During Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, the mantras were hope and change and the imagery was that with him in charge, faith in government would be justified. But what America has mainly seen since his inauguration is fear.
The President pushed his bailout plan with apocalyptic language that, without it, the sky would fall. Similarly, his proposals have been targeted to fears of a possible depression, of losing jobs, of losing homes, of losing health care, etc. In every case, the ‘solution’ put forward has been a staggering expansion in the power and scope of the federal government, presented as benevolent rescuer.
And in every case, he has exploited Frederic Bastiat’s insight in ‘What is Seen and What is Unseen.’ The promised benefits are always put on display, to calm fears and make sure they are recognized and lauded. But the coercion, behind those promises — made necessary because government has no resources it does not extract from citizens and no expanded powers that do not detract from liberty — is glossed over. For almost everyone, taxes today and deficits tomorrow are presented as being paid by ‘not you’ and the encroachments on individual freedom as only restricting others who can be demonized.
This combination of fear and coercion has received little notice in the current media. However, it has been insightfully analyzed. In 1959, in The Nature of Man and His Government, Robert LeFevre saw this connection clearly. He saw how the desire to assuage their fears led people to grant power to a gangster of their own, in hope that the gangster would remain their servant, with its power exercised solely for their own good. Unfortunately, he showed that hope to be both logically and historically unsupported. On the 50th anniversary of The Nature of Man and His Government, it is worth revisiting LeFevre’s insights.
‘[M]en have organized for the purpose of protecting themselves and their property. Government is the tool of this protection…in practice, the tool of protection…is employed with equal vigor and ferocity against both the criminal and the good and harmless citizen…’
‘[G]overnment has a single, possibly legitimate, function, that of apprehending and punishing the criminal…government has, in its manifold legal actions, gone far beyond…to equate the average individual, who is peaceful and orderly, with the criminal who commits acts of aggression with willful intent.’
‘[T]hat which was formed for our protection becomes, finally, the very reason we need to be protected.’
‘If we would understand why our government has so invaded private rights…look to the nature of man…at the root of all government stand the people. What is it in the nature of human beings which causes them to look to a government?’
‘There is only one thing which causes man to look for and to organize a tool which is an instrument of compulsion and prohibition. That thing is fear. Men look to government to protect them because they fear. And virtually without exception, everything that human beings fear becomes a project for government.’
‘It is this all-compelling emotion, fear, that has sired governments. Man is fearful… Therefore, he has devised an organizational gadget, containing compulsory unification, and by means of which he hopes to offset, or even to overcome, the strength of others.’
‘Governments, then, are not agencies of right, necessarily. They are, necessarily, agencies of strength. It could be said that man, feeling certain that he was surrounded by gangsters, has devised a gangster of his own, theoretically obedient to his own will, who will act with truculence against alien gangsters, while remaining docile and tractable towards his deviser.’
‘History teaches us with much repetition that this is an enormous fallacy. Governments begin with a soft side towards their own creators and a hard exterior exposed towards potential foes. But as time passes, the hard exterior extends until it completely encompasses the government…It becomes equally hard and impervious towards every human being, since the nature of the gadget is that it must be strong against human beings.’
‘Government’s presumed selectivity, in knowing whom to favor and whom to oppose, is actually nonexistent. This is because…the nature of government’s strength is derived wholly from its compulsory unification. Government can permit no exceptions to its rules…In the one case the government may act defensively, to protect the rights of an individual; in the other case, the government will act aggressively, protecting no individual right but simply compelling universal obedience to its decrees.’
‘In the one case the government acts as a friend, within the framework of its theoretical usefulness. In the other case the government is the predator, actively enacting the role of…gangster.’
‘[M]en have so much fear concerning the imminence of gangsterism in their midst that they tend to bear the iniquities of government’s predatory actions without a murmur, rather than to deprive themselves temporarily of their own gangster, however powerful and unruly he has become.’
‘Nor does one act of plunder solve the problem for which the plunder was originally legalized. Rather, each act of plunder gives birth to the necessity for additional acts of plunder. And the number of laws curtailing us, regimenting us, restricting us, and punishing us grows hourly larger and more difficult of evasion.’
‘Government is an agency of force which can and must be employed against every deviationist. And this is only to say again that the government must oppose the individual. Therefore the ‘good’ man in government is like a priest with a machine gun. The mechanism does the harm. The man who operates it merely pulls the trigger.’
‘[I]t is the business of government to employ force and to compel obedience…and to punish any individual who does not go along with those mandates imagined as necessary by the men in power.’
‘There is no government on earth that, now or ever, sold protection only to those who would willingly pay for it. Nor is there now or ever has been a government which permitted the purchasers of its service to decide just where the protection was to begin and end.’
‘[W]e have two kinds of police protection, voluntary and involuntary. The first is paid for voluntarily because someone wants protection and is willing to pay for it. The second is forced upon us all because some people feel we must have it. The first is moral, the second is immoral. Yet the latter is gaining ground.’
According to Damon Gross, ‘Robert LeFevre was a leading intellectual force in the dissemination of libertarian ideas.’ As described by Lew Rockwell, he recognized that ‘civilization stemmed from the voluntary actions of men, not the laws of the state,’ and that ‘Crediting government for the good in society was, to his mind, like crediting the criminal class whenever it leaves us alone to go about our affairs…He astutely observed that all states are prone to expansion and always at the expense of liberty.’
Robert LeFevre recognized that the coercion at the heart of government actions bears a striking resemblance to that employed by gangsters and that in neither case is there a guarantee that individuals’ well-being will be advanced as a result of that coercion. In fact, the opposite will be the case. As he put it, ‘The nature of government is such that, whatever strength it has, it will be used to amass greater strength by draining away the strength of individuals.’ Today, Americans seem to have barely an inkling of this insight. On its 50th anniversary, The Nature of Man and His Government is a good place to start relearning this essential insight of liberty.





{ 18 comments }
If Obama was so magnanimous and really cared about America and the people,
Then he’d authorize Congress to print Greenbacks according to the Constitution which would eliminate Interests Payments on our National Debt paid to those same Bankers he had lunch with. (Maybe that’s why certain people want the Constitution dismantled. And their selling this to the American People, who’d buy anything if it was packaged in a pretty envelope titled “Change We Can Believe In”).
Oh yeah, we wouldn’t have to pay the Federal Reserve Interests either. What a Concept……
This was exactly the same action taken by Lincoln and attempted by Kennedy to grow and make this country STRONG.
I guess you’ve got to ask yourself why Obama won’t do that???????
ehmoran,
The Constitution does not allow “Bills of Credit” like the Greenback you are suggesting. When Lincoln did it, it created bad inflation throughout the country. Except in California where they were still using gold as a medium of exchange. So I don’t think that would be the best course of action.
ehmoran,
You just watched “The Money Masters” didn’t you?
That film got me interested, too. It’s a good thing I found the Mises Institute and learned that “Greenbacks” and such things are not the answer. Fiat money in general is the evil; fiat money controlled by Congress is just as evil as fiat money controlled by the “private” Fed.
Inflation can be controlled by the amount of money in circulation. So I guess you like the current system we’re in right now.
As of now, the U.S. Treasury owns no gold except that which is in the ground. See the Gold Commissions report to Congress in 1982.
By printing Government Notes, we would not owe anybody. With the production capability and intelligence of U.S. citizens and reversion back to a Pure Free Market society, the World would beg for U.S. products. Among other things………
Jeremy Matthews,
No, I didn’t see that.
We need to start somewhere and eliminate the influence of World Money Changers and giant corporation that run the World. Granted, pure fiat money with no backing is dangerous, but I’m sure if those individuals concerned with pure, or somewhat, altruisitc tendencies could develope a plan.
If printing Greenbacks as Lincoln did and Kennedy attempted, then why were they assassinated. Watch the propaganda about this issue……
All paper money creation starts with debt.
If Congress printed Greenbacks for exchange for Gold mined by American Citizens, then Washington would be in-debt to the American people. What a concept.
In this event, once again, the American people would be IN-CHARGE of Washington. And also, other Countries soon would follow suit…….
This nation has always been control by bankers since Alexander Hamilton highhandedly designed the Treasury department. Yes, mercantilism. Early Americans liberated themselves from the British and turned around and almost immediately installed the same banking cheating system that existed in England, thanks to Hamilton. So, the United States Presidents have been taking orders from bankers. Be not surprised.
I started some Facebook groups related to Leonard, Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek, LeFevre etc.
Everyone is welcome to participate.
http://www.facebook.com/s.php?sid=8f28905f9d560bf4170d1a75b7aa0d91&init=q&sf=r&k=400000000010&n=-1&q=life%20extension#/group.php?gid=57036908761
It is not so much fear as corruption that allows a government to grow too big. Young republics have always secured safety and order with minimal governments that concentrated on a sound judiciary, strong defenses and a few essential infrastructures. That provided a free and open economy for all citizens to apply their genius and make the country prosper. That is how America was during its first 300 years.
Unfortunately, as such nations grew and became affluent, new elites gained office and preached expansion of government, redistribution of wealth, and increased central planning. They did this simply to buy votes and create official empires for themselves and their supporters.
Because these new governmental managers came to wield increasing power, they were approached by every lobby, interest group, every business and citizen that sought favored treatment. Others contributed funds to their campaigns just to protect themselves from harmful laws and regulations. In that way the “gangsters” gained control.
In order to keep winning elections, these gangsters offered more and more hand-outs to groups of “victims,” preferential treatment to those who supported them, and pandered as populist reformers to anyone who could be seduced into relying on government instead of taking care of themselves.
Once half the voters are relying on the government the society is doomed. Obama’s support came mostly from government workers, teachers unions, welfare and disability recipients, dependent elders on social security, and advocates for gay rights, womens’ lib, and affirmative action. These groups are very dependent on the central planners and regulators that promise bigger government.
Once half the people organize and realize they can live easily by taking from the other half the game is over. It is not fear but corrupt practices and populist demagoguery that is destroying America. My survey of history shows this is a recurring cause of the rise and fall of nations. Common people build the nation, then elites take over by promising re-distribution and special favors. Once half the people are not contributing to the productive real world, and are being supported by the half that produce actual products and services, the country atrophies and dies. It has always been so. America will not die quickly, but from mny cuts and gradual atrophy.
It started earlier. Obama has not opposed the “failout” plan
http://fdominicus.blogspot.com/2008/10/keep-this-on-record.html
From there one it was clear what’ll happen
Oh, this is just great. Instead of creating a pretext of debt, the government should just print whatever the hell it wants. The only alternative, apparently, is the current system. Why do you rule out, say, a free market in money?
“Let us all learn to be free, and to be loyal. Let us not profess ourselves vassals to the lawless pleasure of any man on earth. But let us remember, at the same time, government is sacred, and not to be trifled with. It is our happiness to live under the government of a PRINCE who is satisfied with ruling according to law; as every other good prince will–We enjoy under his administration all the liberty that is proper and expedient for us. It becomes us, therefore, to be contented, and dutiful subjects. Let us prize our freedom; but not use our liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. There are men who strike at liberty under the term licentiousness. There are others who aim at popularity under the disguise of patriotism. Be aware of both. Extremes are dangerous. There is at present amongst us, perhaps, more danger of the latter, than of the former. For which reason I would exhort you to pay all due Regard to the government over us; to the KING and all in authority; and to lead a quiet and peaceable life.–And while I am speaking of loyalty to our earthly Prince, suffer me just to put you in mind to be loyal also to the supreme RULER of the universe, by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice. To which king eternal immortal, invisible, even to the ONLY WISE GOD, be all honor and praise, DOMINION and thanksgiving, through JESUS CHRIST our LORD. AMEN”.
Emoran,
What exactly did Jesus call the governning authorities of his day, the scribes, Pharisees and teachers of the law? He called them blind guides, hypocrites, blind fools, snakes, brood of vipers, thieves and murders. Not exactly supportive of the ruling order as just and righteous and peaceful.
Everything that Jesus said about them is directly and forcefully applicable to the blind guides, hypocrites, liars and thieves in Washington and 50 state capitals in our day.
Somehow, they had to try to shut him up. They weren’t successful.
Dan Mclaughlin,
You’re exactly Right! That’s why our Govt was established in its original format and our Constitution is not a living document.
Have you read the Federalists and Anti-Federalists Papers?
ehmoran,
You have a lot to say on these blogs, and none of it makes any sense. You do not seem to grasp the fundamentals, the issues, the nature of the arguments, the opposing views being argued against, or the implications of your own proposals.
It is easier to deal with the marxists, keynesians, socialists, and fascists who may be full of it, but at least they know their party line. You evince an attitude of enlightenment that simply is not on the spectrum. You allude to great works of intellectual thought that at best do not support your theses, and at worst are actually detractors of your positions.
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion and anyone can post on this blog, but the point is that you are a self-styled emperor who needs to take a look in the mirror and recognize you are not wearing any clothes.
I, Moron,
And what may I ask is a “self-styled emperor”?
Do you what this statement “We enjoy under his administration” is saying?
This very much pertains to this Article……
Thanks for your constructive comments!
I, Moron,
And what may I ask is a “self-styled emperor”?
Do you know what this statement “We enjoy under his administration” is saying?
This very much pertains to this Article……
Thanks for your constructive comments!
Good thing Obama wants Chrysler to merge with Fiat. They might have a good company NOW. See below:
Since Moody’s just downgraded Fiat to Junk Bond Status, now the U.S. Tax payer can legally bail out an Italian Company also. I guess Obama is renaming this Merged Company to “Cosa Nostra Auto, Inc” and now can select an appropriate CEO……
I guess he’ll have Rahm Emanuel oversee the merger, that’s probably the most appropriate move in this case……..
Comments on this entry are closed.