a good idea and promoting the use of government force to carry out the “good idea”.  In a free country, people should be free to experiment with their own good ideas, not to be forced to follow the “good ideas” of the anointed few.  So keep your ears tuned.  When you hear someone saying “we should do something”, is that person promoting a voluntary action or a coerced action?  It is important to our well-being and that of future generations that we not forget the difference.