The Indefensibility of Political Representation
All government is predicated upon a distinction between rulers and ruled. Who should occupy the position of ruler and who the position of the ruled is a perennial problem. In the contemporary world, representative democracy is the only plausible contender for the role of justified government. However, if a satisfactory account of representation is not forthcoming, the justificatory status of representative democracy becomes problematic. Representation is a fig leaf that is insufficient to cover the naked and brutal fact that even in our sophisticated modern states, however elegant the rhetoric and however persuasive the propaganda, some rule and others are ruled. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (36)
Barry Loberfeld
FROM "Liberalism: History and Future"
What limits the limited welfare state? Even with socialism discredited both theoretically and practically, state control over society grows. Do the apologists for government intervention imagine that we can move isotopically towards the electrified fence of totalitarianism without ever touching it? This political progression has its semantic parallel: As the nation encompasses greater government control, so does the meaning of “liberalism.” When the term (like the country) shifted from laissez faire to interventionism, with the advocates of the former renamed “conservatives,” both the term and the policy continued down that road -- unstoppably: Progressivism, the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society. When some liberals (including a few leftists-turned-liberals) in the 70s opposed any further move beyond the "alphabet soup" (FDR-JFK-LBJ) consensus, they suddenly became "neoconservatives." A person wasn't a neoconservative because he rejected Hubert Humphrey liberalism in favor of a return to Jim Crow, but because he clung to its opposition to quotas and "affirmative action" in the face of the absorption of such programs by the "liberal" juggernaut. And when that juggernaut then absorbed the sunny disposition towards the Soviet Union of George McGovern and his supporters, "neoconservative" pushed out even "Cold War liberal" as a term to denote Henry Jackson and the older (now former) liberals. Any number of persons and publications (e.g., The New Republic) went from "liberal" to "neoconservative" merely by standing still. Despite both hope and hysteria over the possibility of the contrary, "liberal" policies expanded in the Reagan-Bush era, and by the 90s the term itself had hit the fence -- and plowed through. Now no one was too left to be "liberal." Radio personality Rush Limbaugh used it to describe the once "radical" William Kunstler, and literary theorist Stanley Fish, a "politically correct" leftist who nonetheless is himself often labeled a "liberal," tagged civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, once the prototypical liberal, as "right wing" -- for his uncompromising defense of free speech. One wonders drolly if in a few years the only "liberal" left in the Western Hemisphere will be Economic Democrat for Life Fidel Castro.
That last thought returns us to the question: What limits the limited welfare state? Not only has "liberalism" meant ever greater economic controls, but now it means the application of socialist ideology to social issues. This has always been a dubious dichotomy -- Is a book a manufactured product or an expressed idea? -- and one that didn't exist among either the classical liberals or the Marxist regimes. Yet a surging number of voices tell us that "equality" demands, not only a redistribution of wealth, but also the banning of speech -- not only an end to "economic violence," but also the suppression of "verbal violence." How this rhetoric translates into reality can be glimpsed by looking north. The legal perversity that pornography constitutes the criminal "exploitation" and "objectification" of women -- a linguistic legerdemain whereby bourgeois feminists exculpate their own capitalist occupations as the "exploitation" and "objectification" of the proletariat, thus metamorphosing themselves from class oppressors into gender victims -- was affirmed by the Canadian Supreme Court. This idea, in turn, evolved into that of "hate speech," which was extended to "protect" other groups, such as homosexuals. So now when the Rev. Jerry Falwell airs his show in Canada, he must edit his preachings on homosexuality, which are not protected by freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Here is a "welfare state" that has gone well beyond taxing millionaires to house orphans.
It's all really very easy to understand as the philosophic analogue to Mises' economic analysis. The initial introduction of a socialist law into a liberal society forces the question: Do we accept or reject this violation of the liberal ethic? If we accept it, we set a precedent for the next proposed socialist law. We have made a very clear moral decision -- collectivism trumps individualism. In contrast to the cynicism that leads to a deluge of special interest groups, this trend involves taking ideas seriously -- i.e., recognizing the mutual exclusiveness of the capitalist and socialist paradigms, and thus the imperative to choose one. It acknowledges the hypocrisy -- the incoherence -- of bringing the socialist outlook to issue A but not issue B, to the "economic" issue but not the "social" issue.
A commitment to greater statism begets more such commitments, and if what we may call the Ronald Dworkin generation pooh-poohed the "silly proposition that true liberals must respect economic as well as intellectual liberty," the Cass Sunstein generation repudiates as even sillier the proposition that liberals cannot impose on the free market of ideas the same doctrines and controls they impose on the free market in widgets. (The esteemed professor has insisted that speech, like commerce, must have its own "New Deal." With Sunstein as thought control's FDR, who will be its LBJ?)
As the no-end-in-sight march of greater government demonstrates, there is no reason to think that democracy is a check on despotism. An electoral majority can indeed embrace the concept and agenda of unlimited statism. "Totalitarian democracy" exists, not merely as a troubling conjecture, but as a threatening possibility.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE
Published: March 27, 2009 7:29 AM
Will
Hey, not about this essay (which I'm looking forward to reading), but a blog entry on this WSJ Symposium regarding the Fed might be good:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811225716453243.html#printMode
Published: March 27, 2009 8:11 AM
Skye Stewart
This was one of my favorite lectures given at the ASC. Well argued, suavely delivered, and more than plausible for any layman.
I was reminded of Leopold Kohr, and his book, The Breakdown of Nations, while listening to this lecture. Anyone who enjoyed the talk, would no doubt be interested in Kohr's book,
http://www.amazon.com/Breakdown-Nations-Leopold-Kohr/dp/1870098986/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238162479&sr=8-3
Published: March 27, 2009 9:04 AM
Christensen
I am sorry, but this article once again starts from the assumption, that the reasoned position is the one everybody will accept. But look around: In the political sphere we seldom find appeals or arguments, that would appeal to a deliberate, grown up and long time oriented person's perspective. This sad aspect of politics is NOT being automatically diminished by the democratic regime. On the contrary it is a modern belief from around WW2, that people should be engaged and participating in details, and frequently, whereas any half-wit can see, that you get the best cultural growth, when you are addressing other persons on their finest intellectual and humanly developed level. Which is at peace, in balance and deliberate, not agitated, and thus more instinct-driven, emotional, blind, and tending to be more aggressive and intolerant and impatient as a side effect. Present-day economic crisis is thus not envisaged, acted against, or even possible to be defined clearly to the population. Not even their representatives, which are made completely irrelevant faced with enormous and wide-ranging 1-10 k page long packages of "acts" to be voted on immediately.
Thus, however fine the arguments in the article is, they are as relevant as explanations on Sudoku techniques to social issues.
Published: March 27, 2009 10:38 AM
Samuel
This article reminds my of Mises' argument against misapplied statistics. Sometimes treating something merely as an element in a group is not very helpful.
In this case it is treating one woman as a representative of all women. In human action it was the folly of trying to calculate the "odds" of a single occurrence, such as a person being elected president merely based on the class of events it belonged to.
Both cases involve humans, who change, and are very unique. Thus one woman is not representative of all women, and the number of votes for a given person are determined by massively complex circumstances that will never be replicated.
Published: March 27, 2009 10:52 AM
Rick Kushner
I am provoked to let go of the pretense of representational democracy and, at the very least, let it slip into a secondary position if, indeed, it does in some way describe our political system. Let's concede that our elected "representatives" do their best to implement the will of most of their constituency most of the time.
If we can further agree that we do need government, then perhaps the most important questions regard the selection of leaders and limitations (guidelines and principles) for their exercise.
Can we call our system delegational democracy, since, with out vote and (somewhat) free speech, we do have some participation in the selection of our leaders. And then add that it is, to some degree a constitutional system of limited powers and checks and balances.
Perhaps the best investment of our energy might be in favor of more substantial respect for our Constitution. I would then take the audacious position to add also the Declaration of Independence!
Published: March 27, 2009 12:08 PM
Russ
Not true. If by some miracle all people everywhere were convinced that Mr. Casey's arguments were completely convincing and compelling, all it would do would be to further pure democracy (perhaps via the Internet), as opposed to representative democracy. And that would result in frightened, envious, economically and historically uneducated boobs (i.e. the majority of the population) having an even more negative impact on our economy and foreign policy than they already do.
Published: March 27, 2009 12:19 PM
David Spellman
Why is there no libertarian utopia anywhere in the world? Ah, that is a good question. Perhaps because the desire to control other people's behavior is so pervasive that we cannot collect a large enough cadre to form Shangri La.
I am certain that you have bounced a few libertarian ideas off your family, friends, and neighbors. Probably you have gotten response similar to what I have. Basically, everyone likes the idea of being free to do as they please. But when it comes to letting other people have the same freedom, the ire rises.
The epitome of this mentality is the oft heard cry "There ought to be a law against that!" Most people gladly give up their freedom if it will stop their neighbors from doing something they detest. It is truly stupefying how much oppression people will shoulder in exchange for the ability to oppress their neighbors.
Call me a cynic, but we have all heard the water cooler discussions about how athletes, movie stars, and stock brokers do not deserve the obscene amounts of money they earn. Our prisons are overflowing with inmates who are guilty of violating the public conscience. There is widespread belief that everyone is entitled to everything that anyone else has.
We have a kleptocracy because our civilization has become filled with kleptomaniacs. It doesn't matter what form of governance we pretend to have, you can't trust liars and you can't turn your back on thieves. It is certainly worthwhile to study what a virtuous and just society would look like, but until we find a good and just population to socialize with, it will be a frustrating voyage.
Published: March 27, 2009 12:47 PM
Nick E
@Russ: By your use of the future tense, I take it you've never lived in California. After observing the ballot initiative process there, I can assure you that "pure" democracy is a thing of the present. And it works about as well as you'd expect.
Published: March 27, 2009 1:43 PM
Inquisitor
Possibly. When people ask me if I'm in favour of "democracy" I say no, I am in favour of autarchy. Why should democracy have any appeal to me? Today it's trumpeted as some unquestionable ideal, that is synonymous with liberty (an actual ideal.)
Published: March 27, 2009 1:48 PM
Kelly
Had the Federal Government be contained within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution, these issues would be more managable. As of now, it's run amuck and out of our control, save another revolution.
Published: March 27, 2009 1:58 PM
Michael A. Clem
I am reminded once again of Robert Paul Wolff's book, In Defense of Anarchism, (http://www.ditext.com/wolff/anarchy.html). While it is not really that good of a defense of anarchism, it provides a strong critique of democracy in its various forms.
Published: March 27, 2009 2:00 PM
Russ
@Nick E: No, I have never lived in California. The ballot initiative process doesn't work much better here in Michigan, although the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative wasn't all bad.
At any rate, I was referring to a pure democracy on the federal level. That would be a nightmare. To paraphrase Mel Gibson in "The Patriot", it would be like having 300,000,000 tyrants.
Published: March 27, 2009 2:59 PM
Russ
After perusing mises.org's Leonard E. Read collection, I prefer the term "kakistocracy". It is derived from the Greek word "kakistos" or "worst", which is the superlative of "kakos" or "bad", which is possibly derived from the Indo-European root for... umm, excrement. "Kakistocracy" literally is "rule by the worst", the literal opposite of "aristocracy", "rule by the best". Or in the words of Leonard E. Read, it is "A government for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools".
And the fools who vote for the knaves are every bit as much a problem as the knaves, if not more so. Helmut Schoeck was right; the biggest problem we face is envy. Obama and Co. are playing that envy like a harp.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:11 PM
Dick Fox
Sorry, but I thought the discussion was incomplete. There are not only two alternatives when discussing what Casey calls "the legitimacy of command."
Consider that Tom Hanks has controlled the only spring on the island. He has worked hard for 5 years to direct it to a pool that he has stocked with fish. He has both water and food easily within reach.
Suddenly Passepartout appears on the island how ever, but he cannot leave and the island will not support his life unless Tom Hanks shares his spring which he will not do.
In this case is aggression by Passepartout justified to save his life?
What if it is a case where Passepartout can live without the spring but only at a subsistance level?
What about where Passepartout lives but just not as well as Tom?
Casey's whole premise is weak because he does not explore all alternatives.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:23 PM
Dick Fox
Now to the main substance of a representative democracy.
Again the analysis is superficial. The discussion is only taken from the position representation as an expression of the wishes of the one represented but ignores the representative.
In a representative democracy the representative must actually discern the wishes of the electorate because if that is not done he will not be elected. Even when the representative begins to govern he must discern the wishes of the electorate if he desires to get reelected. Note that the representative may not even believe the same as the electorate but to maintain his office he must come as close to their wishes or he will be out of a job.
Consider that Tom Daschle's defeat. Consider the Republican sweep in 1994.
It is not so cut and dried as Casey would have us believe.
As our Founding Fathers well understood, our form of government could not stand unless we had a moral and engaged electorate.
Finally, I submit that Casey offers no alternative. What is the alternative to a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic? I venture to say there is no system better.
Published: March 27, 2009 3:35 PM
Russ
Since when do we have a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic?
Published: March 27, 2009 3:47 PM
ehmoran
Read and weep, U.N. to control World Economies:
"U.N. 'Climate Change' Plan Would Likely Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510937,00.html
"UN panel touts new global currency reserve system"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.18e9e5692442aa61d7510553b5ffc14e.8b1&show_article=1
Published: March 27, 2009 4:19 PM
Critical Observer
"In the end, representation is a fig leaf that is insufficient to cover the naked and brutal fact that even in our sophisticated modern states, however elegant the rhetoric and however persuasive the propaganda, some rule and others are ruled. The only question is, as Humpty-Dumpty noted in Through the Looking-Glass, "which is to be master — that's all.""
***Golf-clap***
I applaud you sir for your high-minded derision to our current system where there there is a distinction between those who rule and those who are ruled. Won't it be a wonderful day when your as-yet-unnamed system exists where this is not the case.
Published: March 27, 2009 8:02 PM
Gene L.
Recently, three young men abandoned a damaged boat. They spent some time in the water. Two of these men decided that "something should be done". Ignoring their friend's objections, they undid their life vests and swam away. Several hours later, the man who stayed was rescued. His proactive friends were lost at sea.
There are hundreds of versions of this story. All of them characterize the human impulse towards proactivity. There is a popular falsity that "it is always better to do something than nothing." This impulse - this popular error - that drives government action and the single reason why Libertarianism is unrealizable. We do not tolerate imperfection. Any market failure calls for proactive intervention.
Published: March 27, 2009 8:25 PM
Gil
Inevitably, the notion of 'democracy' and 'representative government' derives from the false notion that the landless could force landowners to heed their views. If Tom and Pass both owned each side of the island (through homesteading as it is a small island) and shipwrecked survivors started appearing then the newbies have no choice other than to choose between Tom's side or Pass' side or 'leave' (AKA drown). Suppose, even though both Tom and Passe are both 'strict but fair', enough landtenants exist on Tom's side to entertain notions that "it's unfair that Tom has what he has, when we arrived he was barely self-supporting but now he lives like a king because we helped build his side of the island to what it now is" and then comes the solution: "since we built this side of the island to what is we deserve part ownership, we should overthrow Tom, set a Representative Democratic system with a Constitution and pay for it with our taxes and then we altogether rule the new republic!" Suppose it appears to work that people on Pass' side talk of doing the same.
The obvious flaw is that the land belonged to Tom and Pass in private ownership and the other islanders had to no right to steal what wasn't theirs.
Published: March 28, 2009 12:19 AM
Gene L.
Rgihts-based arguments are questionable and definitely unconvincing. One man's right is another man's rights-violation.
Published: March 28, 2009 10:00 AM
Dick Fox
I have seen more criticism but I have not seen any alternative. The US may not be a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic but does that make this form of government any less good. It this form of government perfect, no. Is it better than any alternative? Apparently because there has not been a suggestion of a better system.
That being the case if the US is not a liberal, constitutional, democratic republic then we should be doing everything we can to turn it into such. Criticism without solutions is simply nihilism.
Published: March 28, 2009 4:50 PM
John
It seemed to me that Mr Casey was intending to show that the present system of selecting rulers was not, despite the general idealistic belief within the community, different in fact to previous versions, such as the divine right of kings. He did not assert that there was an alternative that would be acceptable to a population, which is why he concludes as he does with Humpty Dumpty.
Importantly though, if enough of 'us' (the ruled) recognised that we were being ruled by modern day kings and not representatives then we would be less inclined to cooperate with things we find distateful and we would not be able to hide behind the moralising effect of 'it was democratically decided'. E.g. "We decided, legitimately in a democratic system, to go to war and so we are all now obliged to support the effort, regardless of what we think of the decision, because this is our democratic duty." If we could see through the smoke and mirrors we could be more objectively critical of particular govt decisions without feeling as though we were undermining the whole system.
The ancient Hebrews had a libertarian system and they hated it. Give us a King they cried. And they were warned that a king would tax, take their young men and women, and they said - we don't care, we want a king like all our neighbours have. The responsibility and rights of freedom were too much for them, and so they got a king over them. The tendency continues.
Published: March 28, 2009 6:10 PM
hl
Wonderful comments thread following a wonderful article. How does a man sitting in a board meeting "represent" the shareholders? How does a man with the title CEO "represent" the corporation? How does a man sitting on the bench in a court of law rule on a dispute between two men who each claim the "represent" the true interest of the corporation? Oh, and when the interests of the corporation, as dutifully reported by its "representative" is at odds with the stated interests of a shareholder/bondholder/executive/board member, how does the "representative" at law make that decision?
Good ol' common law partnership rules were so neat. Disagreement = dissolution. Isn't that something General Lee would have agreed with?
Published: March 29, 2009 1:20 AM
Brian Fitzgerald
People from Ireland, like myself, will be aware that Gerard Casey is not a libertarian, but is a christian conservative, in favour of superstition, irrationality and theocracy.
Why is the Mises Institue giving him a platform?
Published: March 29, 2009 6:41 AM
hl
I think LvMI is giving him a platform because his message makes sense. That he believes (holy moly!) in a Christian God only makes him more respectable, not less. If he was some modern day materialist atheist libertine lover of degeneracy, and had written the same piece, he'd still have the "platform," me thinks.
Published: March 29, 2009 3:36 PM
C. Evans
To Dick Fox,
You have a reverence for the Founders, but it's clear that their experiment with limited government failed and there were people who wrote at the time that it would fail and explained why it would fail. You argue that we need a moral and engaged electorate, but how is that to last when only immoral people can rise to the top of government power? On the other hand, if the majority is already moral, why do we need a State? What do you believe the purpose of government is?
Published: March 29, 2009 5:33 PM
ehmoran
The Purpose of the U.S. Govt is exactly stated in the Constitution.
Below is how we get honest individuals into Govt, but, in the mean time, we keep voting in the same people we detest because we believe the propaganda that only two parties should control Govt, when, in fact, its really only one party.
"Every Politician Running on a platform signs a Contract with the American Voters stating Exactly what he/she will do when in office. If the Politician's Activities deviate from that Sworn Contract, then he/she is REMOVED from office".
If there's still time, we can regain control of our Govt. We have until 2010 to figure HOW.....
And each and every one of us,
Published: March 29, 2009 5:47 PM
ehmoran
And what about following the discourse below (I bet no one knows who said this or when and pertaining to what events):
"Let us all learn to be free, and to be loyal. Let us not profess ourselves vassals to the lawless pleasure of any man on earth. But let us remember, at the same time, government is sacred, and not to be trifled with. It is our happiness to live under the government of a PRINCE who is satisfied with ruling according to law; as every other good prince will--We enjoy under his administration all the liberty that is proper and expedient for us. It becomes us, therefore, to be contented, and dutiful subjects. Let us prize our freedom; but not use our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. There are men who strike at liberty under the term licentiousness. There are others who aim at popularity under the disguise of patriotism. Be aware of both. Extremes are dangerous. There is at present amongst us, perhaps, more danger of the latter, than of the former. For which reason I would exhort you to pay all due Regard to the government over us; to the KING and all in authority; and to lead a quiet and peaceable life.--And while I am speaking of loyalty to our earthly Prince, suffer me just to put you in mind to be loyal also to the supreme RULER of the universe, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice. To which king eternal immortal, invisible, even to the ONLY WISE GOD, be all honor and praise, DOMINION and thanksgiving, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. AMEN".
Published: March 29, 2009 5:50 PM
hl
ehmoran
I am waiting to exhale...do tell who said and to what events it pertains.
Thanks.
Published: March 29, 2009 6:25 PM
Leonardarian
I can offer an alternative to representative democracy, something I call Time-share government.
Firstly, I am a minarchist, and I believe that local governments should be more powerful than other tiers of government.
Secondly, citizenship should be voluntary. You should have to opt in to be a citizen.
So my answer is- have it that people who want to be citizens pay a price by serving in some community service, such as the local fire brigade or the local militia or the local street patrol, for a few weeks, and then those citizens get the next few weeks as the government. First the pain, then the gain. Volunteers who do really well might be offered permanent leadership of their team as a deputy sheriff, and these could be the ones who react in emergencies.
Have no permanent bureaucracy, but have everyone who wants to, be a citizen and regularly be part of the government- as well as have a share in what we expect governments to do.
As for why there are no libertarian paradises, first, decide what you mean by libertarian, then look around. Switzerland, with its' strong canton system, meets one of my ideals, for instance.
Published: March 29, 2009 7:06 PM
ehmoran
hl,
You didn't recognize excerpts of this discourse in the Federalists and Anti-Federalists Papers?
Published: March 29, 2009 7:25 PM
Critical Observer
John said:
"It seemed to me that Mr Casey was intending to show that the present system of selecting rulers was not, despite the general idealistic belief within the community, different in fact to previous versions, such as the divine right of kings. He did not assert that there was an alternative that would be acceptable to a population, which is why he concludes as he does with Humpty Dumpty."
Then why is the article titled "The Indefensibility of Political Representaion"?
What is so indefensible about political representation? Is there another system that is defensible? Or is this article just (a) pointless or (b) misleading?
Published: March 30, 2009 4:04 AM
Christensen
"What is so indefensible about political representation? Is there another system that is defensible? "
There are certainly some systems, that are worse than others. With no final solution available - always some conditions and dependencies to consider - it should be a MAIN concern for any regime to be critical of itself, and minimal rather than all intruding, because it's raison d'etre then is less demanding on conditions for being upheld. The more hypotheses and postulates to support it, the less legitimacy and the less the chances of a peaceful society.
Already Aristotle examined over 100 constitutions, was disappointed with every one of them, and thus finally chose a minimal evil one in the form of a city state. There exist no social science or philosophy that PROVES itself to be all-encompassing. This is a simple fact or nuisance - like the one that everybody needs oxygen to breathe and live - but somehow most people seems to get around such a "problem" of breathing, whereas society is envisaged as having to appear perfect and optimal.
I find it a major problem, and self-worsening, that people nowadays not only ACCEPTS "signals" as valid social communications, even to the point of scolding on someone sending "wrong signals" and hailing broad policies for their "right signals". We are intellectually back to the level of fascist "ideology", though thosee ideas are anything but intellecutally acceptable as arguments of the standard that Greece reached over 2000 years ago. They are in the end only arguments of being right from the raw power behind them, as eminently made clear by the Bush "doctrines" of torture, attacks on countries without threats, killing of innocent civilians for the crime of "maybe" harbouring, or thinking so, of terrorists or supporters (this latter mode of action resembles the nazis actions in occupied counties, that made such a moral uproar at the time: they did it more visibly by taking hostages to be killed if not sabotage or terrorism against them stopped, here they are just killing anybody whenever it is more economically advantageous, or simply easier with the military possibilities there and then)
Since it does not take more than honesty to see through such policies as bringing on future disasters, it must be precisely that lower level of "signals" instead of arguments, that transforms human beings into lower creatures.
That being sad, the Austrian school does NOT make sweeping generalizations generally, and would therefore be much better to observe the economy, than the more minimalist and refined statistics used without any real scientific basis by contemporary economists. Little state, deliberate policies, and ensuing much higher level of debate on public issues. Perhaps it requires more of the persons, but History does NOT show, that people are happier when lesser - analphabets, drunkards, crooks, vagabonds. In general NOT, at least.
Published: March 30, 2009 9:15 AM
Michael A. Clem
A major point made, I think, is that democracy (in any form), still allows some people to "rule over" others, i.e. institute legitimately-recognized coercion over other people. The only real alternative is to recognize that this coercion is still a crime, and that it is never morally just to initiate this coercion against people. In short, the only real alternative is anarchism. No, I'm not going to convince anyone of that with this short blog comment, but, as Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, "After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth." I maintain that a just government is impossible.
Published: March 30, 2009 3:02 PM