The Libertarian Philosophy

By Eugene L. "Gene" Frazier

Why government, by its very nature, cannot and does not work

The government that once protected private property now confiscates it in the name of fighting drugs or protecting the environment. A government founded by those who warned "Don't tread on me" pries into our bank accounts, badgers us to collect its taxes, and tries to herd us into health-care collectives.

The government formed to keep the peace routinely disturbs it with oppressive regulations like payroll taxes and hiring quotas on employers – which drastically reduces our incomes as employees and runs up the price of everything we buy.

Is this the same government that was instituted to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and property?

Most people think government is meant to have certain functions -- such as keeping the peace, operating schools, and providing roads. But government has moved far beyond those functions to meddle in almost every area of our lives. In the process, government has neglected its original functions:

• Government can't keep the peace in Los Angeles, but it thinks it can bring stability and democracy to Haiti and Bosnia.

• Government schools claim they don't have the money to teach our children how to read well, but they find the resources to shape our children into "politically correct citizens" and believers in whatever environmental policy is currently fashionable.

• Government can't maintain usable roads, but sure wants to run the medical profession.

Now the government's "share" is up to 45%. Tax revenues are a greater percentage of GNP than at any point following World War II. But, even worse, government regulation has taken over more and more of the decisions we used to make for ourselves.

Where did it go wrong? Isn't government supposed to be our servant, rather than our master? Wasn't government supposed to help those who couldn't help themselves -- rather than the politicians and lobbyists?

When people say the government should do something -- whether it's universal health insurance or a new sports stadium -- why do they turn to the government? Why not ask the United Way or the Chamber of Commerce?

Very simply, unlike every other establishment of similar size, financial condition, public interest or perspective on the future, government is the only one that is can legally use force -- the ability to compel obedience. It is coercion that makes government unique from every organization in society.

There's no reason to ask the government to do something that relies on voluntary participation. In one way or another, coercion is at work: someone is forced to pay for something, someone is forced to do something, or someone is prevented from doing something. Trade associations, charities, and service clubs urge people to support some cause. But government help is sought in order to force compliance.

Coercion is a beautiful thing for ambitious people. If competition is hurting your business, just get the government to impose licensing laws to keep them out. If you don't want people reading certain types of literature, why bother to lecture them on bad taste? Simply pass a law to put the publishers out of business.

Government is the jackpot of society - the gold medal. It's a shortcut to riches and to imposing your personal tastes and social reforms on society. Simply persuading others that you're right becomes SO tedious.

Government is a powerful tool. But it's also uncontrollable. When government is involved, nothing ever seems to work out the way it was supposed to. This usually is because people planning a new government program focus only on the immediate beneficiaries. They don't take into account how the benefits will act as a magnet for others.

The principles of capitalist supply and demand come into play here. Because a subsidy seems free to the recipient, the demand is greater than expected. And since the amount an individual pays in taxes has no bearing on what they receive, few people pay more than they are forced to. As a result, the cost of a subsidy always far exceeds the initial estimates, while tax increases never produce the revenue expected.

New regulations don't reform society as expected; instead, they inspire new techniques to help people get around the regulations. That's why no government program ever stands still. Once it's implemented, it always expands to cover wider and wider areas.

So government gets bigger and bigger, because everyone wants the privileges they see others getting; the failure of each program in turn leads to calls for new programs; and our "public servants" use all of these events as an excuse to expand their private powers. The so-called "legitimate" functions of government more and more take a back seat to subsidies, protection schemes, and the reorganizing of society through force -- because the latter functions make us more beholden to the politicians.

But you can't control the government. And the dreams you have of what government should do are just that -- dreams. They have nothing whatever to do with what will really happen.

You can't give government the power to do good without giving it the power to do bad. It becomes a tool for obtaining whatever anyone can't get on their own. So it's unavoidable that the government becomes more powerful. The bureaucrats and the beneficiaries both have a vested interest in seeing government get bigger.

Even if you could somehow win some political objective -- just as you had imagined it -- what good would it do you? Your opponents will struggle to reverse everything you've achieved. To preserve the victory, you'd have to continue fighting the rest of your life.

And since the politicians aren't personally liable for any harm they cause, there's nothing to discourage them from expanding their power by expanding the government. So it's no shock that after stripping us bare, they go on to mortgage our children's future to pay for the expansion.

Is it a surprise that people elected to change the system end up going over to the other side? After all, these people now become the beneficiaries of big government. And it's no surprise when every attempt to reform the ills of government makes matters worse. You can't "reform" a lion into a lamb.

We must realize is that government is just non-productive. Government creates most of society's problems. And trying to make it more efficient or more accountable won't help - because a system that relies on coercion is necessarily bad.

Once we realize that government doesn't deliver the goods, we will stop dreaming that we can solve this or that social problem by creating a new program. We will know that the only way to improve society is by reducing government -- by getting rid of government programs, and getting the money we've earned back in our own hands so we can take care of ourselves.

When we realize that government doesn't produce, we'll know which side of any political issue to support: If the proposal increases the size or reach of government, it is a mistake -- no matter how noble the intentions. If the proposal reduces the power of government, then it's on the right track, because it will be better than anything it will replace.

Just tinkering with a coercive agenda won't make it less destructive. Government isn't capable of solving our medical problems or creating a pristine environment, so modifying these programs won't make them work. No matter what the intentions, they will fail -- and they will steal from hard-working citizens and destroy the lives of innocent people.

Always keep your eyes on the principle involved. A government agency isn't a mistake because it's inefficient or corrupt; it's a mistake because it relies on coercion. A government program isn't bad because it's too big; it's bad because it exists.

The question isn't whether we'll have a totally free society someday. We probably won't. But if tomorrow we have less government than we do today, we're going to be better off.

I'd like to suggest a few ground rules in dealing with Government:
1. Don't count on it to achieve any goal -- whether it's deficit reduction or better health care. Your future depends upon how you arrange your own life, not on government promises.
2. Don't try to get anything from it. You probably won't like what you get.
3. Don't be awed by it. You're more intelligent than it is.
4. Don't confront it. You won't achieve anything. I doubt that the IRS agent cares about your views on anything.
5. Don't waste your time trying to reform it. You can't make an agency of coercion be efficient or benevolent. The only thing that will improve government is reducing its size and scope.
6. Don't spend time trying to stop new programs. What you stop this year will be back again next year -- like the Son of Godzilla. Instead, concentrate on repealing existing government programs.

Because government is a parasite, what we eliminate may grow back. But whatever freedom we gain by reducing it now is to the good. And maybe we'll buy enough time to figure out how to knock it down for good.

We may always have government, but fewer people than ever see it as a benefactor, and more as the enemy that it is. Today more people recognize that government doesn't work than at any time in the past 60 years.

Some people fear a limited government -- not observing that their fears are already achieved with the present system. We think we need government to protect us because people are greedy, destructive, and predatory -- but we allow greedy, destructive, predatory people to govern our lives. The result is the mess we see around us.

While today's breakdown of government may seem terrifying, it is really the birth of a new age -- one based on the exciting new technology and people's dreams, not government. This is a time to be optimistic, not afraid.

I believe a free society can provide whatever we need without government. But, I can't tell you what a free society will be. A free society isn't planned, it evolves from the wishes and talents of its members. So there's no way to know what system of protection, money-issuance, or road-building would win out in the free market. In fact, most likely there would be several systems from which each of us could choose.

I may not know the details of how a free society would work, but that doesn't mean it won't work. Suppose America's best entrepreneurs were competing to provide the best schooling, the safest roads, the most stable money, the best defense. Today, the government has a monopoly in these fields. But if the world's best minds addressed these needs, we could have excellence in protection, schooling, and purchasing power comparable to what we now get in telephones and computers.

I have no idea about how all these things would operate. I only know that market solutions would have to provide what we need and desire -- while today's methods are designed to provide what the politicians and their allies want.

One word of truth won't change public policy -- or even public opinion. But truth outweighs the whole world where it matters most -- with the people you respect, the people who think, with your own family and friends.

And where it matters most of all -- in your heart.