Recently, when walking home from work, I was passed by one of those red monster pick-up trucks with an oversized bumper sticker on the back window that announced: FORMER MARINE. It made me wonder why it is that Marines are the only federal employees who feel the urge to proclaim that they once were paid with taxpayer loot.m [Full Article]
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/2221/why-be-proud-of-government-work/
Why Be Proud of Government Work?
Previous post: Business Cycles in an International Context
{ 45 comments }
I find it hard to make a civil response to this highly insulting article. I am normally sympathetic to the perspectives I see in materials from the Von Mises Institute, but I must also speak as a veteran of the U.S. Army who ENLISTED, and have never felt any reason to be ashamed of my service. I truly resent the sense of sneer that permeates the article. If the good professor has any interest in convincing others not already of his persuasion, he would do well to learn that a sense of respect will serve him much better.
Newsflash: conscription ended in the U.S. quite some time ago.
Newsflash: the Marine Corps, which he chose as his target, has, in U.S. history, almost never taken advantage of the draft, even when there was one. As far a I know, there was a brief period during the Vietnam War when there were a few draftees assigned to the Marines, but other than that, none, at least in my lifetime.
So, professor, in addition to loosing the sneer, please get your facts straight.
I’m not sure your response pertains to what Mr. Westley was saying. Marines receive payment via funds confiscated from private citizens (taxes). Your response points out that Marines weren’t forced into service, but enlisted – which makes them voluntary accessories to the theft, willing recipients of taxpayer money.
From Westley’s perspective, you are damaging your case with your response.
Uh, Professor??
Do ya know that Jackson State is a Governmental Agency? It’s federally funded under Smith Lever and heavily subsidized further by student loan programs, the GI Bill and a whole slew of other(including state) governmental sources. Isn’t it?
Government workers don’t put bumper stickers on their cars because everday they see political influence being used to obscure, divert or otherwise frustrate the nominal mission of the agency. Universities have to have football to garner funding from legislators and do all sorts of other non-mission activities in order to stay funded. I could go on; but this is probably enough reality for you, for now.
It was probably a single word that caused the misunderstanding – Westley used “conscription” instead of “confiscation” in the full article… though I guess it’s permissible to use the term metaphorically given the context of the rest of the article.
Unlike the first person, I had no problem with your article. I was in the USAF (fortunately out of harms way) and I can attest that it is a bureaucracy as stated. The waste and inefficiency is massive.
I notice that you teach at a small college and not to be disparaging but you also reside in a massive bureaucracy that is pretty much “legislated” after high school if you want to get a decent position. While I am sure that the majority of the professors probably do a fine job, the cost of education is out of control because of government mandates and controls.
Hence, you are part of another coercive system that basically extorts money from the taxpayers. The average 18 year old is faced with the decision to go to college (pay or get loans) or in all likelihood you will not have the option of having a meaningful career that allows for reasonable wages.
I am sure that many of the students that you and other universities and colleges turn out are not into being educated but are aware of how the system works. For example, pay for a four year degree, get a CPA and you will do a lot better then if you decide to do your own thing.
Ironically, you seem to be part of the same system that you criticize. The only advantage is that most people only have to do 4 years in your quasi-mandated bureaucracy.
PROFESSOR WESTLEY,
BEING ONE OF THOSE MARINES FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, I DO NOT FEEL YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT YOU SPEAK! BY THE WAY, DO YOU GET PAID FROM THE TUITION COST OR DO YOU DONATE YOUR SERVICES TO THE UNIVERSITY? DOES THE SCHOOL RECEIVE ANY PUBLIC FUNDS?
IN VIET NAM I WAS BEING SHOT AT FOR LESS THEN $200.00 A MONTH AND I AM PROUD TO HAVE BEEN A MARINE. WE ARE A VERT SELECT ORGANIZATION AND THERE ARE MANY MORE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAT COULD BE PROFESSORS THAT COULD NOT MAKE OUR TEAM!
SEMPER FI.
Ah, but does Westely advertise is parasitism?
You definitely saw a hell of a forest out there Mr. Westely. Too bad you couldn’t see the trees.
Now someone needs to write an article about why it is that people who understand the evils of government in every other area become hostile and irrational when the same analysis is applied to the military.
Professors who live in bloated bureaucratic glass houses, should not throw stones.
Professor Wesley is not saying he is proud of being at a goverment university, so the objection of ‘hypocrisy’ does not apply. Neither is he saying that marines, or other government employees are ‘bad guys’ in any sense, but rather that they should not be proud of the fact that they are _governemnt_ employees.
This discussion brings up a major problem in our world: There seems to be no area of life or work in which one can be free from government intervention. If the field is so influenced should one leave rather than appear to benefit from the government’s involvement? But why should the fact that the government is involved in military and education “force” out those folks who feel “called” to that life? If you have good reason to want to work and serve the world and be rewarded for that service in a particular area is it not an injustice that government involvement gets in the way of your doing what you want to, in a way that you want to, and that others would like to have you work?
One could as well make the case the the marine and the professor both would find their jobs more rewarding without the government’s “help”, rewarding personally and finacially, which are related and overlap of course.
This applies even in my own field of religion. I have recently been thinking that religion/church in the USA is one of the most free market businesses existing. There is little compelling people to support a church these days. They come and give or I the pastor do not get paid and the place closes. It happens.
But even in church one can say that we benefit from not paying property tax on our building and that certain donations are tax deductions etc.
Everybody is burned by the government’s “help.”
Professor Wesley can also be seen as a missionary : he works and teaches where the sinners are. That makes sense. Even for an ex-Marine.
“IN VIET NAM I WAS BEING SHOT AT FOR LESS THEN $200.00 A MONTH AND I AM PROUD TO HAVE BEEN A MARINE”
Would you be even prouder had you been shot at for free?
Just two brief comments.
1. Taxation is other people’s money acquired through conscription. Bastiat called it legal plunder. I often call it conscripted capital.
2. The argument that one should not criticize the government if one works for it is weak. Those who make it are simply confirming Rothbard’s (and Hoppe’s) thesis that the purpose of public funding of the intellectual class is to pay for support. In fact, those who criticize may actually be trying to be true to the conclusions of their science.
Let me suggest- to all posters- a great yet obscure little film that takes a hard look at the military’s ‘stealing’ it vs. the pions ‘earning’ it – James Clavell’s solid reel-”The Last Valley”- from 1970. Picked up the DVD at my local Kroger for $9.99. Not only is the content not ‘dated’ the footage isn’t either!
Chris—
I fear that your suggestion that all U.S. Marines have enlisted because “that course of action benefited them more than the next best alternative” may have misled some readers to infer that you were alleging necessarily egotistical (or even mercenary) motives. Mises phrased the point more clearly, I think, when he wrote that we can know only that a man who acts in a given way does so “because it is desirable in his eyes.”
While observing that “there are people whose only aim is to improve the condition of their own ego,” Mises reminds us that man is capable of sacrificing “life, health, or wealth to the attainment of ‘higher’ goods — like fidelity to his religious, philosophical, and political convictions or the freedom and flowering of his nation.”
It seems at least possible that some Marine (or even state university professor) may see the attainment of such ‘higher’ goods as more desirable than securing his own “life, health, or wealth,” even if he perceives the latter as more beneficial to him than the former.
Dr. Westley says in his article: “…a life devoted to fidelity to Leviathan in a government bureaucracy is neither a badge of honor nor the mark of a meaningful life.” Not all government jobs are expressions of devotion to fidelity to Leviathan, as Dr. Westley himself could testify. At the end of his article Dr. Westley implies a false dilemma. Is Dr. Westley himself devoted to Leviathan in a government bureaucracy or to serving others in free enterprise?
I agree 100% with the professor. To those who are in the military or have been in the military who are outraged at the professor’s comments, I have a question for you. Do you really believe that you are or were “serving your country”? I do not think this an accurate claim. A more accurate way to describe your service would be to say that you are serving the political agendas of politicians. The most recent exception to this would be World War II, but that happened over 50 years ago.
To serve in the military is to serve politicians. Politicians who have been hard at work diminishing the freedoms of Americans for over a hundred years. Politicians who have instituted tyrannous agencies such as the IRS, the Federal Reserve and hundreds of other regulatory and invasive bureaucracies.
Therefore, I don’t think that those in the military should be proud. On the contrary they ought to be ashamed of their service.
Furthermore, I feel sorry for anyone in the military or any of the relatives of anyone in the military who believe that dying in Iraq or any other recent conflict is “dying for your country.” I’m sad to report that this is not the case. To die in a war today is to die for politicians, and the furthering of their tyrannous political careers.
There is no such thing as a former Marine.
ONCE A MARINE ALWAYS A MARINE.
Maybe the reason the only government employees that show pride in their vocation are in the military is because they are the only ones that are proud of what they have done.
I served in the military because:
1. I wanted real special forces training (and got it), something impossible to get in the civilian world,
2. I wanted to get something back (training) for all the taxes I had paid already and knew I was going to be paying — my fellow citizens voted to loot me into the foreseeable future, so I figure they owed me something in return. I have no moral qualms about my “service.”
3. I wanted a realistic chance to kill really evil people, like the FMLN in Central America and psychotic Islamic extremists in the Middle East, and I got it and took full advantage of it.
When you people overthrow the government and free me from my fellow citizens’ looting me via proxy, then I’ll feel guilty about taking back what’s mine in Veteran’s benefits. Until then, cry me a river.
I browse this blog all the time, and I’m never surprised to see several things;
1) socialists becoming angry that mixed economies don’t work as effectively as the free market, and socialism’s inability to work.
2) military types that complain when someone writes an article condemning the State and it’s employees. These military people often become irritated and upset when articles like these come about, but I don’t know why exactly; if the cause is human liberty, shouldn’t articles like these be praised?
I think that the main theme of the article is that serving in the market is better than serving in the State, which I believe is generally on target and certainly echoes ideas that the Founding Fathers agreed with. To the extent that it is not correct (i.e., a hamburger flipper benefits his society and community less than, say, a member of First Special Forces Operational Detachment Delta – Delta Force, or SEAL Team VI) I think that private alternatives to the military are more efficient and do not require a middle man (taxman) to steal money from someone else. Surely the retired servicemen on this board think that if their services were in the private sector, they would be just as valuable if they were in the public sector (am I correct)?
The liberty movement, for the most part, does not hate military people – at least I do not. But military people have a habit of being extremely hostile when either their service, branch, or even government is called into question. Even absurd military policies (gender normed training) can be met with death threats, comments questioning the honor of said author’s mother, etc. This makes it difficult for people to comment even positively on issues that military people seem to agree with sometimes. For the servicemen who are probably still checking this board, I’m talking about the feminization of the military, such as agencies like DACOWITS, the lack of old school, gritty generals who lead from the front instead of the ones who ‘lead’ from behind desks, and the strange inability of the military to spend money on things such as ammo, and good weapons and training, but has plenty of money for ridiculous pet projects that serve little purpose in today’s battlefield.
Unfortunately, many people do not comment on these issues because of the sometimes hostile reactions they get from both active duty and retired servicemembers. Further, civilians are constantly reminded (via military members most often) that they are ‘cake eaters’ and ‘dont know what it’s like’ out in the field anyway. This is insulting, and makes it more difficult to recommend military changes because the problem enters the realm of politics.
It’s a shame that there is a schism that seems to be growing in the military versus the private sector, but I think that this article (and the responses contained by active and reserve servicemembers) illustrate that there is a legitimate antangonism between private individuals and their State counterparts.
Isn’t mister Westley’s income derived in part from tuition? Although I don’t know the specifics, it would be possible for him to be a “net tax payer” (as Rothbard callls them in Power & Market) and not a “net tax-consumer”. I don’t see anything wrong in being the former, even if you get some moneyfrom taxes. It seems like you’re just getting back what you paid.
Always our assumptions come around to bite us unexpectedly in the derriere. I am in my mid-fifties and, for most of my life, I did not question the assumption of the legitimacy of the state.
I believed—and still do actually—that the US government was, for the most part, filled with well-intentioned people, such as the military men and the professors who are writing in this blog, and that, although the policies executed by government officials at every level often resulted in disaster, the understanding that it was in the nature of that thing called government itself, to generate in the manner of a careening, blinded beast, these disasters—well, that understanding truly did elude me. (The beautiful lines spoken by the Renee Zellwegger character in “Cold Mountain” about the Civil War come to mind, something to the effect that men, by their actions, bring on bad weather, and then they stand in the drenching rain and lament with disbelief “It’s raining!”)
Not until 9-11, when the Twin Towers came crashing down, did it suddenly occur to me that I knew diddly s*** about economics or politics or history. I had simply never been exposed to these alternative currents of thought. (Libertarian political philosophy and Austrian school economics are studies still very much peripheral to most people in the US, or the rest of the world for that matter.) The conditioning we are all subject to as human beings is really so thick, wherever we are on this planet, and in whatever station we find ourselves.
Ultimately, if we are to expose the assumption of the very idea of the state, and if we are to oppose constructively the alluring collectivist myths of the politicians of our age and promote freedom and trade without hindrance, we must help each other—military men and professors alike—to the next level of our blindness!
Happy blogging….
In addition to the fact that the government subsidizes Mr. Westly’s job, there is little doubt his education was also. Show me one academic that paid for their PhD with their own money; they are not there. Additionally, the academic arena operates exclusively in a controlled market. Academics tout their score on a GRE or a LSAT, their undergraduate GPA and highly analytical mind, however the single biggest criteria for gaining entry into the graduate arena is to be socially accepted into the club. This one critical element has little to do with competition or ability.
Charging hypocrisy is not a refutation to any argument. Just because the author is himself employed by taxpayer dollars, that does not damage the premise at all. To argue that it does is a fallacy and it does not help to further the discussion on any topic.
I agree that the current professional soldiers are accessories to the theft of our money. However, I am skeptical of one of the author’s main premises: that thieves and their accessories cannot be as happy as those who are not thieves.
After re-reading Westley’s somewhat meandering piece I think I have unearthed his central complaint: There is 1) a deadweight loss associated with taxation, and 2) taxes arise through the government’s power to coerce; therefore, those who earn their pay via taxes should be ashamed.
Strangely, he seems to only notice that Federal employees are paid via taxes while ignoring tax-funded occupations at other levels of government (e.g., police officers, firefighters, and, say, university professors). Of course, state and local taxes share the deadweight loss and coercive characteristics of Federal taxes. Logic demands that Westley require police officers and university professors to share in the shame of Marines and USDA employees.
I wonder if Westley means to imply that naval expeditionary force projection might be better (i.e., more efficiently) supplied by the private sector. Public choice analysis might suggest that, due to holdouts/freeriders, there would be an inefficiently low level of military capability provided by the private sector. I presume Westely would take pride in being a freerider while hoping his neighbors purchase the public goods which he enjoys.
Finally, to claim that Marines are “always faithful…to the government bureaucracy, whether or not that bureaucracy is acting in accord with the Constitution…” is nonsense. First, the Marines’ motto ‘Semper Fidelis’ in no way implies a loyalty to bureaucracy. I would leave it to Dr. Westley to learn the true implication of the Corps’ motto. As far as the Constitution, all service members vow to support & defend the Constitution; not politicians or bureaucracies (and certainly not bureaucracies that are not acting in accord with the Constitution).
I could go on, but I’m a government employee (U.S. Marine) who takes great pride in my work and must now attend to it.
Semper Fi!
Just a few very brief comments:
1) Hypocrisy is no argument. People are perfectly capable of correctly arguing for a moral standard while doing something immoral. The possible division between “is” and “ought” is necessary if we are to make sense of reality.
2) For some reason, military types do seem to be more proud of their work than other government officials. A generalization, I admit, and maybe I’m misperceiving reality. Personally, I find this to be odd. True, they risk their lives. But to what end? The answer is short and biting: killing. I admit, I have certain pacifistic leanings. But, even if we acknowledge killing as being occassionally necessary, I have a very hard time ever saying that it’s worthy of glory and pride.
3) We live in a world where government is everywhere. We all benefit from certain aspects of government (roads, for example). Does this mean we are better off than we would be if government didn’t provide those benefits? No. Odds are very good that someone else would provide them, if they’re actual benefits. And, believe it or not, LtCol, even the public goods argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny (read the chapter from Hoppe’s Theory of Socialism and Capitalism on this issue, it’s excellent).
4) They swear to uphold the Constitution. What version? The actual written one that Congress the power to declare war? Clearly not. Instead, it must be the tattered version that’s left after the Supreme Court of the last century got it’s claws into it. In short, it’s the version that has been drained of meaning.
Some things to think about.
Lucas,
You make some good points. At risk of taking this thread a bit off the original topic, here are some thoughts.
- I agree that hypocrisy is no argument against the validity of the hypocrite’s point. My issue is that Westley, a public university professor, tries so hard to separate himself from those who make a living via taxes (“normally I’d sympathize with such individuals”). He is one of those individuals! But..your point is well made and taken. His hypocrisy is not enough to invalidate his points.
- I personally view the primary role of the military as preventing war. As an instrument of foreign policy, military force, if used properly, is vastly more effective as a deterrent to war. Of course, like the deadweight losses associated with taxes, the wars “prevented” are largely unobservable.
- I, too, believe that far too many goods are incorrectly thought of as “public goods” when they could in fact be more efficiently provided by a free-market private sector–even if the efficient quantity were to be zero. This is symptomatic of our system of vote-maximizing behavior (i.e., pork projects) of our representatives. However, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude that national defense is one of those goods most efficiently provided by the private sector. I will, however, take a look at Hoppe’s Theory.
- The Constitution drained of meaning?! Not sure about that. True, our Legislative branch frequently abdicates its responsibility and our Judicial occassionally seems to have never read the document but…the point was that service members do not pledge to defend a bureaucracy. Call me an idealist but it’s still a remarkable document; maybe too lofty to live up to (?).
Still, it’s worth the try.
From LtCol:
“I, too, believe that far too many goods are incorrectly thought of as “public goods” when they could in fact be more efficiently provided by a free-market private sector–even if the efficient quantity were to be zero. This is symptomatic of our system of vote-maximizing behavior (i.e., pork projects) of our representatives. However, I haven’t seen enough evidence to conclude that national defense is one of those goods most efficiently provided by the private sector. I will, however, take a look at Hoppe’s Theory.”
Even if national defense is not most efficiently provided by the private sector, does this justify a budget of $400+ billion (a sum greater than the defense budgets of the next 20 countries combined) and engaging in unprovoked wars?
“The Constitution drained of meaning?! Not sure about that. True, our Legislative branch frequently abdicates its responsibility and our Judicial occassionally seems to have never read the document but…the point was that service members do not pledge to defend a bureaucracy. Call me an idealist but it’s still a remarkable document; maybe too lofty to live up to (?).”
The Constitution for all intents and purposes is dead. It explicity says that the currency of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. Yet what do we have today? A currency that has absolutely nothing to do with gold & silver coin. This is simply a direct contradiction. See: “The evolution of money: a story of constitutional nullification” by Ali Khan. You can get it off Lexus Nexus. Also see: Julliard V. Greenman.
Wow, I’m surprised to see someone like LtCol posting in here – I was expecting this blog to fizzle out amongst military servicemen.
On the subject of the Constitution; it rejects the idea of a standing Army. I think that this one thing has a large bearing on what we are talking about.
About private defense; I think that there would probably be less money devoted to certain things in the military, but there might also be benefits as well. Politics would likely be less important, as competition and profit and loss would tend to weed out inefficient private agencies, and these companies would most certainly be better at allocating goods more effectively; meaning less shortages on weapons, ammo, and supplies. Also, these companies would likely be devoted to intel gathering and defensive measures, as there are strong economic incentives for this. Lastly, the assassination of generals, rulers, and henchmen (like Osama bin Laden) would be more efficient than all out wars, and might be pursued by these private companies.
There might be downsides to a private market of defense, but the benefits seem great.
In the end, I don’t think that one has to believe in market anarchism to endorse private defense. I think that if states were relegated to city status (city-states, if you will) the political problems we have today in the forms of constantly rising taxation, inflation, and regulations could all be avoided. Also, I think that since so much can be privatized, the State would find little to do, and hence, have far lower taxes. I think that the State might enter what some Austrians refer to as the “ultraminimal state”.
If we were ever to get to this city-state America (which in my mind is more realistic than market anarchism) we might have a private production of defense. If the State were only taking single digit taxes, then an enormous amount of money would be left over to fund private militaries.
For a perhaps more realistic (and readable) view of how a private defense system might work, LtCol, I suggest Bob Murphy’s excellent Chaos Theory. It’s very cheap, very readable (only sixty pages) and gives ideas on difficult solutions to private legal and military systems. In my humble opinion, it is the best work on market anarchism ever.
Here is a link:
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~rpm213/ChaosTheory.html
Again, one need not agree with market anarchists on everything – there are some real nutjobs out there – but I think that private defense might be possible with superminal city states.
~Alec
The roots of the hostility of some of the Austrians to governments, national defense, and now to government service seem sadly unexamined.
As I have tried to point out in a comment once before, whatever the personal beliefs of any current adherent, the philosophical presuppositions about the nature of man and his world, held by the founders of the Austrian school, which continue to drive its thinking simply do not seem to match up with a historic Judeo-Christian worldview.
John Calvin, for example, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, held a very biblical position: second only to service in the clergy in honor, is that of being a “magistrate” in the civil government, which he argued was in essence in Old Testament and New, to be a special servant of God. Consider for example, Daniel. It is acknowledged that a civil government could become a “bad” government, but it should not, and is deeply wrong when it does so.
With regard to the military particularly, both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures presume the existence of some kind of “caesar”, whose primary mission is to deter evil, for example to try to prevent and punish murder and robbery on a personal level. What then is national defense, Calvin argues, if not deterence of mass murder and robbery on a national level by an aggressor?
In sum, would you really, really care to live in a nation whose civil government no longer contained any men of conscience, faith and good will, and which had no means to deter harm to those you love and nurture?
Grow up and get real, Austrians. Then you can shake the world’s economic thinking.
Nice post, Doug; perhaps you could give me an example of how our current government is ‘civil’, and then give me an example of how private property order and capitalism is against good men.
Here I thought the anger towards the State was just, in that the State is bloated, hostile, and destroys our communities and yes, Christian faith.
Speaking of good men, exactly how does our current government help fathers? Oh, yeah, that’s right – it imprisons them, and gives enormous rewards to women who settle for divorce, while taking children away from their biological fathers.
How’s that for ‘civil government’?
Are you aware of any such government?
Mister Byars writes July 9 2:56AM : “Isn’t mister Westley’s income derived in part from tuition? Although I don’t know the specifics, it would be possible for him to be a “net tax payer” (as Rothbard callls them in Power & Market) and not a “net tax-consumer”. I don’t see anything wrong in being the former, even if you get some moneyfrom taxes. It seems like you’re just getting back what you paid.”
Nope, bad argument. A government employee, i.e. a thief who lets others hold the guns, is not getting back his own money, but is taking money from someone else. The money to run the university is far greater than his salary, and thus his tax money pays for the institution in which he works. His salary is pure theft. Or if you prefer. His salary is partly his own money returned to him and the institution he works for in which he works is pure theft. But either way, he is benefitting from a theft which is far greater than his salary. Mr. Wesley would be far less of a parasite if he simply went out on the street and robbed individuals by gunpoint himself. It would also be far more evident of what kind of person he actually is.
Keep in mind that the collection of taxes is paid for with taxes, etc. Thus his salary is not unlike a speeding ticket, the government collects but a small portion of the penalty, since insurance etc. all go up as a result.
Doug,
I’ve posted before regarding my view on the Judeo-Christian worldview and government. So, I need not rehash it all. But, an important point you totally miss:
The Bible presupposes government much of the time. This is true. (Romans 13, for example) However, this is far from advocating it. Much of the Bible presupposes that there is evil in the world (several of Jesus’s words are aimed at how Christians should deal with a world where evil exists). But, presupposition is far from advocacy. And just because Calvin said it, doesn’t mean it is true to Scripture or Christianity. In fact, numerous early Christians (in the first 300 years of the Faith) were martyred for refusing to serve in the Roman government. Specifically, they refused conscription. Clearly, the early Church did not considered serving in government in at least some capacities (Caesar’s military) to be disobedience to the command of God, as that is the only Scriptural reason for disobedience to the authorities.
Rather, the Church fathers consistently advocated that Christians’ primary duty toward the “civil” authorities was to pray for them. They are also due limited obedience. None of the Church fathers even dreamed of advocating government service as far as I know. You have to get to Constantine’s reign before the concept of Christian government is introduced. And I would argue that at that point, Christianity received one of the largest doses of corruption that it ever has.
If you’re a Calvinist (I admit this is an assumption on my part), you probably accept the idea of total depravity of man. Even if you’re not, it’s clear that you believe that man has a sinful nature. Now, what does this imply about a man in a position of power (read: a governmental position)? Naturally, he will abuse it to his own advantage. (When this is true of King David, who was a man after God’s own heart, it is probably true of every government official.) Now, as Christians, I believe we have a responsibility to tolerate abuses that victimize us (thus, I do pay taxes). However, that does not mean that in a country where we are free to speak that we have a responsibility to vocally support these abuses!
But, not only is the idea that government officials will abuse their power a conclusion of a line of reasoning from Scripture. It is directly in Scripture. Look at 1 Samuel when the Israelites demand a King. Before he agrees to do it, Samuel warns them of the abuses that the King will transgress. This is far from a “Wow, God never realized that that’s required because of the sinful nature that man has now.” In fact, God saw the Israelites’ request as a rejection of the system that He established. A system where He alone is on the throne.
Would I want to live in a system where men of conscience, faith, and goodwill were no longer part of the civil authority? Actually, I advocate such a system. The system, as it stands, essentially requires that (at least higher) government officials blatantly lie when they take the oath of office (as someone with certain Quaker leanings, I even have problems with taking the oath of office, though less than with the fact that it’s a blatant lie). How many politicians advocate a return to commodity money (as the Constitution requires)? One. Ron Paul. How many believe that an official declaration of war is necessary to actually fight a war. Apparently, relatively few (though I admit I don’t recall the number that voted against the “resolution” allowing for action in Afghanistan and later Iraq). Yet, this is what the word of the Constitution says. Now, we can get into “spirit of the document” arguments. But, for a legal document, like the Constitution is, that’s an inherently dangerous ground. When laws don’t mean what they say any more, you run into major problems regarding the rule of law.
You need to realize something, Doug. Advocating government from Scripture is a non sequitur. It simply does not follow. Prayer for government officials follows. (Limited) obedience to government follows. Advocacy does not.
When the religious Right finally realizes that government is an improper and destructive instrument to achieve Christian objectives, they’ll be able to change the world for the God that Created it.
Lucas, I’m not sure this is totally on-topic, but I enjoyed your thoughts on Judaeo-Christian ethics and government. I disagree that complete non-advocacy is possible; I think the initial law and procedures given to Moses (minus the ceremonial bits) form an ideal system and one any Christian libertarian could go along with. The features of such a system are:
1. Absolute respect for property.
2. Bottom-up governmental structure starting with communities and working up to a small, loosely federated state.
3. No centralized executive leader or body.
4. No legislative body (the law is simple and final).
5. Laws only against force and fraud (theft, murder, rape, abduction, and perjury).
6. Punishment mirrors the crime; double restitution to victim preferred whenever possible. (no such thing as jails or political prisoners)
7. Simple hierarchical judicial system, judges chosen as each community sees fit.
To be honest, if people (Christian or not) simply applied the basic morals of not stealing or hurting their fellow man in their daily lives, the state as it exists today would not be possible. No one would be willing to work for the IRS and collect taxes, for instance (unless tax was made voluntary). No one would throw fellow citizens in jail for smoking non-government-approved substances. No one would invade neighbouring countries for profit. And so on.
I should’ve kept up with this thread, now it has gone in another direction. In the event anyone is still reading it…
- To use the fact that Congress authorized paper currency as evidence that the Constitution is dead is really a stretch. Article I gives Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof…” I do not see where this prevents later legislation authorizing paper money. I certainly don’t see an explicit requirement for a bimetallic currency.
- Other “evidence” that the Constitution is dead: “It rejects the idea of a standing Army.” Again, Article I clears this up. The Constitution shows that the Framers had a wariness of a standing Army but the Constitution does not forbid it. It merely prevents “appropriation of money (for the Army) for a longer term than two years.” The next clause even explicitly mentions providing and maintaining a Navy.
If these two items are what’s offered as indications of the death of our Constitution, then I’m even more hopeful than before.
As for Murphy’s Chaos Theory, he may have an academically interesting idea re: provision of national defense via insurance markets. Of course, it would never work. You just can’t solve the freerider problem in this manner. Murphy even acknowledges this but conveniently presses on without suitable resolution.
National defense for a nation of 300 million people is probably the best example of the public goods problem. Provision of non-exclusionary goods is hard enough in much much smaller settings. I still haven’t seen any evidence, Murphy’s included, that demonstrates a workable free-market solution for defense.
In addition to the free-rider problem, I presume a degree of competition among insurance companies. As soon as All-State manages to provide national defense, what’s to stop Farmers from now offering insurance at a much lower price? Now, our market for insurance unravels and no one provides defense. Unless…our anarchists are proposing severe regulation of, and compulsory subscription to, insurance. Hmmm….
Hey, I pay taxes too and would love to see a free-market system of defense with all of it’s associated incentives for efficiency. I think we could probably reduce the defense budget down to around $300 billion!
Paul D.,
While the system you advocate is interesting, and clearly better than the one we have, I think it’s only drawn from the Mosaic law in relatively broad strokes. The problem with the Mosaic law itself is that the ceremonial law is mixed in with the civil law, with little clear distinction between the two (with the exception of laws regarding sacrifices). Of course, I would say that God planned it that way. He wanted the Jewish faith to be an integral part of their lives, not something that could be compartmentalized away from everything else. “I am the LORD your God” appears throughout the Law in its entirety, giving evidence to this fact. (Example of a provision that isn’t clearly one or the other: Lev. 19:19b: “Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.” If this is a civil law, then it appears that the governing authorities are given power to regulate private property on this issue. This violates your first principle. If it is ceremonial, then it’s unclear what precisely the “ceremony” is.)
This problem inherently plagues any attempt to create a libertarian government on Old
Testament/Mosaic grounds. Simply: The Mosaic system wasn’t particularly libertarian.
The New Testament contains problems for a Christian government. To make it very brief, there are two points that, taken in conjunction imply my position.
“He [the authority] is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:4b)
“But I [Christ] tell you, Do not resist an evil person.” (Matthew 5:39)
There is a clear friction then between obeying the command of Christ and acting as a government official. What do I conclude? That government should not be Christian, and that Christians should not be in government. Now, of course, we could take a slightly odd position and say that government can be Christian if it only punishes evil rather than resisting it. This seems a touch problematic at the least, as it seems to imply that after turning the other cheek, a Christian can wallop a mugger upside the head.
If people would stop violating other people’s property and stop harming one another, government (as the coercive institution of legitimized force) would be entirely unnecessary. The real question is, is it necessary anyway?
Any goverment that called itself “Christian” or that followed so-called Christian values would not be any different than other forms of goverment, for such is the nature of bureaucracies that will drive the goverment to the path of the tyrannical supervisor of everything, as explained by Mises. This is why I would not vote for any goverment that called itself anything, even if it advocates “good, traditional values” or even if JC Himself told me to. Just by reading about the way each of you interprets the Bible, the idea of a Christian goverment interpreting the book as it saw fit and applying the text as policy makes my skin crawl.
Enjoyable comment, Francisco. Today on LewRockwell.com there’s a good article that touches on Christianity and government linked: The Reluctant Anarchist. I suggest the last part of it especially.
I got that link wrong. Here is the right one.
Hopefully you’re still checking on this blog, LtCol – or maybe someone else interested in this.
On the subject of private defense; we already have it today, in the way of private mercenaries, commando’s, etc., and we have had private navies and armies in the past.
On the subject of free riders; no, the market might not have the same amount of money with which to supply defense. But it may not need it, as it is more efficient at allocating goods. Murphy talks about this in his book, and his answer to the free rider problem is succint, IMHO.
Lastly, on the question of ‘whats to stop Farmer’s Insurance from providing defense at a much lower price”. Murphy talks about this. The problem with providing defense at a much lower price than your private competitor in defense is that once the competitor goes out business, your claims to insurance can no longer be backed.
Part of the reason why Farmer’s can provide insurance at a much cheaper price than All State is because property and life is being reliably protected from damage by All State(we have to assume this, as if this were not the case, the insurance claim from Farmer’s would have to be higher, so that they would not lose profit in the event of an attack.)
A problem quickly arises; if Farmer’s undercuts the All State insurance too much, All State will no longer be in business, and Farmer’s will have to supply insurance at a higher cost in order to insure property and life, lest they take on losses. For this reason, Farmer’s will be careful to not undercut All State’s insurance quotes by too much, and may even work with them to see that this is the case.
Many more fascinating answers to a lot of market anarchist problems are in Murphy’s book. Perhaps free market anarchism is a lofty ideal and something not feasible, but it seems that it is not as utopian as once thought.
Surely Christopher Westley is not so completely in the dark as to sincerely believe that Marine Corps pride is derived from the SOURCE of Marine’s incomes. Hence the main premise of the article is bunk as is every argument based upon such a false premise.
I am also certain that Mr. Westley has several reasonable and logical points to make, but he really needs to find a better way to make them coherent. I personally would love to hear them too, because I have much difficulty in reconciling my own philosophical ambitions with the reality of the world in which I live.
I am proud of my years in the Marine Corps as well as my current job as a professional firefighter. Yet I do feel conflicted over the issue of “standing armies” as well as the potential situation of invading private property as a firefighter without explicit consent even for the purpose of protecting lives and private property. On the other hand, I really doubt that this country would still have any sovereignty without some continuity in its military forces. And I know that career fire departments are more efficient than volunteer fire departments in protecting lives and private property. Furthermore, I have yet (in 18 years) to have had a complaint about invading anyone’s private property in order to protect it and any lives therein.
Does the answer have to lie in extremes? Is there anything between omnipotent government and no government at all? Do we have to wait until we find out our citizen militias are not strong enough to defend our nation before we support something more? Do we have to wait until cities suffer catastrophic losses before we realize that fulltime fire departments should have been fully staffed and prepared to provide the protection that people overwhelmingly expect?
I am not jumping all the way to the justification of pre-emptive war or to the point of fire inspectors in every private dwelling within a city. But surely the answer does not have to be all or nothing. There must be a reasonable middle ground somewhere between anarchy and omnipotent government.
Comments on this entry are closed.