I often hear defenders of libertarianism confidently assert, “I believe people are basically good. We don’t need all this government intervention to keep people in line.” It’s a logical conclusion, of course. But I come at it from the opposite point of view and arrive at the same political philosophy.
Anyone from a historical Christian perspective on human depravity will not accept “people are basically good” as an argument for libertarianism. But I think “people are basically evil” is an even better argument for libertarianism.
Approach it from this question: Who has the power?
In a socialist/big government set-up, the big government has the power. It might be concluded that because people are basically evil, we need a big government with lots of laws to restrain human sin. But that big government isn’t some objective entity; it’s inhabited by people. People who are evil. Which means that instead of a small government with limited power, allowing people to freely go about their business, you have a big government with lots of power being run by evil people. And they also have the power and resources to cover up their evil. Not an ideal situation.
So, I think human depravity is a better argument for libertarianism, where the government’s only role is to keep the people safe and keep the currency sound. Freedom is left for moral choice in each community, and each small community can handle its own issues. Human depravity is a very good reason for small and local, as opposed to big and federal. You can’t expect people who are evil to enforce the good if only you give them enough power to do so. That doesn’t make any sense.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the gulags and concentration camps are exhibits A and B in your argument.
“A government powerful enough to give you everything you want, is also powerful enough to take everything you have.”
Travis,
If each small community is self-governing doesn’t that just change the scale of the same issues? Small communities government can be just as oppressive as large governments, sometimes worse as it can be personal oppression rather than just general policy.
Can you expalin this aspect a little more to me please.
There’s a long answer to this and a short answer. I’ll give the short for now, the long later.
The short answer is that yes, of course small governments can be just as oppressive, but you start by not letting there be a big, impersonal force invading the lives of all the citizens in the country, and then you have limited government at local levels as well. No big or powerful government at any level.
But you can’t even get to the limited-power local community if there’s a big-brother federal government in charge.
I agree with the principle but cannot imagine how you could avoid these issues in practicality because, as you say, people are basically evil- on any scale. But bad small government is the lesser evil. YOu have more of an opportunity to avoid the resources of small government than big.
Tolkien said something like that as he became older he tended towards becomming an anarchist because he realised not one man in a million is equipped to govern others.
Tolkien- “My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) — or to ‘unconstitutional’ Monarchy. I would arrest anybody who uses the word State (in any sense other than the inanimate realm of England and its inhabitants, a thing that has neither power, rights nor mind); and after a chance of recantation, execute them if they remain obstinate!… Government is an abstract noun meaning the art and process of governing and it should be an offence to write it with a capital G or so as to refer to people… The most improper job of any man, even saints, is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.” (Letter #52)
Precisely. I share Tolkien’s view. There are occasional times I get mildly optimistic, but mostly I have dystopian views that agrees with Tolkien’s assessment of history as “the long defeat.”
OK, tough question for you: in 1963 who do you side with, JFK or George Wallace?
I know you don’t support segregation, but if your logic follows you may not say that George Wallace was right, but you’d have to say JFK was wrong.
Here in Australia from time to time comes a call to abolish state governments and/or local governments, reducing our system to a one- or two-tier government (our system is an interesting combination of US/Britain but is essentially Federal). This is championed as producing ‘less government.’
I have always opposed it because it does not make less government but concentrates the power into fewer hands. And that can only lead to trouble. And it is championed by the party that is more interventionist/interfering. Even more dubious.
And that, combined with a society that does what it’s told, scares me.
I’m with you Travis.