Why We Shouldn't "Respect the Government"
Via the Angry Teen, a gem from our old friend Richard Murphy:
Respect the right of government. Don’t try to undermine their income streams. Pay the tax they expect. Enjoy the benefits that flow from doing so.
AT does a lot to rebut the idiocy of this statement:
Tax destroys growth, allows politicians to get us involved with wars which kill thousands—sometimes millions—of people, allows the state to decimate our civil liberties, and countless other things. It is impossible to overestimate the damage done to society by government. Its services are always inferior to the services of the private sector The NHS is a good example of this. It seems to only be able to "improve" when the price is skyrocketing.In fact, I've got little to add beyond this observation - there is something very dangerous in the fundamental assumption that underlies this argument. It assumes that the government will always be benign, working in the best interests of the people. By accident or design, that is not always the case. Think about it: there are no shortage of governments in history that have actively damaged their people, and many more who have done so by accident or through negligence. The benefits that Murphy sees flowing forth from government are by no means guaranteed. For example, our taxes payed for the war in Iraq - something that cannot be described as a benefit by anyone other than a Nu Labourite politician.
Now, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I do believe there needs to be some sort of government in place. But I don't believe that we should "respect the right of government" - quite the contrary, the government needs to respect our rights. And they need to justify every penny and any liberty that they take from us. A healthy attitude towards government isn't blind obedience and thoughtless compliance - it is a constant suspicion of the political class and the resulting scrutiny to ensure that they act in our interests, not their own.
Murphy - and all other statists - assume that government will always be benign. Those with even the smallest knowledge of history know that this is not always going to be the case. Which is why government must always be challenged and restricted. The blindly obedient and the meekly compliant like Richard are like the devoutly religious - they hope those they have put their faith in will do good, while ignoring the damage done by the political class in our name and at our expense.
Labels: Civil Liberties (the Death of), Libertarians, Morons, Richard Murphy, Spending, Witless Morons
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 5:55 pm
6 Comments
6 Comments:
We do need some form of government, if only to protect us from ourselves.
My priorities would be; Education, Police, Health and finally Defence.
Just about everything else could be by private companies. Especially in today's electronic age. Let's be honest, how many politicians have any knowledge of the REAL world? And haw many honest people who do know the real world would lower themselves to be a politician?
It really is frightening when someone says that the government has "rights", isn't it? That's when you can tell if someone is true authoritarian scum.
The thing about tax is that most of us are on PAYE, so we have no chance to avoid/evade it. Short of taxes being cut, either the wealthy pay or we pay more, and unlike them we have no way of getting out of it.
The likes of Richard Murphy don't think of whether or not governments are benign because they assume that it will be 'their' government. So bad laws won't affect them, indeed they expect to benefit from them.
@TonyF: Education and Health are not necessarily activities of government even if you believe that that they are a government's duties.
Government's role should be to "hold the ring" - nothing else - to enable all other free trade activities to occur in an environment free from fraud and violence.
An unfortunate consequence is that we have to relinquish to it the sole right to use violence (for the defence of the boundaries, and policing and enforcement of the courts internally).
Therefore we must at grant them as few powers as possible beyond that, to avoid their being tempted to extend their violence into other areas.
Some, including me, believe that it is a duty of, and a benefit to, all society for it's children to be educated at everyone's cost. The very poorest parents cannot afford to educate their children and I do not wish that lack to trickle down through the generations.
However, there is no reason why that education cannot be provided by Free Schools, funded by universal vouchers.
The most significant contribution to wealth for all, after education, is to allow the open market to operate.
Martin A,
I agree, but if the government don't er, control (In the loosest sense) Education and Health, we would only have systems for those that can pay. I think that all children should be educated to a minimum standard, (however, I think that minimum should be higher than the current standard)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home