For my first post, I figure I’ll come in with a bang. I’ll start by going straight for the jugular of the concept of government, and point out why government- at least no contemporary, existing government- cannot possibly be construed as good, in any sense of the word. I aim to showcase and even use the supposed “logic” of government in order to make a refutation. From the Social Contract to the Hobbesian Theory of Human Nature to Utilitarian justifications, I will knock each one down and expose it for the veil of force and violence that it is.
The Social Contract
Quite possibly the most prevalent of the arguments in favor of the government, it can basically be broken down to the idea that those who reside within a specific area and use specific services are implicitly agreeing to a “Contract” between the user and the government/state. The contract exists sui generis, and cannot be voided by any party barring that of the government/state (although this act is highly unlikely, if not impossible).
While also being the most common, it is admittedly the trickiest. On the face of it, it seems almost legitimate- you choose to live in a certain area and you do use certain services provided, so by default, you must be consenting. However, the reasoning of this isn’t all that solid when it comes down to it. For one, you’re left with the fact that you can’t actually go to another service provider to receive the services which government has an effective monopoly over. The usual response to this objection is that you DO use the services, and you ARE living within their territorial limits (you always have the option to move, they say), thus you are consenting. However, the mere fact that you do use services is not consent to the relationship between the individual and the government; by this very logic, if a slave eats a meal from his master or does not run away, he is consenting to the relationship between him an the master. Most importantly, it begs the question of who is more entitled to your property- you, or the government?
An extension of this argument for the justification of the social contract is that since it is agreed upon through a democratic process, it is a valid contract. At this point, we have essentially fallen to the point of unilaterally forcing the will of one or many upon others. Using the same logic, if nine men vote to rape a woman, the relationship between the nine men and one woman has become legitimate. Ultimately, the act of the vote has become nothing more then glorified and institutionalized gang rape. Moreover, the act of voting does nothing to actually change the system if you inherently disagree with the very system itself- you cannot vote to opt out, so it really can’t be said that you have a choice to opt out. With this all established, we can actually conclude that the social contract is not in fact a contract as we know it- it is unilateral and implicit, and most strangely, applies only to geography.
Now, some of you may be thinking “Well, what’s wrong with this”? Well, plenty. If we’re to accept that a contract can be unilateral, implicit, and geographic, could I not create one as well for those living within a 10 mile radius of me? Imagine if I sent out letters to each resident within a 10 mile radius from my home asking for them to choose between two brands of refrigerators. They must choose one or the other, and if they don’t choose, they get what the majority picks. With it, I enclose the bill of $900, and the additional statement that if they refuse to pay, legal action will be taken, or they have the option to move elsewhere. When people inevitably refuse to pay (which they would), I could take the claim to court and sue for a breach of contract. Invariably, I would be laughed out of the court and my case would be relegated to the “News of the Weird” and “Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader”. However, I’ve fulfilled all of the required steps for establishing a social contract- it is unilateral, it is implicit, and it is geographic. Thus, by the very act of rejecting my case, the government courts would invariably be rejecting the system by which they claim legitimate authority, and completely negate whatever authority they actually do claim to have.
The Argument From Human Nature (Hobbesian State of Nature)
In my experience, this seems to either be the second most used argument in defense of the State, or as a fall back when the holes and ultimate logical incoherency of the Social Contract are revealed. For those of you who haven’t heard of the concept of the “Hobbesian State of Nature”, you’ve most certainly heard of or even thought of the concept- that humans are naturally in a state of “war against all”; that is, if unchecked, humans are rampantly violent and vicious. This of course acts as a justification for the existence of government, which claims to exist as a means to mitigate the potential harm that would be done by otherwise evil humans.
Unlike the Social Contract, the problems with this are easier to identify, the most obvious being that it completely contradicts itself. You see, in order to believe that humans are naturally inclined towards a war against all as a matter of our inherent nature, we would have to accept that the identification of the problem and the subsequent creation of government would have been impossible, because we never would have had the moral and intellectual fortitude to create such an institution with such a goal in the first place. The entire idea that humans are inherently inclined to take advantage of each other would mean that government itself is but an extension of this evil which they seek to mitigate!
For those of you who are not picking up what I am putting down, let me spell it out- the very fact that government or any other organization exists is proof enough to debunk this claim. Institutions like the Red Cross, Direct Relief, The Center for the Advancement of Health or other such organizations would not exist. Our natures as cruel and violent beings would interfere with our establishing of such institutions, to the point where we would quite “naturally” still be at odds with each other, always seeking to take advantage.
But for a moment, let us look past this and see what else we can infer and observe from this argument- we’re still left with the supposed “fact” that people are all genuinely bad. Well, if this were so, why do we have such anomalies like Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi? According to this theory, they shouldn’t even exist. Moreover, consider the actual implications of what is being advised- that stupid, evil, terrible people should be in charge of stupid, evil, terrible people! So we’ve gone from trying to create an institution that protects people from their own barbarity to giving more power to those very people! In a sense, we’ve taken one step forward, and an entire lifetimes worth of walking back. To that end, the mere act of becoming part of government does not magically endow one with superior moral faculties. To drive home the point further, let me quote Frederic Bastiat:
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
The very idea that government should be made of people who are naturally bad to “control” those who are naturally bad is simply a recipe for disaster, if not just plain absurd and nonsensical. To draw an analogy, we’d be creating a prison like institution, and then handing over the keys to the very prisoners we’re trying to keep locked up!
Now let us, for the sake of argument, suppose the very opposite of the Hobbesian State- that everyone is naturally good. Of course, the absurdity of the idea that humanity is inherently inclined towards good or evil by nature not withstanding, we’re left to wonder “why do we need government if everyone is good? Why must we be forced to participate?”, to which the answer is a deafening roar of silence (whether this be due to the admitted absurdity of the question, or the fact that it reveals the logical flaws of the opposing argument, I don’t know). But the point remains- if people are all good, there is no necessity for government, and any government would function simply as a means of putting people into power when they need not be there in the first place- while acting wholly contradictory to the nature of humans.
With this revealed, it would be far more accurate to say that people are not inclined towards good or evil by way of nature, but that people have the propensity to act on both concepts. With this established, it would not make sense to keep a government that only functions to keep “bad people in line”, when it does nothing to distinguish between “bad” and “good” people, as all are held to the same violent and vicious creed. To this end, government acts as no more then a blind distributor of punishment, targeting both the good and bad without actually distinguishing between the two, while at the same time claiming to target only “bad” people.
The Utilitarian Justification for Government
Finally, we’re left with the Utilitarian justification for government- that government functions as a tool to secure the most good for the most people. The reasoning cannot be more plain- wouldn’t it be good to secure the most good for the most people? But, like the aforementioned justifications, the reasoning is still inadequate. How are we to define what is “good”? Different people invariably have different opinions as to what is and isn’t “good”. Your next door neighbor may say “Abortions are great! Free abortions for whoever needs ’em!”, but you don’t quite see eye to eye with him on this. Who is to say who is more “good” between you two though? Surely, your neighbor feels he is good, but so do you. Now apply this to people on your bloc- it becomes more complicated. Then apply it to everyone in your town. State. Region. Nation. Planet. How can we possibly figure out what is good with such diverse opinions across such a diverse spectrum of issues? It would be literally impossible to calculate and know all persons opinions at all times.
But let’s assume for a moment that we can all actually agree on what is good. We all agree that the issue of poverty should be solved. But that leaves us with the issue of “well, how do we solve it”? Like the same problem before, it’d be difficult to get anyone to agree with how one would go about solving such an issue. Not everyone can agree- and again, we’re faced with the aforementioned calculation problem.
Now forget all that- let’s say we know what is good, and we can all agree on how to fix it! Yes, we all know how to fix our problems- except for one very specific problem. The problem that in all cases of social and economic planning, it has always ended in disaster and led to an atrocious abrogation of individual rights. Almost naturally, the defenders of the utilitarian perspective will say that this is an unfortuate result of being secured happiness- but this is nonsensical. It would be like myself shouting in your face “I don’t exist”, when in fact, I clearly do. Put simply, it’s a performative contradiction, in that one must advocate and commit evil in order to do “good”, but by that point, what good you have “secured” has been at great expense and effectively nullified.
All of this notwithstanding, you still do have to deal with the realities of the fact that people will not agree on everything, and eventually it will come down to the use of naked force in order to achieve the desired “good”.
And so, I’ve demonstrated why it is impossible for “good government” to exist, soundly rejecting their claims to legitimacy using the more prevalent arguments. Government, good readers, cannot be good. The methodology by which it claims validity is inconsistent, and incomplete to a degree that it can’t be helped but to call it crippling. I welcome comments and critiques, and beg forgiveness for anything I’ve missed- but I’ll still be happy to address any messages directed my way.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
AnarchoJesse
