by Benjamin Marks, Economics.org.au editor-in-chief
There can be no argument for limited or representative government; only a conflicting mishmash of arguments for government and arguments for anarchy. And, ultimately, if an argument for government does not include divine will,1 then it can be no other than an argument for anarchy, for no one governs the governors. As Aristotle said (in another connection), “[W]hat has been alleged to be the greatest good in states does in fact make for their dissolution; whereas that which is the ‘good’ … makes for its preservation.”2
According to Aristotle, “the king who is ‘subject to law’ does not … amount to a form of constitution.”3 Many political apologists have admitted this, but none put it better than Carl Schmitt when he said, “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”4 and “The exception in jurisprudence is analogous to the miracle in theology.”5
Advocates of limited or representative government are without principle and avoid addressing whether they want government to rule or not; they are crooked, as Dante allegorised, “rectitude or rule … spurns deviation from the straight path.”6 If government should make laws, then all attempts to limit the ability of government to make laws, through constitutions, separation of powers, etc., or to have government represent you, through advisors, elections, lobbies, petitions, etc., are circuitously, frivolously and tortuously self-defeating. Dante understood this well:
[L]et there be one agent (A) by which something can be brought about, and let there be several agents (A and B) by which it can equally be brought about; now if that same thing which can be brought about by means of A and B can be brought about by A alone, then B is introduced unnecessarily, because nothing [other than attracting the support of those duped] is achieved by the introduction of B, since the same thing was already achieved by A alone.7
Do you want government to be supported by individuals or individuals to be supported by government? Either way you fall victim to Occam’s razor. If you choose both, then you do not fall victim to Occam’s razor, you fall victim to contradiction instead; your proposed government being either unlawful or no government. As Sir Robert Filmer put it:
We do but flatter ourselves, if we hope ever to be governed without an arbitrary power. No, we mistake … There never was, nor ever can be any people governed without a power of making laws, and every power of making laws must be arbitrary. For to make a law according to law, is contradictio in adjecto [self-contradictory].8
(This was before Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics.) Filmer explains further regarding limited or representative government:
[T]he king commands me, or gives judgement against me; I reply, his commands are illegal and his judgement not according to law. Who must judge? If the monarch himself judge, then you … make him absolute … for, to define a monarch to a law, and then to make him judge of his own deviations from that law, is to absolve him from all law. On the other side, if any, or all the people may judge, then you put the sovereignty in the whole body, or part of it, and destroy the being of monarchy. Thus … a plain dilemma: if the king be judge then he is no limited monarch; if the people be judge, then he is no monarch at all. So farewell limited monarchy. Nay, farewell all government if there be no judge.9
John Cotton says the same even more succinctly, “[G]overnment is not a democracy, if it be administered, not by the people, but by the governors … If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”10 And the separation of powers does not remedy the fact, to quote Filmer again:
Every supreme court must have the supreme power, and the supreme power is always arbitrary – for that is arbitrary which hath no superior on earth to control it. The last appeal in all government must still be to an arbitrary power, or else appeals will be in infinitum, never at an end. The legislative power is an arbitrary power, for they are termini convertibles [convertible terms].11
If one applies the laws that government applies to others, to government itself, then government is seen to be criminal. Therefore, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe put it, an “expropriating property protector [also known as] a tax-funded protection agency is a contradiction in terms.”12 Government is meant to be the enforcer of law, but if government is itself exempt from the law, then it is no different to a protection racket. Government steals off people (through taxation) in order to stop others doing the same. For this reason Albert Jay Nock said, “government claims and exercises the monopoly of crime,”13 and bumper stickers say, “Don’t steal. The government hates competition.” Government does not hold itself to the same standards as it does everyone else; it is hypocritical, making it logically indefensible. How else is one to explain parliamentary privilege, the secret (anonymous) ballot and unsigned yet binding “contracts” (the constitution)? They might say that it is necessary for the functioning of government. I agree with this response; it is an excellent argument against government.
The same pattern occurs with economic principles. Monopolistic services tend to be of inferior quality and higher cost than if there was competition to contend with. This is a fundamental application of the law of supply and demand. To deny this is to deny the most basic of economic principles and the very idea of economics as a science, as Gustave de Molinari said, “Either this is logical and true, or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid.”14 Yet this is exactly what all supporters of government on economic grounds profess. They deny that economics applies to the most important of industries, like defence and education. They also manage to gloss over the little issue of how we are to defend ourselves from government, where government is the monopolist.
It is peculiar that everyone admits that governments have negatively sabotaged the economy in the past, and therefore admit that economic laws are not created by government. Yet with governments’ ability to uphold the law, they argue the opposite. They excuse what today would be unjust laws — unjust purely because they are not accepted by government today — as a consequence of a different cultural climate. Why are governments fallible when it comes to economic laws, but not legal ones? It is sabotage of the law that allows government to sabotage the economy.
- In some circumstances that would be miraculous to recur today (ignoring some minor, though by no means surmountable, scriptural discrepancies), a Christian government would be possible, because they have the keys to heaven (Matthew 16:19). A Jewish government, however, is impossible; Jewish theocracy amounts to anarchy. For a historical survey of scripture-based arguments against Jewish government see Gershon Weiler, Jewish Theocracy (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1988); and with greater emphasis on modern sources and the modern Israeli government see Yakov M. Rabkin, A Threat From Within, trans. Fred A. Reed with author (London: Zed Books, 2006). I am unsure of the position of other religions on government. I have also ignored any discussion of G_d vis-à-vis “its” unimaginable incorporeality. ↩
- Aristotle, Politics, trans. T.A. Sinclair, rev. Trevor J. Saunders (London: Penguin, 1992), p. 105, bk. II, ch. ii. ↩
- Ibid., p. 225, bk. III, ch. xvi. ↩
- Carl Schmitt, Political Theology, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), p. 5. ↩
- Ibid., p. 36. ↩
- Dante, Monarchy, ed. and trans. Prue Shaw (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 15-16. ↩
- Ibid., p. 24. ↩
- Sir Robert Filmer, The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy, in his Patriarcha and Other Writings, ed. Johann P. Sommerville (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 132. ↩
- Ibid., p. 151. For why John Locke — the most famous respondent to Filmer — and others, put, theoretically speaking, the defence of government on the wrong path see Carl Watner, “‘Oh, Ye Are For Anarchy!’: Consent Theory In the Radical Libertarian Tradition,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 8, no. 1 (Winter 1986), pp. 111-137. ↩
- John Cotton, The Correspondence of John Cotton, ed. Sargent Bush, Jr. (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), pp. 246-45. ↩
- Sir Robert Filmer, The Free-holders Grand Inquest, in his Patriarcha and Other Essays, as referenced above, pp. 99-100. ↩
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy — The God that Failed (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002), p. 81. ↩
- Albert Jay Nock, The State of the Union, ed. Charles H. Hamilton (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1991), p. 43. ↩
- Gustave de Molinari, The Production of Security, trans. J. Huston McCulloch (New York: Center for Libertarian Studies, 1977), p. 4. ↩
- Why Sports Fans Should Be Libertarians
- Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures
- Government Schools Teach Fascism Perfectly
- Deport Government to Solve Immigration Problem
- The Drugs Problem Problem
- Self-Defeating Campaigning
- Gittinomics: Economics for Gits
- Exclusive Ross Gittins Interview on The Happy Economist
- Population Puzzle Solved
- An Open Letter to the CIS
- Principled Foreign Policy Options: Reinvade or Shut Up and Get Out
- WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Political Corruption Exposed!
- Feedback please: Is this worth doing?
- CIS and IPA Defend State Schooling
- A Thorough Review Without Spoilers of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
- Dead Reckoning and Government: A Proposal for Electoral Reform
- Quadrant Defends State Schooling
- The MPS 2010 Consensus
- Slogans for Property Rights Funeral
- Government is Impossible: Introduction
- Government is Criminal: Part 1
- Exclusive John Howard Interview on Lazarus Rising
- Response to Senator Cory Bernardi and the IPA
- Earn $$$$$ by Justifying Government Against Anarchocapitalism: Survey
- Statism is Secrecy: WikiLeaks vs Economics.org.au
- One question the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens, the CIS, the IPA, Ross Gittins, Ross Garnaut, Ken Henry, Gerard Henderson, John Quiggin, Clive Hamilton, Tim Flannery, Catallaxy Files, Club Troppo, Larvatus Prodeo, Phillip Adams, Robert Manne, Michael Stutchbury, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Dick Smith are scared to answer
- Libertarian Philanthropists Should Exploit Tax Evasion Convictions
- Ronald Kitching Obituary
- The Minarchist Case for Anarchism
- Libertarianism in a 300-word rant
- Economics.org.au in the news again
- Libertarianism In An Executive Summary
- The Banking Bubble Blow-by-Blow
- WARNING: Libertarianism Is NOT ...
- Would Anything Possibly Convince You that You Are Living Under a Protection Racket?
- An Open Letter to Dick Smith
- Economics.org.au at 42
- "My boyfriend calls himself a Marxist and votes Labor, what should I do?"
- "He says if I leave him due to politics, I should leave the country too."
- No Booboisie at Gülçin’s Galt’s Gulch
- "Hey, Mr Anarchocapitalist, show me a society without government"
- The Three Epoch-Making Events of the Modern Libertarian Movement
- Government is Criminal: Part 2 - Methodological Individualism
- Government is Criminal: Part 3 - Subjective Utility
- Government is Criminal: Part 4 - Praxeological Synonyms
- Government is in a State of Anarchy
- Limited Government is Absolute Government
- Why the 2012 double Nobel laureate is coming to Sydney
- Exclusive Oliver Marc Hartwich Interview on Hans-Hermann Hoppe
- A Critique of the Opening Two Sentences of the "About CIS" Page on The Centre for Independent Studies' Website, www.cis.org.au
- An invitation for ANDEV members to the Mises Seminar
- Sell the ABC to Rupert Murdoch: Lid Blown on ABC Funding Disgrace!
- www.inCISe.org.au, The Centre for Independent Studies new blog
- The Unconstitutionality of Government in Australia (demonstrated in under 300 words)
- The Best Libertarian Film Is ...
- Launch Southeast Asian Military Operations to Free Australian Drug Dealers and Consumers
- Workers Party Reunion Intro
- Hoppe's Inarticulate Australian Critics: The Hon Dr Peter Phelps, Dr Steven Kates and James Paterson
- Vice Magazine Westralian Secession Interview
- Sideshow to Dr Steven Kates' criticism of the Mises Seminar: Davidson vs Hoppe on Adam Smith
- The Best Australian Think Tank Is ...
- Announcing a new magazine to rival Time and The Economist
- The exciting new Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
- Neville Kennard Obituary
- Contrarian Conformism
- An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar
- Westralian mining legend Ron Manners of Mannkal belongs in The Property and Freedom Society
- What would Bert Kelly think of the Mises Seminar and Walter Block?
- Bad news about the Mises Seminar
- Gina Rinehart Fan Club gives big to Australian political education
- Sam Kennard wins North Sydney by-election by unanimous consent