Contradiction in terms: There’s no such thing as ‘limited government’

By David McElroy · February 20, 2012

Conservatives keep telling us they want “limited government.” When you think about their positions, you might think they just don’t understand limited government. There’s a more serious problem, though. “Limited government” is a mythical beast that can’t exist.

Take this tweet from Rick Santorum last week. It sounds very appealing to those of us who love individual freedom. A libertarian or anarcho-capitalist could have said this. But think about the rest of what Santorum favors and you quickly realize he doesn’t mean what these words say.

If Santorum and other conservatives believe that government can’t force us to pay for things that violate our beliefs, does this mean he’s going to fight to get refunds for those of us who’ve had to pay for wars against our will? Is he going to try to get us refunds for the money that’s been taken from us to give to other countries in the form of handouts and military hardware? Is he going to prevent our money from being used to support various kinds of social and economic welfare programs that we don’t believe in?

“Government” is force, whether it’s open or hidden. By definition, if a government can’t force you to do anything, it’s not a government. It’s just somebody making suggestions. The real question is whether any kind of government has any moral right to initiate force against anyone.

For people who believe in limited government, it seems simple. They say that government can use force against anyone — only in limited circumstances. But who’s to decide which circumstances? Santorum thinks it’s immoral to require people to pay for contraception that violates their beliefs. I agree. Someone on the progressive left might say that it’s immoral to require people to pay for wars that violate their beliefs. I would agree with that, too. But Santorum thinks you should be required to pay for his wars. The leftist thinks you should be required to pay for the social services he wants to provide.

So who decides? The majority? That brings up all sorts of different issues. What if a majority elect people they agree with on certain big issues, but aren’t in agreement on “smaller” issues? Does that mean it’s OK for a minority to get their way on those “smaller” issues, just because they’re not important to enough people to swing elections? And even if the majority agree on everything — which isn’t possible, of course — what gives that majority the right to impose their will on the minority?

Isn’t this just setting the stage for a constant war of all against all?

Limited government is an illusion. If you’re going to favor some form of the coercive state, you have to admit that you favor a dictatorship with a monopoly on power. You might have certain preferences about how the power is exercised, but once you put the beast into place, your preferences don’t matter to it one bit.

There’s a quote frequently attributed to Thomas Jefferson that says, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” It’s a popular line with those who favor limited government, because they say it shows why government has to be small and limited. But Jefferson didn’t actually say or write the words. And the truth is that any government that’s given a monopoly on power — for any limited purpose — is eventually going to take whatever it wants.

Even though Jefferson didn’t say those words, we can say that he worked hard to set up a limited government. The beast that rules over us today is proof of exactly what happens to “limited government” over time. The world has never seen limited government. It never will.

People frequently tell me that they’re afraid of the competitive governance model, because they’re afraid it won’t work. I think they’re mistaken — for reasons that I’ve spent years thinking through — but I can’t prove it to them. The only thing I can prove is that they’re oddly willing to bet on something that’s always proven to fail over something that’s never been tried. That sounds pretty strange to me.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts