Posted by
Andrews on Friday, July 31, 2009 2:18:19 PM
I have offered again and again arguments in favor of limited government, basing them on theory, or pragmatic arguments, showing how unlimited power makes government less efficient, makes government more costly, and so on. However, let me make a very simple argument, one without any complicated foundation, one which should appeal to anyone of any political persuasion.
We live in a democratic government.
Perhaps that needs a bit of explanation.
You see, I can understand totalitarian states asking for more power. Dictators for life, even oligarchies or single party states, those I can understand asking for unlimited power, as the power will always be wielded by the same people. But we do not have that consistency. The individual politicians have tried to give themselves job security, through campaign finance reform and other laws they have tried to make "incumbent" synonymous with "office for life", but they can still lose their seat. And so, over time, our government power changes hands, and the political philosophy in charge one day may not be the next.
Let us look at it through an example. Suppose that today the administration asks for unlimited power to regulate internet content. They make some high sounding argument, but it is clear to all that it will be used, at least partly, to try to gain advantage for their own party. And so, despite some misgivings, partisans line up, pretend to buy the face saving rationalizations and support it.
However, they forge tone thing. Unless they gain an incredible advantage from such acts, they will eventually leave office. And, sooner or later, the opposite end of the political spectrum will hold office. The power they gave to themselves will now be in the hands of the opposition. And they should not imagine for a moment it will not be turned against them just as they used it against the opposition.
Nor is this cautionary example limited to powers which can be used to harm opposition or limit political expression. Even powers with seemingly little political application can be used to benefit one side or the other. As I wrote in "", the logic behind a political position is unstoppable. Once you grant government the right to control some aspect of business, you give them the ability to do anything they want in economic matters. And, yes, it is now being used to enforce goals with which you agree, but as that power grows, could it not be used to the opposite end?
I know many think that leaving power in the hands of citizens is going to lead to abuse, but let me just ask, when was the last time you heard of private citizens declaring war? Invading a nation? Committing genocide? Imprisoning millions? Expropriating property from an entire race or nationality or religion? Engineering starvation?
Whatever abuses a private citizen might commit, they are limited in scope. Only when that power is put int he hands of government, only then are these truly organized horrors possible. And, as I said in "
The Wrong People", when you put that power in government's hand, because you have faith in those leading, you are inevitably going to be disappointed. Because, sooner or later, those "good people" won't be leading, your party won't be in power, and all that power can be turned to other ends, ends which you might find unacceptable. (cf "
Transparency, Corruption and Reform", "
Something We Forget", "
Planning For Imperfection")
Isn't it better to just leave the power in the hands of a lot of individuals, rather than concentrate it in a few hands, hoping that you chose right and didn't give all that power to a monster? Or even that the next election might replace your choice, the right people, with someone who proves to be dangerous? Is it worth that risk to give the right people a tiny bit more power for a brief moment?
POSTSCRIPT
The funny thing is both parties portray their opposite numbers as outright evil. The left portrays the right as evil, racists who would step over corpses to steal a dime. The right portrays the left as clones of Stalin, willing to murder others to create their socialist utopia. Yet members of both camps want to give more power to government, not thinking that eventually that power will be in the hands of people they view as the incarnation of evil.
Does that make sense to anyone? Do they think their party will hold power forever? Or are they simply so short sighted they can't look beyond next week?
(For the record, I do not think either position is evil, though I think most left wing thinking, as well as certain "conservative" philosophies, rests on dangerous premises. As I wrote in "
The Nature of Evil", certain philosophies can lead people to bad results, as the logic of their premises lead to acts that are evil, even if committed from the best of motives.)