Sunday, June 13, 2010

'Government force' is redundant

'Government force' is redundant

Many times when you hear a libertarian talking about others sending government into a situation you will hear him use the phrase "government force". The phrase is redundant. Government is nothing but force and coercion (which is often a threat of force). Without force or coercion there is no government.

All government (except self-government, which is not even on most people's conceptual radar) is imposed by force. Even if you agree to some facets of your own governing, there are other people who are having that particular facet imposed on them against their will, while they approve of something else that you are having imposed on you. By force or threat of force.

If you doubt this, just look at the ongoing example of Julian Heicklen. His only "crime" is trying to get government to live within its Constitutional limits. And for this he has been attacked, kidnapped, and held hostage by agents of the government. Government has been applied to his life and liberty. The very act of governing is an act of extreme aggression, even if it is not obvious at first. Yet, the penalty for violating the smallest of the government's silly little rules is always death.

The force is not always initiated force, at least on the face of it. When a cop shoots a mugger in the act of mugging (reaching wildly into the realm of the theoretical here), he does not initiate force in that particular instance, at that specific moment. Yet, where did he get the money for his gun and bullets? Where did he get the money for his fancy uniform and badge? And where does the money come from that finances his career? It comes from theft- just like the mugger he shot. If cops are "necessary", they will be able to be financed without relying on force and coercion. If not... well, they vastly overestimate their importance anyway.

By force you can turn a perfectly good and noble idea into pure evil. Protecting the environment is good. Imposing your idea of "protecting the environment" on someone else is bad. Eating a healthy diet and refraining from abusing substances is good. Forcing everyone to eat the same diet regardless of their tastes and preferences is wrong, and killing people for using (and not even necessarily abusing) certain substances is completely evil. Helping the poor is good. Forcing your neighbors to give up their own property to a government bureaucracy that then claims to "help the poor" is really bad. Exposing dishonest business practices is good. Setting up a government bureaucracy that punishes innovation and puts barriers in the way of new competitors, while "taxing" businesses to death, all in the name of "consumer protection", of course, is bad. Free trade is good. Corporatism, which only exists because of government interference with the market, and which guarantees disasters like the BP "oilcano", is bad.

In each case, the true results of using government is the opposite of the justification used. Government is not the right way to do any of these good things. Government- force- turns a good idea upside down and destroys any good that could have come from it in the process. And statists call libertarians "Utopian".

Goobernut Bill Richardson announced, during a stop in Albuquerque, that he has given away $200,000 of YOUR money to the New Mexico Filmmakers Program. He claims this will guarantee more jobs and business for New Mexico, but what's the point if the new employees will be robbed so more of their money can be given away to other special interests? Someone is "giving us the business" alright.

Is this pay-off just because the entertainment industry is sexy, while more useful, productive industries are not? Probably.

But, that leads to a better idea. If you want to get involved in the movie industry, there is a project in the works you could help voluntarily, that would actually benefit the cause of liberty. Check it out!