Doug Casey: Why Do We Need Government?
Submitted by Doug Casey via CaseyResearch.com,
Rousseau was perhaps the first to popularize the fiction now taught in civics classes about how government was created. It holds that men sat down together and rationally thought out the concept of government as a solution to problems that confronted them. The government of the United States was, however, the first to be formed in any way remotely like Rousseau's ideal. Even then, it had far from universal support from the three million colonials whom it claimed to represent. The U.S. government, after all, grew out of an illegal conspiracy to overthrow and replace the existing government.
There's no question that the result was, by an order of magnitude, the best blueprint for a government that had yet been conceived. Most of America's Founding Fathers believed the main purpose of government was to protect its subjects from the initiation of violence from any source; government itself prominently included. That made the U.S. government almost unique in history. And it was that concept – not natural resources, the ethnic composition of American immigrants, or luck – that turned America into the paragon it became.
The origin of government itself, however, was nothing like Rousseau's fable or the origin of the United States Constitution. The most realistic scenario for the origin of government is a roving group of bandits deciding that life would be easier if they settled down in a particular locale, and simply taxing the residents for a fixed percentage (rather like "protection money") instead of periodically sweeping through and carrying off all they could get away with. It's no accident that the ruling classes everywhere have martial backgrounds. Royalty are really nothing more than successful marauders who have buried the origins of their wealth in romance.
Romanticizing government, making it seem like Camelot, populated by brave knights and benevolent kings, painting it as noble and ennobling, helps people to accept its jurisdiction. But, like most things, government is shaped by its origins. Author Rick Maybury may have said it best in Whatever Happened to Justice?,
"A castle was not so much a plush palace as the headquarters for a concentration camp. These camps, called feudal kingdoms, were established by conquering barbarians who'd enslaved the local people. When you see one, ask to see not just the stately halls and bedrooms, but the dungeons and torture chambers.
"A castle was a hangout for silk-clad gangsters who were stealing from helpless workers. The king was the 'lord' who had control of the blackjack; he claimed a special 'divine right' to use force on the innocent.
"Fantasies about handsome princes and beautiful princesses are dangerous; they whitewash the truth. They give children the impression political power is wonderful stuff."
IS THE STATE NECESSARY?
The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That's been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That's because, although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil (the larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing, but this isn’t the forum).
What (arguably) makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.
One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other, and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that's the exact opposite of the truth. There's no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another... unless they're organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world's most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.
Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual's background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.
But politics do not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however "innocently" or "justly" at first) to impose its values and wishes on others with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.
Sometimes that means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes it's mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found throughout Africa in the 1970s or Asians in California in the 1870s. Sometimes it's purely a matter of politics, as Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.
Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefitting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it. That's not to say government hasn't, then and now, performed useful functions. But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.
(16 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We don't need no Tiranny nor Government. Let the people free and ruie with justice.
Put the Mom's in charge.
You wouldn't want mine.
The Founders were a big step in the right direction but were still short of the mark. The way of true Liberty is not only to thrive in Inalienable Rights but to have the RESPONSIBILITY of these Inalienable Rights instead of hiring the responsibility out to a third-party (voting for a psycho). DC is essentially a sample of the population... a smaller country from the banks and corporations to control.
The only way to be truly free is if we were self-governed and actually represented ourselves. Lockheed Martin, JPMorgan, Goldman, Monsanto doesn't directly call your ass up on your cell! It will soon need to because Liberty has always been on the right side of history.
For the same reason we need traffic lights.
The streets would be a clogged, un-functioning bloodbath without them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj6Oc4TlblE
'But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.'
Yeah, until someone comes in and kicks over the tables, then you need an army to sort it out.
And a government to maintain it. What was the point of this article again?
C'mon Doug, you can do better than this...
The problem with this idealistic thinking is very simple. Something like 2-5% of the population are socio/psychopaths. Very simply, they are the reason that, mostly, for most of the inhabitants of earth, life is more like hell than it is happiness.
Maybe it is a fault in our gene pool, maybe it's nurture. Most likely genes, with some nurture.
We are about to find out a lot more about this here in the good ol' USSA.
95-98% of the population are sheeps. Sociopaths wont obey your feel-good rules.
The author's conflation of McCarthy and the Salem witch trials proves the old adage about a blind pig and truffles.
So Doug Casey has never heard of Muslim slavers that led to European castles and the crusades, which definitely pre-date WW1.
Internally the ottoman empire was tolerant.
Psychopaths put themselves in the roles associated with government. They use fear to convince people to bring about tyranny.
The only way to prevent this happening is to limit the destructive power available to the psychopath tyrants & to always ensure that sufficient physical force is available to counter-balance a tyrant's threat. This is why the American founders wanted a small, divided government with checks & balances. It is why there's a 2nd Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson proposed that funds be set aside to teach Americans how to be free citizens in a democratic republic. Unfortunately, his proposal was voted down. This was the greatest mistake made, IMO. Today's Americans have forgotten (that is, never been taught) what Freedom is.
"Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized..."
NO. NOT until IsraHell moved in the neighborhood. Jews and History: Lies Galore >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-3BS
Spain too prior to Ferdinand and Isabella.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs3y-jpY4eI&spfreload=10
Excellent documentary on exactly that point. The Moors 'invaded' because they were invited to replace the current corrupt government and clergy, and then Al Andalus became a very great civilization, combined the best of the two cultures, crops and technology of agriculture and ... from Arabia with Spanish-Visigoth energy and love of learning. They all voluntarily converted to Muslim because it was the better deal, same as gov.
Compare to the Spanish Re-Conquest and Inquisition.
The NSA has removed this comment due to its support of the 4th Amendment.
That comment is bullshit, they have been killing each other since weapons were invented.
Protection is a big thing, anybody who things we can lay down our defenses and be safe, clearly have never left their momma's side...
Sorry, but watching the Demo debate and the candidates buying votes with free shit. All ice cream candidates so in a foul mood as watching our country turn into a shithole like most of Europe.
There were pockets where they did live peacefully together but many other areas where they did not. Your statement is disingenuous.
Good fucking answer. It's the Moms who are responsible for conjuring up a meal 3 times a day for the tribe. She lies awake at night thinking of ways to get food into the stomch of everyone she loves. And when it is deemed impossible, moms go mad. When mom is not happy, no one is.
This might work well in a tribe of 13K years ago, but not a modern tribe of 100M people.
In charge of the kitchen, maybe.
Women are the number ONE source of Collectivism.
-Women, but not necessarily moms, voted obummer in twice.
-Hitler knew that getting the women to go along with the fascist program was the key to him getting enough political strength to take control of Germany.
- Women value 'security' over freedom. Psychopath control freak politicians know that.
- Emotional political appeals are more effective against women than men (in general) so that opens up greater opportunity for manipulation.
https://www.google.com/search?q=obama%27s+base+voters+women+young&tbm=is...
2008
Men 41%
Women 47%
2012
Men 34%
Women 41%
18 - 29 year old
52% 2008
43% 2012
In 2012 - 98% black women under 30 80% young black men
Black America can be held responsible for this fiasco.
Anarchy is not in and of itself BAD...it is simply a system WITHOUT a ruler. A community who decides issues with no one more equal than anyone else is an example. After our current system self-destructs, we'd be lucky to institute Anarchy...however, the evil among us would figure out a way to take power for themselves...again
The evil won't need to work hard to get the job. Most people will be looking for someone, anyone to give power to. People's brainwashing to submit to anything presenting itself as authority is so strong, they will imprint on anything even looking like authority as hatched ducklings imprint on anything looking vaguely like a mother duck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7mO3fknS4
And this guy didn't even claim to be "government." If he had I'll bet he could have gotten them to give up money, their freedoms, etc.
Is anyone on ZH going to watch the Dem debate?
The you can see them fight who is going to raise middle class taxes the most to pay for moar FSA, bigger gubmint and support more of Obama's imported refugees.
It can be fun, verdad?
I quit smoking pot so I don't think I'd last.
All government eventually devolves to tyranny. And a lack of government is merely a vacuum to attract psychopaths.
In a world of infinite resources a man could grab as much as he wanted or could control. But even that would not be enough as it would hardly slack the thirst to control others.
We have probably come as close to a world of infinite resources as we are going to get short of leaving the planet. As such we seem to have become more or less a three class society. There are those who view themselves some sort of ordained gods having ownership, in their minds, over the rest of us. There are those who have descended into debauchery ( and many of the ordained gods fall into this group as well... they just dress better). And there is the group trying to make sense of it all, raise families, and basically make the other two groups possible.
Sadly, I think man left to his own devices this is as good as it gets. I think, if we have the ability to look back some day this will have the appearance of a golden age.
I think what follows will be really grim...
You make a long serious of claims and present conclusions as evidence, near-zero actual evidence or argument, so far as I can see.
A great waste of my time.
If governments are evil and corrupt, it is because humans are evil and corrupt.
Rousseau was a fool; he thought man was perfectable.
Edmund Burke on the other hand understood the human condition. He knew that man, left to his own devices, would devolve to evil and corruption.
Nature abhors a vacuum; human nature, doubly so.
As much as we all love to hate government, it is indeed a necessary evil. Some work better than others.
We indeed willl look back at the American Experiment as a Golden Age of enlightenment.
As corrupt and disfunctional as our current government is; whatever replaces it is likely to be far less respecting of 'human rights' and far more brutal...
I have to disagree. You presume most or all humans are naturally evil, which is the main argument for liberalism. I think most are relatively decent people, there are some heathen idiots, and 4% are psychopaths. It doesn't take many psychopaths in power to screw up the whole ball of wax, plus the deadbeat pencil-pusher gov employees want their cake do-nothing job and nice pension. It makes no sense to call these government whores stealing my money and my rights "necessary."
"You presume most or all humans are naturally evil..."
I presume nothing; I merely observe.
5,000 years of recorded history support my view...
if you're going to observe, do it accurately.
the grand pronouncements of history tend to say little about the peaceful farmer, or cooper, or baker, that was happy to go about his life and not infringe on others.
on the contrary, history speaks loudly of tyrants and despots, who are a tiny portion of humanity.
And, of course, none of those peaceful farmers, coopers or bakers ever took up arms and murdered each other by the millions during the 20th century, did they? Nor did they ever own any slaves, or beat their wives or steal from or cheat their neighbors, did they?
All humans act in accordance with their own selfish interests. If the 'average' farmer or cooper or baker didn't commit the atrocities associated with the arch-tyrants of history, it is merely because he lacked the resources, or feared punishment from the 'government' or a divine authority over him.
Do you really, honestly believe that if all governments were abolished, and each human did whatever was right in his own eyes, without fear of punishment or reprisal from some central or divine authority, that we could achieve utopia?
Just look at our current divorce rate. If those who at one time professed love and devotion to each other can't even get along, what chance do strangers have?
If you care to put your money where your mouth is, here's an experiment you can try:
Park your car with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition.
Too general? Too many evil 'strangers' involved?
Okay, surely you can trust your 'honest' co-workers not to "infringe" your property rights:
Leave your wallet with cash sticking out of it on your desk at your place of employment.
Come back and let me know how that worked out for you, m'kay?
If you believe that mankind could exist peacefully in the absence of any form of government, you are as deluded as Rousseau...
IMO one of the errors made in these discussions is that people don't define their terms. What exactly is meant by 'the government' ?
'It' isn't a Thing. It is a way we think about interacting among ourselves, of carrying out particular roles.
History proves that psychopaths tend to put themselves in the positions, that is - act in the roles, - which allow them to steal the wealth & freedom of the broader population. These psychopaths don't physically carry out these predatory actions on their own, that would be impossible. There are far too few of them acting in 'the government authority' role. They carry out this tyranny by convincing others to commit violence against their own neighbors. They do it through belief in made up word notions including 'the country' and 'the government' without really examining what those words mean. A soldier will go to another place to kill and be killed by people he has never met and knows nothing about. If you ask him, he'll say he's 'defending his country' but he has no understanding of what the words 'his country' mean in regard to the situation in which he's placed himself. All he really has is sentimental images put in his head - visions of the flag, mythological past heroic figures, many accumulated hours subjected to schools & media, etc.
The police 'law enforcer' does the same thing. Ask him and you'll hear him say he goes after 'law breakers'. He'll never question if it might be the 'law' makers which are the real criminals & whether their 'laws' are equally applied to them. (Example - Corzine)
If you defend or condemn 'government', it seems wise to first deeply examine what is the nature of that non-Thing.
I hate to break this to you but evidence is always in the form of conclusions. Sorry to have wasted your time.
Yeah let's get rid of traffic signals and privatize the sewers! Also we should make the armed forces private, you want protection you gotta pay the monthy fee, everyone else is on their own!
Bellum omnium contra omnes FTMFW!!!!
What about the State behind 'The State'? You know, The Corporation.
The difference is only in your perception of what's actually going on.
Such a paradise already exists. It's called Somalia.
Check it out:
- No Taxes
- No Regulations
- No restrictions on gun ownership
- Soverign Citizens OK
Of course it's unreasonable to expect all freedom loving Americans to move there but we could ship over all the Kochtards.
.
we've elected you as our scout, to see how life is over there.
get back to us in a year, let us know how it went.
we're counting on you!
If you convert to Islam, have nothing worth stealing and don't look at anyone the wrong way, there's definitely a chance you'd be OK.
Seriously, the only way an outsider is going to survive in tribal society is to become a tribesman. In Swaziland a white European can become a Swazi citizen, but he must be legally adopted into a clan to do so.
This is one of main subjects we focus on daily here government vs free market. It is a significant subject.
I had always liked to think that government was totally unneccessary. I have also thought for a long time that free markets or capitalist societies are more effective than the communist/socialist model. As well as finding the US Constittion, Declaration of Independence etc more than agreeable. So far so good. O.G Liberterian.
Studying several chapters in post 1600 history also showed me that free markets, or laissez-faire capitalism as some call it, was also inherently fucked up. It led to productivity as a whole, although it was skewed to the benefit of the industrial and capital class and away from the mainstreet man. At that stage there was no middle class. Corruption and abuse of power was still there. In addtion I have worked in an industry that is very lightly regulated, almost unregulated and I see that it can still be corrupt and messy. Although the competition in the market can work to iron out a lot of the bad business up to a point.
The point that I would like to make is that very small government can serve a function. For there to be a rule of law that requires a body to enforce it. If the government is very small and keeps to doing what is created to do it can be a net benefit. It is there to regulate not collude. Capitalism is the best system we have created thus far - blended with a light government is potentially the optimum arrangement. The government would be between 0.001-0.005% of the economy. Ie 1/10 of one percent. It is has grown many many times beyond the initial vision.
Then the underlying problem is that for government to be useful in any way it should not be corrupt but rather impartial and adhere to its own laws. This requires control of greed and the existence of firmly rooted moral. Two commodies that are scarce.
In the postmodernist world, influenced by the likes of Sartre and other such existentialist thinking, each of us sets our own moral compass, rejecting the trascendent moral authority. As Neithche correctly predicted, God is dead. However, that has not worked out so well. This path - each individual setting what is right or wrong for him or her - yields political correctness, moral relativism, and complete and utter chaos. This is the bed we have made, now we have to lie in it! Perhaps its time to give Jesus as second look?
Government serves one purpose - to protect men from each other. Anything else is tyranny.
A man protects himself.
That is to say; a man does not need a government to protect him from other men. A man's interests: his family, community, and culture are what he protects. A man protects himself.
I assume you said "man" to mean "person, human being". People, then, create and remove their government as and when necessary, in the best interest of people.
I don't want my government to protect me. Already they cannot. The police have no legal obligation to protect me as it is. The police protect the state against men. This is about as local as one gets. I protect me. Then I call the police. Got it, MAN?
Can't wait to see you in the Chinese work camps, keep drinking that kool-aid...
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/for-world-peace-arm-your-n...