Hello my flock of badgers. Or is it a herd? Or a gaggle? What’s the word for a group of badgers? Whatever that word is… Wait, I just looked it up! It’s a cete! Hello my cete of badgers! There’s a common objection I get from time to time from people when I mention that I believe in a small (or zero) government. People often say something to this effect, “Not only has our population increased, but things have changed so much since our founders drafted the constitution. This obviously necessitates a bigger government.”

This line of thinking is as dangerous as it is scary. Let’s get one thing straight. Government is responsible for the worst of the bad things in this world. They give us war and bloodshed, nuclear weapons and drones. They oppress, imprison, and loot their citizens. Most of the suffering, starvation and misery in this world is created by government. Government bungles everything it gets its hands on. They are wrought with fraud, waste, and inefficiency. The Post Office loses $15 billion per year. FedEx by contrast netted over $2 billion last year without enjoying the benefit of a monopoly on every mailbox in America. Want more of all these maladies? Then ask for more government. Want more war? Ask for more government. Want more poverty? Ask for more government. Want more income inequality? Massive invasion of privacy? Corporate welfare and bailouts? Exploding national debt? Ask for more Government. Many people think government provides solutions to our problems. They don’t. They only provide us with problems. Typically those who defend the government are those who suckle at the government teet. And she has some big ole jugs, lemme tell ya.

Another issue I have with the above argument is that it assumes you abandon a principal when the scope changes. The founders could not have been more clear that we must have a small federal government, state sovereignty, and that the power should lie with the individual. Yes, we have more people and perhaps have more complex problems. But this should not change the scope or power of the federal government. Just as it was in the 1700’s, the government can exist to enforce contracts and property rights and maintain a strong defensive military… and that’s it. If someone violates your rights, then that is illegal and should be dealt with. But more people or say more technology does not mean we need more laws, regulations, and red tape. Contract and property protection takes care of all this no matter how big or complex we get. Asking for more government is just asking for less freedom, for more theft, more war, etc. The above argument is essentially saying, ‘We have more people and like the internet and stuff, so the government needs to spy on us, steal even more from us, fight more wars, pass more laws, and regulate everything under the sun.” I wonder how Thomas Jefferson would have felt about Bloomberg’s ban on big sodas and trans fat?

Lastly, people falsely assume that because we have a huge population, that there would be mass chaos without government. This is simple minded. Read Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy. He succinctly outlines one of probably millions of possible ways society could function peacefully sans the state. Assuming we need the state assumes people will not innovate, that people are mindless animals and could not possibly figure out a way to interact peacefully, thrive, or keep each other safe. Nonsense. The state does not give us peace. It necessarily gives us violence. Being anti state is not an unpatriotic stance. Rather it is the most patriotic stance you could take.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s