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.
(31 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Doesn't matter what your called,,, citizen, subject, servants, the terms reflects government (or some entity) ownership of you.
The Neo-Liberal ideal is unregulated, trickledown Capitalism.
We had unregulated, trickledown Capitalism in the UK in the 19th Century.
We know what it looks like.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximised for profit looks like.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
Thinking the wealthy will act as generous benefactors is a huge mistake and ignores the lessons of history.
It was organised Labour movements that got the majority a larger slice of the pie.
Where regulation is lax today?
Apple factories with suicide nets in China.
A leopard never changes its spots.
In the US the middle class is being wiped out as Capitalism returns to its natural state.
Is Government itself bad or is it when it becomes corrupted?
The alternative doesn’t look too clever, exploitation of the masses by the wealthy.
The choice is clear, being run by a Government you can elect or exploitation by the unelected Wall Street mafia.
"Is Government itself bad or is it when it becomes corrupted?"
There is a theoretical case to be made for some form of limited government because there are things that need to be done which can only be done or best done by such an entity.
The questions become "how big should .gov be", "how far into our lives should it intrude" and "how much power/authority should it have".
We have seen over numerous generations ever more corrupt people going into .gov to pursue personal agendas coupled to a relentless growth in the size, scope and power of .gov to the point that it's becoming increasingly totalitarian. And to make sure we don't step out of line, they carry out mass intrusive surveillance on us.
The idealistic model of .gov has gone totally out of control and needs a giant Reset. Every part of .gov needs to be reined back, powers need to be slashed and it needs kicking out of whole areas of society that it currently meddles in.
My own estimate is that we need about one quarter of the government that we have at the moment and this needs to operate under the authority of a proper Constitution. The message to .gov would then be "if it ain't on the list, it's none of your business"
The Neo-Liberal ideal is unregulated, trickledown Capitalism.
And the statist ideal is unregulated, trickdown aggression.
You seem not to know the consequential and moral differences between aggressive behavior and non-aggressive behavior.
When two or more people gather, you automatically get "a form or government".
The problem with most governments, is not in their ideals, but for the inherent flaws in their design, which do not and cannot adequately protect itself from its corrupt, cowardly, greedy and stupid politicians, who, in turn ensure that governance expires at the end of its life cycle.
Ultimately, the flaw is in people themselves, who are just clever apes. It is not until man outgrows the instincts and 'bad code' from its ape ancestry, that man will evolve. Some people are doing a good job at evolving and at helping others to do so also, but there are too many apes who will not evolve and ruin most things.
With 7.4 Billion Human Apes running around, there is plenty of culling to be done, to get a residual population that has a much better chance at evolution, than is presently the case.
What you call 'TPTB' are trying to do just that: Trying to figure out and implement a robust way to cull the apes out of the gene pool, without destroying the planet. This is where technology and AI come into play.
In any event and in the long run, Nature will ensure that only the truly worthy, the Good Code, will endure.
You started off so well then.......
in absence of government the criminals will come to rule us ( good example is how ISIS came to extort people's wealth in Syria, Iraq etc )
government is nothing more but a civilized way of extortion (where criminals at the top pretend to represent us because we have a chance to elect them)
What is 'government'? What is 'violence'? What are 'markets'? Reading the comments here, I can see why there are so many different opinions. No one seems to have a commen definition of just what it is they are discussing - you use the same words, but you each have a different understanding of just what those words mean.
Government is management (of the infrastructure). Violence is a disagreement. Markets are rigged, have been rigged and will always be rigged.
Pastor Manning says Donald Trump is the man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwF7D6MT_0
Not governments, the money rules is shaping our time.
The ruling is based on enforced participation with the kill option in case of non-compliance.
Governments have become an asset in this game.
The alpha aspect turns in. Per origin thought to protect the herd.
The competition, started with wars and about that has changed that very useful aspect of to be a male in the alpha position, tending to be the first and most fearless to get engaged in that job.
Ever larger rank-orders have been created by the war competition that are driven to the meanwhile well known perspective in our days.
One alpha for the whole world, who, in order to challenge this place, is determined to kill nearly all of the herd.
...
The dream to be the alpha in order to protect the herd will never change because this looks like genetically caused and can be considered as a useful and godlike feature.
The problem are much to large rank orders where the life worth aspect of this resolving behavior went lost.
Making possible that alphas get dangerously out of the control of the herd they had to protect.
If not governments, but the money rules, the case turns even worse.
The private idiots never will find a rank on the niveau of peace. It's fully a coercive concept with no mercy in store in which those, having no money, then lacks the check-and-balancing saying too.
It comes, that governments had here the most useful aspects to display by hinder the worst abuse of such a system of gone sour brotherly love.
Had - gladly to be reminiscent.
Today we have "the most organized criminal gang, backed by murder" in the pot.
Featured by the competition about that very resolving joke, do what I've told you otherwise - you know.
It sums up to a pleading for much, much smaller governments, with fair strong alphas those existence is never to avoid.
How to rob a peasant.
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/155.jpg
Included in a fighting manual somewhere round the 15th century.
The best way to hoard power is to make complex laws about everything and then selectively enforce those laws against those who are not your supporters.
How touchingly (not to mention dangerously) naive...
"There's no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another... unless they're organized into political groups."
Oh yes there is.
The "cosmic imperative" is scarcity. Since Eden was abolished on this rock, resources compared to human needs/wants are scarce. And scarcity, in turn, produces two reactions in human beings:
1. Greed.
2. Fear.
The shortest distance between two points being a straight line, the easiest way to satiate the greed for what one needs/wants, absent any countervailing force, is to take it from someone who has produced it. Conversely, the only way to retain what one needs/wants against the fear that the greedy will take it is to use countervailing force against them.
The above is exactly why, as deeply as one cares to dig, the defining characteristic of homo sapien sapiens has always been war. Don't believe me? Just ask an anthropologist.
To understand the role that politics plays, one must understand that Claustwitz got it exactly backwards when he said, "War is politics by other means." No. Just the opposite. Politics is war by other means. Politics is what human beings engage in to intermediate their fears and greediness among themselves short of clubbing each other over the head.
The archtypical illustration of the genesis of politics, and the force equation involved therein, is in the Bible: "Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace." (Luke 14:31-32 KJV)
After which they become allies, and then their peoples start intermarrying, and before you know it you've got a new "political group"... France...
The notion that politics is somehow artificial and can that it can be done away with is a prescription for nothing but a return to the law of the jungle. Because of scarcity, Galt's Gulch will turn into Lord of the Flies every time, guaranteed.
+10. An excellent analysis. Much appreciated.
Thanks man.
Great write-up, BUT... And you note it as key: "resource scarcity." Governments cannot create, so resources are either obtainable or they are not; and when not then the people shall clamor for war (generally needing to be couched in some other reason such as race or religion).
You are stating that governments are not premised on violence, if I'm reading it correctly. Anyway, I suppose that point doesn't matter. I wish to note that our review of things tends to encompass a point in which the book has yet to be completed. We don't know how our modern-era governmental structures will fare when compared to all previous human history. It may, as I argue, be that modern governments are, as you say, good at oppressing the "law of the jungle," BUT... the jungle is THERE, and we are no more than experiencing "forced" peace i(in the midst of the jungle) n trade for episodes of future large-scale wars- the sum of the violence, that of "law of jungle" on a daily basis vs government suppression, may, in the end, just be the same amount. HOWEVER, when one considers that modern governments have nukes and that it is within reasonable logic to conclude that such nukes could pretty much wipe out all of humanity then, well, THAT is something that any number of tribes and years could likely never achieve. So, if it's about the preservations of our species then I really have to question the logic that governments are in fact best.
OMG! Someone with a brain!! And both the ability and the willingness to use it!!! I thought I'd never live to see that here...
The last thing I need is a government telling me how to think, what I should be doing, how I should be doing it, what is acceptable and what is not? I dont need no stinking government!
Federalist 45
THe powers of the federal government are few and defined.
The SCOTUS has ruined that notion...and curiously, they are part of the federal govt.
Get back to basics....few and defined
Government is bad enough.
It's even worse when you throw women into the mix.
I don't get this. Sounds like you have issues.
It's a mommy/authority issue.
It's a sister-mommy authority issue.
OMG!
"Have you ever seen a town without a Sheriff?
Well, I have and I can tell you it ain't pretty."
It's how people self organize. Sometimes they get it right.
Sometimes they don't.
Sometimes they have strong character and institutions along with a sense of right and wrong. In these places, good leadership and self-organization could lead to effective government. This is not the norm.
I don't think so.
For every Tombstone or Deadwood, you had hundreds of territorial townships that sprung up and self organized with minimal interference or leadership from any centralized Govt. agency that were successful and reasonably prosperous.
Mining towns were notorious for attracting a criminal element because that's where the easy money was. Nobody would much care about a bunch of broke sod busters, tradesmen and shopkeepers trying to build a life for themselves in a new land and that's what the large majority of settlers were.
They built a jailhouse, elected or hired a sheriff to arrest and hold miscreants until a territorial Judge came thru to try the accused. They organized their water supply and trash removal to insure healthy conditions without guidance from any central authority and used local ordinances to keep the peace.
Thousands of small towns that worked fine, for the most part, that never had a dime novel written about them with lurid tales of gunfights in the streets.
Thanks for providing a great [real] reference!
Folks need to realize that a lot of "defense" was done by women. Men would go off hunting and such, while women would stay and defend the homestead.
http://www.truewestmagazine.com/the-arms-of-a-woman/
Give it a few months you may change your mind. Is it better to have no government or have a government that becomes deceitful? Government gives bad people more power than they should have. Ive been arguing we need "some" government, but I have come to the conclusion we dont need anywhere near what we have. Look at where its brought us? How come politicians are never mature enough to tell the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH so HELP THEM GOD? Government is more about integrity. The people need to ensure there is integrity in the system. They are supposed to be public servants? Not Gods or Emperors?
The people have lost control of their government and there is nothing more dangerous than that. Who do you run to to protect you from them?
kinda like gov, except thousands die for the mistake (or corruption) of one...in favor of the peoples case a few may get hung wrongly...till they get it right.
https://www.garyjohnson2016.com/
You do need some form of government, if for no other purpose than national defense. But not for going out and looking to wage war which is what we have now. Uniform laws also make sense. What we have now is government for the one percent. Everyone else gets screwed. That's because the Zionazis have taken over and are treating us the same way they treat the Palestinians.
A "nation" is a fiction. Thus there is nothing real or physical to defend. Therefore there is no need for yet another fiction called "government" to defend it.
Humans are a failed species, primarily because most of them have utterly, totally, completely lost the ability to distinguish real from fiction.
Humans will make themselves extinct, because they are insane.
Just a matter of time (maybe a year, maybe a century).
Whenever two people live in close proximity you will end up with a form of government.
Ideally, codifying things based on natural law and moral principles via a democratic process would be all that's needed. Unfortunately it never works. Utopia doesn't exist. Neighbors always transgress boundaries at some point.
Government is formed because someone (or a group of someones) wants things a certain way. Laws are passed to legitimize enforcing behavior.
It's unavoidable.
Absolute, complete, total, utter nonsense.
-----
Just because two people live on a planet, "government" must exist? One has to be completely insane, even psychotic to seriously hold such an idea in their head.
Of course, humans can twist their brains into all sorts of pretzel shapes that have nothing whatsoever to do with reality... and that has become the normal state of most human brains due to abject rampant stupidity.
And so, now we have humans who claim "two humans who disagree on one thing equals government".
-----
The fact is, "government" is inherently a fiction. Which means, "government" has never existed, "government" does not exist, "government" will never exist, and "government" cannot exist. So much for that.
Humans can believe in a fiction like SantaClaus, and then take actions based on the belief that entity exists. And billions of humans have for some portion of their life. But this does not make SantaClaus exist, and never will.
The only question is... how many humans believe SantaClaus exists, and what physical actions do they take based upon that assumption.
The only question is... how many humans believe "government" exists, and what physical actions do they take based upon that assumption.
The real question, for any sane human, is how to deal with predators, including human predators-DBA-government. All that exists is those human predators. That some of them call themselves by names like "mafia" or "government" has no significance whatsoever. What they are is human predators. PERIOD.
Humans are insane.
Sadly, at this point in history, that is what is unavoidable.
Simple question: do you believe in ethics?
This article's position is to me both sophmoric and naive as is 'big' government versus 'little' goverment.
What the goal really is...'effective' government. And while it will never be as effective and fast to be able to please everybody, it is an acheiveable goal.
What the goal really is...'effective' government. And while it will never be as effective and fast to be able to please everybody, it is an acheiveable goal.
Sorry kiddo. Every conceivable form has been tried and failed for the same reasons. Once you entitle one group the power to force others to act against their will, the temptation for abuse is too great to resist.
I define 'effective' in terms of a cost function that includes, get this, THE COST.
The real short-fall in efficacy in government stems from the propensity for vested interests to attempt to apply government "solutions" where they simply cannot work (any more than a hammer can be used to drive screws). If government were applied to those situations where it is actually a useful tool, we would all be better off by far.
Discussions over whether governments ought to exist or if people can get along fine without any, or over whether government is inherently good or evil, are a canard in my book. Somebody has to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
In America, as long as the God-given right that the 2nd Amendment recognizes remains unviolated, that somebody is the individual. The individual who then exercises his sovereignty through constitutionally-prescribed representative governments while keeping his powder dry in case they get out of line.
The discussion that needs to take place is what the functions of representational government ought to be in light of individual sovereignty. In other words, what are the legitimate uses of force by a representative government, and what are the illegitimate uses of force by a representative government?
Government entities are best described by the Greek word from which the English word "politics" comes. It is the word polis, which means "wall," and was used to describe the city wall surrounding the Greek city-state.
In light of which, there are two basic legitimate functions of representative government where the individual retains his God-given sovereignty. Number one is to protect the city from the enemies outside the polis, and number two is to enforce the rule of law among citizens inside the polis.
The farther a government strays from those two basic functions, the more illegitimate it becomes, and the more important it becomes for the individual to arm himself in order to protect his sovereignty. And to be prepared with his fellows, if necessary, to force a change in the form of government that oversees the polis. Exactly, as it happens, as the founding document of the United States describes:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
NSA jackwads and your thumb-sucking politico overseers would be wise to take note: We've done it once. Don't make us do it again.
The notion that some humans can sit around a table, smear ink on paper, then claim everyone for thousands of miles is somehow obligated by them or that smeared ink...
IS TOO INSANE AND OFFENSIVE TO JUSTIFY SERIOUS DISCUSSION.
Is Too insane and offensive if you have a logical brain NOT TO JUSTIFY serious discussion.
Start by asking what qualifies someone else to make my choices!
or why should someone else tell me how I should live?
Or one I have always questioned
Why would anyone elect someone from the military?
Do we want a leader that thinks it's OK like Vietnam to kill 90% civilians.
.Gov is NOT a one-size-fits-all solution. It's clear the pendulum has swung too far in the global government direction. .Gov should not be the business of equalizing outcomes and guaranteeing lifestyles, either for the 1%ers or the 99%ers. I like my .gov small, with ample respect for Constitutional liberties. I've reached the end of my ability to accomodate the redistributionalists.
Actually, Government can work in the peoples interest if you have the right kind of Government. The Swiss have "direct democracy". The people get a vote on all the important issues that face them. A representive Government, as we have here, grows to represent those who make political donations to get them re-elected. It's a deeply flawed system. We are now paying the price. This Government is failing the people on every issue and every way and will never be fixed.
The first president I remember was JFK. Since then I have learned only one thing about the goobermint.
All its done for me is take from me. Money, freedoms, hopes and dreams. Poof! All Gone. Its like I've been feeding myself and a raging wide open full throttle machine for 45 years but now I'm almost out of food for me.
if you have war, you have government, if you have government you have war...simple to understand.
Money and gov are the problem.....get rid of the money system then get rid of your government..just keep a small group around around to make sure the water, come to your house and the shit gets cleaned before being dumped in clean waters.
And they can keep the potholes filled in the streets, that is what gov should be, infrastructure up keep and that is all.
There is only one purpose in Government - to protect those with assets from those without.
Government, like marriage, exist to ensure the intergenerational transfer of wealth.
There is only one purpose in Government - to protect those with assets from those without.
Government, like marriage, exist to ensure the intergenerational transfer of wealth.
We can fix things if we all stop paying traffic tickets.
In the modern world, there are only two purposes for government; protection against other governments and creation and protection of honest markets.
In the US, the second purpose has failed because the markets are now so perverted and crooked that they no longer exist. When a Progressive National Socialist government takes sides, that means your country is toast; it is just a matter of time until things collapse.
You are seeing how things collapse right now.
If you want to stop the collapse the best way is for everyone to stop paying traffic tickets until they are reduced to the fine status they once had which is about $5. The reason you oppose them first is once you win the group as a whole can than tackle those with a lot more power. First traffic fines, then IRS and the massive government regulations. A campaign of passive resistance and non payment would literally bankrupt local governments. They can't put everyone in jail for not paying traffic fines and they can't revoke everyone's license as the economy would come to a complete halt. No more $125 tickets for going 35 in a 25 zone. $5 is fair for such a serious violation of the law.
"They can't put everyone in jail for not paying traffic fines and they can't revoke everyone's license as the economy would come to a complete halt."
That is true. But it's why they don't try to do it. Their tactic is to pick on small numbers of individuals and make an example of them. That keeps the rest of the people cowered in fear in case they're next. It works.