By Scott Lazarowitz (From October 29, 2009 Post)

Copyright.Reasonandjest.com

I recently linked to this article, Classical Liberalism versus Anarcho-capitalism. Now, I’m not an “anarchist” in the sense of “lawlessness, chaos, corruption and looting,” etc. However, one can make the argument, especially after reading that article, that having no organized government might be preferable to what we have now: a government so overgrown, oppressive, and intrusive that it actually can be characterized by that previous phrase, “lawlessness, chaos, corruption and looting,” etc. Personally, I would like to live in a land of peace and freedom. Governmental actions in the USA are anything but “peaceful,” as Federal, state and local governments constantly violate our property, our privacy, our associations and our liberty.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh played some excerpts of Ronald Reagan’s speeches, among which Reagan noted that once you start a government, or a government program,  it always grows and it’s almost impossible to get rid of it or even reduce it. As opposed to businesses or people with their own personal budgets, all government has to do to make ends meet is raise taxes, or borrow and raise debts (and selfishly let future generations suffer because of it).

It is necessary that Limbaugh and others be realistic about the Reagan presidency. Yes, in his presidential campaigns he was an advocate of individual liberty and economic freedom, and private property rights and freedom of association. However, while he promised to cut whole cabinet level departments, such as the Departments of Education (let the local districts control their education, etc.) and Energy, he not only didn’t eliminate them, he added three new cabinet level departments. Reagan also signed a major illegal alien amnesty bill, that was largely responsible for making America one big magnet for illegal immigration. Reagan caved to the big spenders on Capitol Hill, signing every budget they gave him. The Ronald Reagan of 1980 sounded like he would throw a pork-filled budget back to Congress and tell them to cut out that pork. Instead, he caved and kowtowed. And, oh yes, that doggone Iran-Contra fiasco.

With the proposals now for so many more big government expansions and thefts of property and liberty, especially with this fascist, totalitarian Government Medicine that the Obama Administration wants to shove down our throats, secession from Washington might be the only logical and reasonable answer to those who want to live in freedom.

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe said it much better than I or Reagan could have, in Hoppe’s article, Reflections on State And War:

Conventionally, the state is defined as an agency with two unique characteristics. First, it is a compulsory territorial monopolist of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction). That is, it is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Second, the state is a territorial monopolist of taxation. That is, it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price citizens must pay for its provision of law and order.

Predictably, if one can only appeal to the state for justice, justice will be perverted in favor of the state. Instead of resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. Worse, while the quality of justice will fall under monopolistic auspices, its price will rise. Motivated like everyone else by self-interest but equipped with the power to tax, the state agents’ goal is always the same: to maximize income and minimize productive effort.