Apologies for the several missed installments. Thanks to a combination of family obligations and gremlins destroying my equipment, this is my first chance to post since Thursday. I was tempted to post multiple quotes to make up for the missing ones, but decided to save good quotes for future posts instead, so I can give each the proper attention, rather than rushing through four mediocre posts to make up for missed days.

Today's quote is foolish in itself, but also points to an issue I have addressed before, and which I find important. So, here is our stupid quote of the day, from the witty, but hit or miss, H.L. Mencken:

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Now, I admit I have something of a soft spot for Mencken, despite his many shortcomings. He was, first, from one of my former hometowns, Baltimore (I consider Baltimore and Annapolis both my homes, as I feel comfortable in both in a way I never did in Frederick MD, though I lived there for years.)  Second, his writing often manages to elicit at least a chuckle, even if I disagree with him, which is quite an accomplishment.

On the other hand, I have quite a few objections as well. First, his cynicism seems to be a precursor of the modern know it all attitude which I find so annoying. ("The Era of the Cocky Know It All") Second, I also find a strain of elitism, rather common among cynics, which is not just annoying, but rather unseemly. (I find the older I get, the less I can stand those who write as if author and reader were part of an elite, mocking those they discuss.) I could probably find a few more, including, to some degree, the mainstream complaints about his racial views (though they suffer, to some degree, from anachronistic moralizing, there is still some validity to them), but let us just leave it at this: I have mixed feelings about the writing of Mencken. I find him amusing, and sometimes insightful, but I also find traces in his writing of much of what I dislike about our modern culture.

But let us move on and look at this specific quote, rather discuss the man in general.

At first glance, I think many might find nothing objectionable about this quote. Then again, many have no objection to describing government as a necessary evil, either, while I find both problematic statements. In both cases, the assumption is that government, even in the absolutely best case, can be nothing more than a useful tyranny. And that is the larger perspective I wanted to examine, the concept that government can never be good, that it is inherently evil

I will be the first to admit government is often a problem in itself. Our modern state is a perfect example of this, providing some essential services, but more often restricting our freedoms, confiscating our possessions and otherwise limiting or injuring us. Even when it means well, even when laws are enacted with the most altruistic motives, it ends up hurting us. So, it is easy to see how the state could come to be seen as inherently evil, how the many neo-anarchist and extreme libertarian philosophies could arise. ("Tyranny Without Tyrants", "The State of Nature and Man's Rights", "In The Most Favorable Light", "With Good Intentions")

However, that is the wrong way to understand government. It is akin to the error I discussed in "Perverting Self Interest ", looking at how businessmen behave under an interventionist system, and then blaming them for exploiting government power. In this case, we are looking at the many interventionist states, and assuming there can never be better. And that is a mistake. A state is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used well or badly. When used well, it accomplishes its goals, when used badly, it doesn't, or it does, but at a high cost. But until we understand the proper role of government, until we ask for the powers of the state to be used properly, it is foolish to look at the states around us and take them as representing all possible forms of government. ("The Single Greatest Weakness")

So, can a state exist which is not a necessary evil?

Yes and no.

I know that sounds like a cop out, a way to dodge a difficult question, or to refuse to admit defeat, but in truth, it is the best answer I can give, but only because we are using such ill defined terms. You see, "evil" is a meaningless word, or at least a term with such an elastic definition that it is difficult to use it in a meaningful argument.

Let me avoid the word evil for a moment, and answer this way instead. There will never be a state which does not in some way limit individual freedom, as that is the purpose of states. If one adopts a view that any restriction of freedom is invalid, then no, the state will always be evil. On the other hand, if one recognizes that in a state of nature, the concept of rights does not have any meaning ("The State of Nature and Man's Rights"), and understands that a reciprocal restriction upon freedoms is valid ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government"), then it is quite possible to see the trade offs demanded by a minimal state as quite valid, and thus not evil in any meaningful sense.

Which is why, though I suppose some extreme libertarians may disagree, I have to say this is a stupid quote. Granted, most men should be ashamed of the present governments under which they live, it is wrong to make of that shame an absolute rule, as it is quite possible that one day one or more states would exist which would be sources of pride, not embarrassment.

Before I end, however, there is one more topic.

In reading the quote, my first inclination was to read the quote as I discussed above. Reading it again, I considered whether or not I might have read it wrong. Perhaps it is not the government itself. Maybe he is deploring the deeds necessary for men to achieve government office. Or perhaps the way in which government officials pander to the electorate. It seems an odd way to phrase such an objection, but as it is a possible reading, I should give it a moment's response.

And a moment is really all it takes, as the answer to any such objection, to complaints that politicians try to buy voters with gifts, or give speeches pandering to our base desires, is to point out that politicians are what we make them. ("What We Deserve", "Who Is To Blame?", "Don't Blame the Politicians") The political arena is a Darwinian environment, but in fast forward. Politicians adjust instantly to our wishes, those who do not are removed. Unlike the real world, where traits which are harmful (eg. Huntington's chorea) may persist, even the slightest deviation from the wishes of the public tends to bring about loss, as some rival will quickly exploit the opportunity. Similarly, in the real world traits which are neutral in an evolutionary sense, which neither help nor hurt, tend to remain, while in politics activities or beliefs which do not advance one's prospects tend to be, not neutral, but harmful, as the limited time available in a political campaign makes every moment important.

The point of all this is that there is nothing politicians do which is not the result of our own behaviors. If they regulate businesses it is because enough of us want them to do so. Likewise, if they eschew elaborate explanations for visceral, brief soundbites, it is because we show preference for them. So, while it may make us feel superior to look down upon politicians for pandering to the masses, recall we are part of those masses, and, unless we are so arrogant as to see everyone else as our inferiors, we have to admit politicians are as bad as they are because we make them that way.

As I said, I think that latter reading is far less likely than the former, but I thought I should deal with both. However, whichever reading you choose to accept, the fact remains that the quote itself is deserving of the designation "stupid quote of the day".

POSTSCRIPT

My quote today, and the one I intend to use tomorrow, came from the site "Libertarian Quotes", which contains a fairly representative sampling of quotes that represent the libertarian mindset. Actually, that is part of the reason I found some useful quotes there. Much as I agree with the basic premises of libertarianism, I also have trouble with many specifics, as well as the premises of various factions among the libertarians. (See "The Libertarian Left" and "Why Ron Paul Scares Me".) Not to mention that I have come to disagree with the entire premise of enforcing freedom from above, rather than creating an environment where freedom may eventually triumph ("Why I Am Not A Libertarian") Still, it is interesting that, while I found a number of foolish quotes, I also found many with which I agree completely, so I have to recognize that, while I have my problems with libertarianism ("Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation", "The Right Identity") I also share much of their outlook.