European Constitution vs US Constitution (and theories of government)
(Posted 6/8/06)
Last week the people of France and the Netherlands rejected the EU Constitution. Polls in other countries show opposition increasing and the value of the Euro has since tanked. One cannot help but make comparisons to the United States at the time of our founding. In both cases, states attempted to come together to form a Federal Government.
From reading through this website, you may believe I disdain the Federal government; indeed, some Libertarians believe the country was functioning fine under the Articles of Confederation. I disagree. Although, of course, I disdain the massive powers of the present Federal government, it is more accurate to state that I disdain any government power beyond that which is minimally required. The source of this power is irrelevant.
This distinction is quite important because a Federal government can sometimes result in less government overall and thus more freedom. If you recall, the Articles of Confederation were plagued with problems: states taxing each other, issuing currency, differing debts, national defense, western land claims, foreign policy, judicial differences, tax policies, religious discriminations, commercial meddlings etc.. Nearly all of these problems were a result of excessive state power. Power hungry state officials, naturally (as power corrupts), passed many laws and developed many policies, which they must have thought would help the people. They were wrong. Government laws and plans, besides those protecting property and the basic criminal code, most often hurt, rather than help.
The best illustration of this is the vaunted US Bill of Rights. It has been proposed that the well intentioned founders who passed these Amendments actually enabled grievous harm to overall liberty in this country because the many Freedoms that weren't specifically included in the Bill of Rights, have since been considered 'expendable' in the name of 'public safety' or 'the children', or whatever other semantic rot they always use to sell decreases in Freedom. All of the Rights in the Bill of Rights and the many other Rights that have since been taken away are, in fact, already covered and accounted for in the original Constitution. The fact that a Constitutional amendment designed to enhance Freedom, ended up restricting it, should be warning enough for us to fear the power of Government. (Admittedly, even some of the Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been violated or 'stretched'.)
In any case, when the Constitution was ratified, the Federal government immediately nullified many of these state abuses of power. States no longer could tax one another, states couldn't discriminate against religion, there was common currency, states couldn't claim western lands, and some state judicial, tax, and commercial laws were abolished. The reason the US Constitution had popular support can be illustrated in the following way:
Power Before Power After
Township 10 10
County 10 10
State 80 30
Federal 0 10
Total Power 100 60
Notice that the Federal government restricted State power more than it gained itself. A keen observer might also note that the states could have accomplished this without the Federal government, but didn't. Some Libertarians state that effort should instead be put into educating the population so that states would voluntarily reduce their powers and voluntarily corroborate on such issues as national defense and foreign policy. While laudable, is this entirely realistic? Powerful special interests in any given state will always be trying to use government for their advantage and politicians are loathe to give up powers. Irregardless, the Libertarians rightly feared that, over time, the Federal government would grow and grow in power, just like the state governments had. By creating a Federal Government were we fighting the symptoms rather than the disease?
Power After Power Today
Township 10 10
County 10 10
State 30 20
Federal 10 60
Total 60 100
Oh no! We're back where we started! Federal government is excellent when it works to reduce the powers of state and local government, but becomes Tyrannical when it begins to assume positive power, and attempts to 'do things'. Conservatives today rightly blast the UN because it attempts to impose more rules and regulations on the American people. But what if the UN worked instead to limit the power of the Federal government? I, for one, would support it!
Returning to Europe, the European Constitution is a bloated 340+ page document. Our original Constitution was about 10 pages long. From what I've seen of the European Constitution, it doesn't really take away much power from individual states, but rather just gives new power to a new bureaucracy, which is already attempting to engage in wealth transfers, setting drug prices, farm subsidies etc.. and generally hurtfully meddling in the economic affairs of the citizens of Europe. The Europeans are probably voting for something like this:
Power Before Power After
Township 10 10
County 10 10
State 80 70
Federal 10 50
Total 110 140
This overall increase in Federal power, without the decrease in state power can only end in negative results. Let us hope the Europeans are able to redo their Constitution to form a truly limited Federal government.
Man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.
- Ronald Reagan
EU
crisis deepens as France and Germany gang up on Britain
6/10/05 Agency France Plesse An example of how subsidies, wealth distribution, and EU pork barrel
spending is adding positive power, not negative power to the equation. Could you imagine if the
United States engaged in farm subsidies at our founding
or transferred wealth from one state to another? The EU will not work unless it reduces the internal
forces that generate political pressure on each state to pass positive laws (laws that do things)
and stops trying to 'do things' itself.
(Posted 6/16/05)
This will be added to China and Constitutional Issues.
6/20/05 US News and World Report Interesting article on China. "This is the late-19th-century United States, except that it's happening on a faster and broader scale," says Marshall Meyer, a professor at the Wharton School.
A central question, which this article doesn't address, is one that has been percolating for some years in some so-called 'intellectual circles': Can a rightist dictatorial government be superior to a democratic government? In the case of Chile and Singapore, some say the answer is affirmative. The weakness of democracy is that people often laud the passing of laws and regulations, and, over time, sometimes seem to work towards enslaving themselves, by creating bigger and ever more tyrannical government.
The point has been made that politicians are not rewarded for passing freedom enhancing laws (or, better yet, repealing restrictive laws), but sometimes punished, because those limiting freedom for their own nefarious purposes can lobby/bribe the politicians to enact measures to increase their personal profits, while the countless more that would benefit from freedom don't exist to lobby government. For example, privatizing bloated agencies like the postal service and Amtrak is long overdue and would save taxpayers millions, but the replacement companies don't yet exist to stand up for themselves and individual taxpayers tend to be apathetic (as they only 'loose' a small amount each). Meanwhile, the postal and train unions and their lobbyists can put their full effort into fighting reform. These internal pressures are what corrupted the states in the Articles of Confederation and what is corrupting our current Federal Government. Representative governments have an inherent antipathy to change. The voiceless have no voice.
Could a rightist type dictatorship be more effective at dealing with these types of prosperity stifling problems? For example, in China: The central government even seems to be purging corrupt officials--proving that communism can still be ruthless. Last year the government executed four bankers accused of fraud. <.> Foreigners are usually treated much better. Shanghai woos western conglomerates with favorable tax treatment and other perks, the same way American cities and states compete to lure businesses. Western firms often discover that when it comes to business, an authoritarian government isn't such a bad thing. "Usually, if the government says a road is going to be built by September, it will," says Jerry Nissen, a former U.S. investment banker who is executive director of SmartLink International Holdings, a Shanghai-based consultancy.
If government is able to forcibly prevent citizens from passing liberty depriving laws, while effectively enforcing the basic rule of law, especially regarding property rights, then might this country become so prosperous that the democracies are left in the dust? Could a Libertarian dictatorship be the 'utopia' we are looking for? Might it be China?
Currently, at least in regards to China, the answer is no. The Chinese government still owns a plethora of state owned companies, banks, and utilities etc.., and arcane laws, rules, and regulations plague the country. The government meddles in health care and education, and the state owns roads and much of the land (especially farm land, leasing it to peasants). Corruption and government interference in pensions and retirement is a threat to prosperity. Draconian drug laws restrict freedom. Pollution poses health risks and hurts economic growth (yes, pollution falls under criminal law - damaging someone else's property, including their physical bodies, is illegal in a Libertarian society). Military spending and intelligence budgets are soaring. So, China is clearly not even close to a Libertarian utopia. In fact, China's ultimate destination is unclear.
But let's theorize a bit and pretend that in the next 10 years China becomes a true Libertarian one party system, ruled with an iron fist. Since, in a Libertarian society, the government hardly has any power, there is almost no corruption. In fact, the government will be most consumed with preventing groups of citizens from stealing from each other (taxes) and inhibiting each others freedoms ('safety resolutions', regulations, and other measures for the 'public good'.). While some might say inhibiting elected citizens from enacting compulsory taxes is tyrannical, others might, more accurately, state that this intervention is merely preventing legal thievery, protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority, and enforcing the basic laws of morality.
Now, some of you might might suggest that I am treating people with the same sort of condescension that I routinely attack liberals for displaying towards the 'masses'. I seem to be saying that people are too stupid to live in democracies and don't know what's best for them. I don't think this comparison is accurate.
First, my
condescension towards those that would pass draconian compulsory laws is reflective of their own
condescension towards the minority, whom they are forcing their laws and regulations on. If
socialism of any kind (education, health, retirement) is so great, why do governments always throw
their citizens in jail if they don't participate? This isn't an exaggeration; try not paying SS,
Medicaid, or Medicare tax and see what happens to you. As David
D. Boaz
A Libertarian community can be predominantly, or even entirely, socialist, but it is not compulsory. This is a key point. But... but... but... won't the rich always opt out of these programs? Perhaps. But then what is your solution? To not let them opt out and pillage their property?
It is worth mentioning that because of the government enforced bias in the media (via regulations, media laws, public theft/subsidies of media etc..), academia bias, the public education system bias, and Hollywood bias (the only bias not currently government subsidized), many citizens are brainwashed into socialistic ways of thinking.
The Internet is helping to turn the tables, educating increasing numbers of people and disseminating previously censored views. So, it is not condescension, but unrealistic, to expect that people can have a respect for something (freedom) they have never been exposed to. Again, the condescension label is most accurately applied to those who want to keep the status quo and forcibly educate people, rather then giving them the freedom to educate themselves.
Consider though, our original Constitution. Government primarily possessed negative power - that is, people had all these rights that government (local, state, or federal) could not mess with. One might argue that our constitution was dictatorial in the sense that, without changing the constitution, government was pretty restrictive in what it could do and people were restrictive in what laws they could pass, irregardless of what a tyrannical majority might want to do. Whether it is a Constitution, or a steady stream of Libertarian dictators that prevents these liberty destroying acts might turn out to be somewhat of a moot point. Of course, today our rights have been eroded so much that we barely even pay lip service to our Constitution. Don't believe me? Read it!
If we can cut through these blurry semantic differences, it seems obvious that a representative republican (republic) Libertarian society is preferable to a dictatorial Libertarian society and if we are moving (returning) in that direction anyway, then why risk a dictatorship? A dictatorship, even a rightist one, has a number of key limitations. Remember, we are giving this dictator powers to prevent citizens from passing anything against the Libertarian viewpoint. This also gives him/her power to act in his/her own interest, with little threat of repercussion from the people. Just like our corrupt and/or ignorant Congressmen pass laws against the public good in the name of 'the public good', a Libertarian dictator will be tempted to take action against the Libertarian viewpoint in the name of the 'Libertarian viewpoint'. This government could operate with impunity and break its own laws. Power corrupts and there is no reason to believe that every dictator will be the ideal 'benevolent enforcer' that would make the system work.
Another point is that there are disagreements over exactly what the 'Libertarian view' really is. In other words, what I have laid out here as the 'Libertarian view' is so different from the way our present society is run, it must seem quite radical to some people. However, among Libertarians, there are a number of gray areas where disputes can arise.
In conclusion, it appears we must discard this dictatorial utopia, and work on educating the people. As previously mentioned, it is my view that China will undergo a democratic revolution within the next 5-10 years, or earlier. Most probably, this will happen during the next Chinese recession.
Comment (0) | Trackback (0)
Posted 7/27/05
Added to 'Constitutional Issues', 'Founding of the United States and Constitutionality of Charity', and 'China'. (lol, these posts are all interconnecting, which is sort of a pain and a good thing at the same time...)
If you recall, I posted some time ago about the difference between a 'Libertarian Dictator' or 'representative republican (republic) Libertarian society'. In the former, freedom is, in effect, forced on the citizens and in the latter the citizens choose it themselves. Although I ended up siding with the representative society, some wondered why I would even take the time to consider the dictatorship seriously.
In my view, this objection arises from a misunderstanding of what a 'Libertarian dictatorship' is. Unfortunately, dictatorships are semantically lumped together in the same category, when in fact, they often differ drastically. A better understanding can be achieved if a given dictatorship is measured by how much power the government/dictator has and exercises. Almost every dictator in history has been socialistic, the more socialistic, the worse the tragedy of the country. One of the few who was not was the much vilified General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, whose economic policies led to the growth that make Chile the wealthiest country in South America. [For those interested, I have compiled a fair amount of research on Chile, but need some time to go through it and organize it.]
Why do we dislike the idea of a dictator? Because we distrust the power a dictator has over the country; their propensity to disrupt our lives. However, in a Libertarian dictatorship, the opposite occurs; government is reduced. The government has less power and a Libertarian dictator, by definition, can't do much of anything! In fact, the term is an oxymoron.
He can't stop you from doing anything you please (besides preventing you from passing laws limiting the freedom of others). He can't steal your property. He can't stop you from putting substances in your body. He can't prevent you from freely contracting with another citizen. He can't prevent you from trading with a citizen of another country. He can't prevent you from bringing workers from other countries to work in the United States. In short, what is it you fear from a Libertarian dictator? Our current government does all of the above and worse, yet, because we are conditioned to fear dictators, we fear them worse then our own democratically elected thieving, pillaging, and regulating government.
In fact, a Libertarian dictator must, by definition, be an extremely altruistic and selfless person because he is giving up power, wealth, privilege, and fame for the benefit of others. I always feel a hint of pride when I see polls showing that Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods, Tom Cruise, (Opera?), (Bill Gates?) and Madonna have more name recognition among foreign and US populations than the US president. By contrast, in Cuba and North Korea, Kim and Fidel's portraits, speeches and writings hang in every classroom and house and state television slavishly follows their every move. Can you name a famous Cuban or North Korean? From the LA times:
On
the opposite wall [of a citizen's house]
hang the obligatory framed portraits of Kim Jong Il and his late father, Kim Il Sung, who seized
power in the northern half of the Korean peninsula after World War II.
The government forbids people to put family photos or other decorations on the
same wall. Party cadres used to drop by almost daily to make sure residents kept portraits free of
dust, but that stopped two years ago.
"They don't worry so much about ideology now," he said. "All
anybody cares about is finding enough food to get through the day."
In a true Libertarian society, the Libertarian dictator would probably have little name recognition because he would be relatively 'unimportant'.
Now, as previously stated, I am not advocating a Libertarian dictatorship, but merely stating that the seriousness in which I take the proposal is not misplaced.
Posted 7/8/06
Dutch Told To Return Land They Won From The Sea
5/27/06 Telegraph Added to 'Constitutional Issues' and 'The Environment'.
Posted 6/27/08 ( by Travis)
*LIVE
THREAD* DC Gun Ban Struck Down 5-4 (Scalia for the win!)
SCOTUS
Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity
This historic ruling reaffirms what the second amendment clearly states. The so called 'coma debate' never held water and both the intention and meaning was always clear.
This sort of 'negative power', as power goes upwards from township, city, county, state, federal, whether judicial or legislative is in dire need of expansion. In other words, the next level up can tell the lower levels what they may not do (negative power), not what they must do (positive power). For example, knocking down this tyrannical law in the district of Colombia, is an example of negative power being utilized. National New Deal type legislation at the Federal level is 'positive power', mandating what states must do, regulations they must comply with, socialisms they must conform with, pyramid schemes they must partake in, and are inherently antithetical to liberty and good governance.
Interestingly, isn't it ironic that the highest crime rate in the nation is the district of Colombia. In fact, the District at one point had a higher murder rate than Baghdad, a fact mentioned by Secretary Rumsfeld. How can it be, that the city with the highest crime rate in the United States has amongst the strictest gun control laws? Likely for the same reason that the District of Colombia has the lowest test scores and highest funding per student out of all the 50 states.
Also interestingly, Obama appears to agree with the ruling as do many Democrats. Perhaps freedom is indeed on the march!
For more on Constitutional issues see: The Founding of the United States and the Constitutionality of Charity.