I think “parasite” is an accurate description, not a strong one.

Robert Higgs writes that to “disregard fear is to place ourselves in possibly mortal jeopardy” and goes on to show how government exploits this fear for its own advantage. However, rather than present a balanced approach that differentiates between legitimate and illegitimate government, he tries to show how virtually all governmental activities are uncalled for.

Notice for example his argument that the employment of government is based on fear. Would Mr. Higgs have said that capitalism is based on fear, since people fear starvation, and therefore try to obtain goods. Would he then deny the imperative for production and trade? Similarly, if people built doors and fences to keep out intruders, would Mr. Higgs have described those defensive measures as based on fear? His presentation implies that because there is fear there is no legitimacy (as though there were only irrationality). His method of argumentation (despite stating at the outset that fear is necessary) disregards the necessity of any government by stating that it rests on fear.

Similarly it is true, as he says, that when government protects the people it does so for its own interests. Yet would Mr. Higgs criticize capitalists for serving the public because it is in their interest to do so?

The agenda of Mr. Higgs is shown by his statement that “people would soon come to understand that hardly any of the announced threats has any substance…” and “Were we ever to stop being afraid of the government itself and of the phoney fears it has fostered, the government would shrivel and die…” That is, he believes that the fears that justify governmental defense today are virtually all bogus. That would be a sound argument if it were true, namely that it is not fear per se that is the problem, but irrational fear. However the Muslim-Arab threat is not make believe, and has been consistently underemphasized as when the President says that “Islam means peace” and that only a minority of the Arabs intend us harm.
Now it is legitimate to argue the extent to which there is or is not a genuine threat, but not to dismiss all claims of threats as irrational. Let us note that for decades the threat of crime was not recognized by government, as it focused instead on the need for rehabilitation. (Just yesterday 60 Minutes had a program displaying the many crimes against the public by prisoner gangs, while the government protects their “liberties”.)

Hitler really threatened the West, while Chamberlain (and most American politicians) pretended that we could have peace. The USSR really threatened Europe and America, while Roosevelt argued to support Stalin’s advances. Were Mr. Higgs around then, Germany would have gone on to conquer the world (or Stalin would have done so) while libertarians would have opposed any American defense.

Government is legitimate when it protects the inalienable rights of the individual, and only becomes illegitimate when it fails to do so. It is true, as Mr. Higgs notes, that there is massive governmental depredations. However, unless we differentiate between artificial and actual threats, the public will properly disregard our criticisms of government as stemming from a biased agenda.

Allen, every excess you mention was caused by a government. That is one indication that maybe you’re focus on government directed “response” might be missing the root cause of the massive problems.

Also, Hitler couldn’t even get across the English channel, much less attack America.

If you wish to decry the abuses of some warlord, please do. Go ahead and advocate action against a Hitler or Stalin, I’ll likely agree with you, then take up your own arms and go fight. Conscripting others to do your dirty work is itself a complete violation of the most sacred individual right, the right to be left alone.

By passing the PATRIOT act, the Real ID act and their vile kind, Osama Bin Laden (as an example) has won. By turning America into a fascist economy, based upon socialist principles, FDR completed the take-over of America that Hitler couldn’t have accomplished in his wildest dreams.

“Do not frighten a small man, he will kill you.” Your own fear of external threat gives you reason to violate yours and everyone else’s liberty merely because of the possibility of a threat. But there is ALWAYS the possibility of a threat, and that means that individual liberty is always going to be violated in the name of “security”.

Thus does the small man kill Liberty because of fear.

Bravo, Allen.

Curt, fighting the likes of Hitler and Stalin is not “dirty work”. It is pushing back against encroaching tyranny and evil. Have you ever heard of free-riding? If I take up arms to further the interests of our country, you benefit even if you choose only to sit back and whine about my methods. You want others to fight for you at no charge? Sounds….well, parasitic, to me.

“fighting the likes of Hitler and Stalin”, “pushing back against encroaching tyranny and evil”, “to further the interests of our country”
Without clarity, we cannot know what we are talking about. Engaging in a war for self-defense is legitimate, but obviously if it’s ONLY for self-defense. I’ve yet to see any good, solid definition of “our interests” that justifies a war. And even getting rid of bad guys in other parts of the world is not legitimate for government if it is not truly about defense of the country, although perhaps free people might feel compelled to do something like organizing non-governmental forces to deal with them, if they feel like do-gooding.
But I’m hardly free-riding if a government is going to impair international relations and commerce for the sake of “kicking ass” and proving superior might to the rest of the world. That’s a threat to me, not a benefit.

In light of this article the Pope’s JPII call “Do not be afraid” gets a new meaning.

Neil: Stalin was willing to conquer Europe physically and he did – at least half of it (first in 1939 and 1940 acting together with Hitler and then in 1944 and 45). “He believed the USSR would continue to economically outperform the west” – continue? Well, USSR never outperformed the West and thus it could not continue to outperform it

Jason,
Aren’t you now indulging in the same descision making you accuse Bryan of?
You state that “Anarchy is not a viable social order”. Do you get to decide what is a good social order?
I would suggest that anarchy has been tested in the “marketplace of ideas” and found to be an eminently viable form of social order. The world’s nation states (currently) exist in anarchy – there is no recognised world state which has authority over all nations.
Such a setup has proved an enduring and stable form of social organisation which individual nations vigorously defend. How small does a nation have to be before anarchy is no longer viable in your view? Island? City? (Singapore?) Neighbourhood? Household? At what point do freely and voluntarily co-operating social groups fail your anarchy test?

There were several responses to my criticism of Robert Higgs’ article. Saul Weiner writes that there are governmental lies and destructive acts. Yet I have said so all along, and pointed out the need for pinpointing their crimes, rather than assuming that their actions are always uncalled for. It is true as he says that governments often make matters worse, but that is not an argument that counters my position.

Curt Howland suggests that I am missing the root cause of our massive problems. Let us note that the Higgs article was not about such a cause, but rather that our government is always wrong. As for the fact that “Hitler couldn’t even get across the English channel, much less attack America” he nearly defeated England, many of whose citizens advocated surrender. Had it not been for American support (and Churchill’s defiance) England would surely have been lost. Once Europe (and the USSR) was under fascist domination, America would have had strong pressures to accommodate Hitler. One can read the past, by saying that since something didn’t occur, there was no problem. However, there were many times when that war was almost lost, and but for American efforts would have been. His main point is that resistance should be individual, and not collective. Yet that disregards the need for a government at all. *No nation has ever been formed, nor could be formed (let alone survive) strictly on the basis of individual choice.* It could not compete with other powers, nor have the glue to operate effectively. However, this brings the argument to its root, namely that there are those who advocate anarchy, where if they allow a nation at all, it is to be comprised solely of culture, with no government. Yet if that is the argument, it must be presented, rather than presumed.

I agree with Michael A. Clem that war should be solely for self-defense, and believe that the Arab-Muslim bloc has been at war with us for decades, while we wish to pretend otherwise. (As an aside I was roundly denounced as a racist and alarmist for saying so, but those voices quieted after 9/11.) I also concur that we should not fight for the well-being of other peoples, and would add that such political correctness hampers our success (as when we spend fortunes for the benefit of Iraqis, and place our troops in danger so as to not offend their sensibilities).

I disagree with Neil Craig that “The cold war was a caused by Truman threatening Russia with the bomb & Russia not backing down.” The aim and actions of the communists long preceded Truman.

In sum, my position was that a balanced approach is called for when dealing with when our government is acting well or poorly, rather than engaging in advocacy to show that it is always in the wrong. The response against it did not address whether balance was called for, but gave additional arguments to show how bad governments are, and in particular how bad our government is. This is the Achilles heel of the Libertarians (which Ayn Rand always fought) namely commitment to the view that the only significant problems are those of government, especially our own.

I’d just like to thank the Mises Institute and Robert Higgs for this article. It’s incisive, brief (considering its subject) and very much to the point.

Bravo.

Bryan,

I see you have once again demonstrated profound obtuseness. My comment addressed your attitude, not “rights” or any other metaphysical abstraction. You do not wish to have a discussion, you merely want your existing (and limited) understanding of reality reinforced by others whom you view as your superiors. Of course no one has a “right” to say or do anything on this website, and the Institute is well within its “rights” to prevent or remove anyone from its cyber property. So why don’t they screen the commentary for content as you would like? It’s because, unlike you, they are genuinely interested in rational discussion and debate. Your attitude is much closer to that of a totalitarian than that of a free and rational individual, and I suspect you would gladly hand your fate over to anyone so long as they shared your views. You call on the authorities of this blog to regulate in the same way the socialists call on governments to control their populations. Let me know if you need this comment simplified anymore, and I will try to frame it in your preferred totalitarian terms.

Michael Clem asks for a definition of war. This is taught by the military as ‘the intent to harm by force’. Note that by this definition Germany (as well as the USSR) was at war with the West before it fired a shot, while conversely parties can get embroiled in forceful conflict without it constituting war. The key is found, not in the physical acts, but in the intent. (Perhaps some Austrian economists can see the analogy in economic goods possessing value, not in their physicality, but in their subjective utility.) This addresses the comment by Jeff Zervas who doesn’t recognize the aim of the Muslims & Arabs to destroy all other governments, while the American people, if anything, wish to better their fortunes.

What is the intent of our enemy? It is the doctrine that the house of Islam (Dar al Islam) must conquer the house of the infidel (Dar al Harb). It was expressed in their jubilation when cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center. Their states have been in conflict with America for over 50 years. They confiscated our properties in oil, committed aggression against Israel, seized the American embassy in Iran, engaged in numerous acts of hostility, fomented and defended terrorism, and are developing weapons to murder Americans en masse. Most effectively, on the political front, they hamstring our self-defense, and turn our notions of decency against us.

However, the facts of history do not explain the motivations of those who find fault with America, while justifying or ‘understanding’ the hostility of tyrannical societies. Rather it is their belief that the evil to be defeated is in government itself, where the primary government is that of America. So allow me to digress to the subject of anarchy. First, note that if the root cause of all problems were government, one couldn’t explain where government came from. (Since at one time there was no government, the root cause of forming government could not have been government.) Clearly, the problem of aggression predated government, and while people banded together for the purpose of aggression, they also did so to defend against it (which was the imperative for government). Now I acknowledge that the greatest aggression in our time has been committed by governments. In particular, the regimes of Germany, the USSR, China, and Cambodia murdered a hundred million people in the 20th century. Yet it is disconcerting that libertarians and anarchists focus their attacks, not on such tyrannies, but rather on those few governments who oppose them.

Jason wrote “Hayek himself recognized that some hierarchical authority is unavoidable. Anarchy is not a viable social order.” He might also have quoted von Mises “An anarchist society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state of government…The state is essentially an institution for the preservation of peaceful interhuman relations. However, for the preservation of peace it must be prepared to crush the onslaughts of peace-breakers”, ‘Human Action’ p.149.

This is not given as an authoritative answer against anarchy, but as a response to those who claim that any defense of government is collectivist, and does not belong on the “Mises Economics Blog”.

Bryan Edds employs methods of argumentation which incorporate the very lack of balance that I addressed concerning the Higgs’ article. He begins with the statement that “Intent is impossible to prove” which would render recorded history and our judicial system useless. We know that Hitler intended to dominate Europe in 1939, as did Stalin in 1945, not only by actions taken, but by writings and speeches. Similarly we know the intent of Muslims (such as Sayyid Qutb) to defeat Dar al Harb (which includes America) as well as the stated mechanisms for doing so. If there were no way of differentiating between an accidental and an intended crime, there could be no trial of any criminal.

Next, his statement that to “assert that every individual of a certain group holds an intent is absurd” does not address what I wrote. Clearly there were Germans who opposed Hitler (and were placed in concentration camps) and Russians who opposed Stalin (and were placed in Gulags) yet Germany engaged in war with America, as did the USSR in the Cold War. Here, I am not attempting to prove the political point, but to emphasize the lack of balance in arguments that evade what was written.

Next, Mr. Edds writes “It is fallacy to use the word ‘us’ without being able to list every single individual included in that group” as though there were no such thing as groups, such as in ‘Egypt built the pyramids’ or ‘Rome fought the barbarians’. To deny the dynamics of groups is to disregard the realities of history. Yet he continues “This is a fallacy that stems from the logic of collectivism – thus, you are engaging in collectivistic thought which doesn’t belong here.” Here, it might appear as though Mr. Edds is an advocate of “methodological individualism” as composed by Ludwig von Mises. Yet Mises writes “It is uncontested that in the sphere of human action social entities have real existence. Nobody ventures to deny that nations, states, municipalities, parties, religious communities, are real factors determining the course of human events” ‘Human Action’ p. 42. Apparently, Mises never met Edds, who views such positions as collectivist.

Then he writes that the “purpose of the Mises Institute is NOT to worship Mises or hold his word as the highest truth – it’s not a Misesian cult. The purpose of the Mises Institute is to teach good economics. Good economics deprecates arguments against anarchy, and can no longer credibly be used here.” Yet I have never said that Mises is to be worshiped (and have criticized some of his views on this Blog). Rather, I wrote ‘This is not given as an authoritative answer against anarchy, but as a response to those who claim that any defense of government is collectivist, and does not belong on the “Mises Economics Blog”. Let me add that I agree with Mises that an economy cannot prosper without the protection of rights by government.

Mr. Edds also writes that Americans should go against the American government for the sake of locality, which makes it effective. That is the argument of the pacifists, which was answered by George Orwell who noted that the totalitarian governments face no such problem, so that the net effect is to aid the totalitarians against the republics. However, here Mr. Edds has raised an actual argument, rather than misrepresenting what was said, or denying the realities of history and the judicial system.

Michael Clem writes that intent is an insufficient condition for war, and action is required as well, for we cannot arrest and convict simply on the basis of intent. Here, I would differentiate between the state of war, and how we respond to it. When someone intends to kill us, we are in a state of war, but we cannot know this, or act upon it, until he has taken action. Let us note that there were no lack of actions on the part of Hitler, Stalin, nor the Arab-Muslims. Hence, we are in a state of war, and there are actions to show this, and an imperative to respond.

Mr. Clem doubts that governments protect rights or can. Yet what is his standard of comparison? Has he compared life in America with that of pre-civilized society, or with the Hutu treatment of the Tootsies? We ought not employ a utopian standard, but should only require government to be better than no government. How well government functions is a matter of culture, and here I grant that our culture believes in sacrificing the productive for the sake of the non-productive (and the responsible for the sake of the irresponsible). Yet the absence of government constitutes barbarism.

He argues that “it sounds absurd to say that since governments exist, we should expect governments to deal with the problems caused by governments.” Is he saying that if a government invaded America, our government should not defeat it? Is Mr. Clem suggesting that if an enemy attacks us by the use of state power, and bands together for effectiveness, that we should not employ state power or band together, because that would be statist and collectivist?

Finally, he declares that government is a flawed concept, but does not indicate what the flaw is. Is he saying that if a wagon train were to be attacked by Indians it would be a flawed concept for it to place authorities in charge of defense? What would he suggest as an unflawed concept, leaving each individual to act on his own?

Would it be unfair to observe that Higgs himself is using fear as a political tool? Doesn’t he try to instill fear of “the Leviathan” in us? I am glad that Higgs publicly opposes Bush’s politics of fear. But the ideological motivation, including niceties such as “parasites”, leaves me rather uneasy.

Since you guys are fans of absolute property rights, how do you solve the contradiction between your rhetorical opposition to government in principle, and the facts that property rights wouldn’t exist without governmentm, since they are enacted and enforced by government?

Since you guys are fans of absolute property rights, how do you solve the contradiction between your rhetorical opposition to government in principle, and the facts that property rights wouldn’t exist without governmentm, since they are enacted and enforced by government?

There is no contradiction. Your assertion is simply false. (In fact, it’s more than simply false: governments cannot exist prior to property rights, and governments necessarily reduce property rights in their vicinity, therefore it’s completely backwards!)