In Defense of Government; P. D. Russell

The evil that's committed in the name of government includes economic destruction along with human destruction. To cite but one of hundreds of similar examples, just look around you at the results of government housing programs. For more than half-a-century now, our officials have poured hundreds-ofDr. Russell Is Professor of Management, University of Wisconsin at La Crosse. billions of our tax dollars into pro grams to clean up slums and to help the people who live in them. As a direct result of these governmental activities, we now have more slums (and more slum dwellers) than ever before. These destructive governmental activities have been going on for many thousands of years. The trend appears to be increasing. I have several friends and ac quaintances who have reached the conclusion that the only way to stop this continuing evil is to get rid of the institution that's causing it, i.e., to abolish government itself. But even though I understand their motivation, it's literally impossible for any person or group of persons to abolish government. When they try, they are faced by a sort ofHcatch 22,"

i.e., the persons who abolish gov299 300 THE FREEMAN May ernment are the government, and there's no possible way to get around it. You see, government is not an object. It's a process. And it happens in one form or another when two or more people first meet and decide to cooperate or not to cooperate, as the case may be. It can't be abolish ed (even in theory) for this simple reason: Government is however a people acting together as individ uals. The only situation in which uno government" can exist is when no human beings ever do anything with (or for or against) other human beings. Even then, government hasn't been abolished; it just doesn't exist. Thus the only option open to suc cessful rebels (whether by ballot or bullet) is to change the form of their new government and, of course, to repeal laws they don't like and to add laws they do like. Maximize Self-Government The first preference of every peace-minded person is, of course, to maximize self-government, Le., to settle agreements and dis agreements voluntarily rather than to resort to compulsory processes. In fact, there can be no freedom at all if self-government is totally missing.

But even peaceful solutions to dis agreements are also a method of government; for that process, too, includes procedures for (1) paying for the services of the CCarbitrator," however selected, and (2) what to do when some persons inevitably prove their humanness by finding the ac tions of other persons unacceptable. Thus, while there's no possible way we can abolish the governing process as such-or even perma nently restrict its activities-any one of us can refuse to obey a par ticular law. Many of us do. Much of the enduring literature of mankind is inspired by this ever-present con flict between conscience and con formity. It always encourages me when I hear about a person who refuses to obey a law that's contrary to his or her conscience. Of course, we lawbreakers must pay a price sometimes a fearful price-for our illegal actions. That consequence is hardly sur prising. After all, a law can't be voluntary. That would be a con tradiction in terms. Without excep tion, all laws (all acts of govern ment) compel an unknown number of people to do something we wouldn't do voluntarily. The acts we are compelled (or forbidden) to do may be good or bad. That's another issue, and it's not related to the inherent nature of government it self.

I encountered this no-government or Hvoluntary law" idea in the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1960s. I discovered that intelli gent lawyers in my own New York 1980 IN DEFENSE OF GOVERNMENT 301 chapter of ACLU were using that argument to defend persons who re fused to participate in our war in Indochina. I did my level best to convince the leaders of our organiza tion that they were using an illogi cal (even nonsensical) approach to the problem. I failed to dissuade them. Those leaders were with me com pletely in my opposition to the draft, as well as to our government's deci sion to send troops to Vietnam at all. But in spite of my written· protests and arguments, they continued to use my membership dues to advance the strange idea that laws should be voluntary, i.e., every person should have the right to disobey a law with out penalty if the law is contrary to his moral convictions. That concept (stripped of legal phraseology) was in the mainstream of ACLU defense of draft evaders during the 1960s.

I had been attracted to ACLU be cause of its magnificent work for ((equal treatment under law" for ra cial minorities and most everyone else. I wanted to continue my sup port of that type of work. But I couldn't figure out any way to sup port the one without supporting the other. Thus (with great reluctance) I finally resigned from my longtime membership in ACLU. I just couldn't continue to associate myself with people who participated in such shallow thinking as voluntary law. When all is said and done, the officials of government never deal with nthings" but only with people and our interrelationships. For example, it is impossible to pass a law against high prices. The law is necessarily against persons who raise prices above a level set by an official. Whether or not our govern ment should involve itself in various human relationships is debatable -and is debated. Necessarily the debate always concerns persons, and what we should be compelled to do and forbidden to do. Things, e.g., tides and floods, are not sub ject to man-made laws; only people are.

Do you remember when the Swedish people began their national debate concerning whether or not parents would be permitted to spank their children? We Americans laughed. We shouldn't have. In the United States, we spank our chil dren only with the permission of government. It's always been that way. And if you-the-parent exceed the legal limit of punishment dele gated to you by our government you can end up in jail and have your children taken away from you. Your crime will be called ((child abuse." Personally, I'm in favor of laws against parents who beat up and physically injure their children. And vice versa! We are legally forbidden (as specified by government) from abus ing any human being. The ages of 302 THE FREEMAN May the persons invol ved-and their relationships-doesn't deny this re ality of the purpose of government. And the fact that governments al ways (no exception) exceed the limits of this protective function doesn't deny the logic for legal pro tection against aggressors.

Early Forms of Government Some form of government ap peared when the first two people on earth had their first disagreement or agreement, as the case may have been. The first government was most likely a patriarchal dictator ship; for example, the process of gov ernment followed by Abraham when he decided to sacrifice Isaac. It could have been some form of democracy, however; for example, the type of majority rule followed by Joseph's brothers when they de bated his fate. Nobody knows. We can logically deduce from the inherently self-centered nature of man, however, that some sort of government automatically came into existence whenever two or more people lived in the same neighbor hood. For whatever reason, they ob served at least a few simple rules, with known ways of enforcing them. Even one rule or understanding backed by an effective threat of sanc tions of some sort is, by any defini tion, government.

Whether the particular commu nity is a family, a tribe, or a nation will surely alter the form of gov ernment and how to pay for its ser vices. But that doesn't alter the principle of government. Government in one form or another has existed throughout the thousands (or millions) of years that man has been on this earth. There have never been people without laws and ways to pay the enforcers of the laws, i.e., government. That's persuasive evidence indeed that government is inherent in the na ture of man and his relationships with other human beings. It even supports the idea that government is perhaps as necessary and as natu ral as eating. They both came at the same time and for the same purpose, i.e., survival. True, in our efforts to survive, we human beings do strange things, both individually and collectively. That proves only that we are human beings. A Contradictory Process Another compelling reason why government won't be abolished (even in theory) is that the people who say they wish to do away with it are persons who sincerely want to be helpful. That's why they want to abolish government-because it's evil. And obviously they won't leave in place all those unjust laws that caused them to topple the govern ment in the first place. A clean slate is called for.

How would they go about rectify1980 IN DEFENSE OF GOVERNMENT 303 ing all those bad laws? Surely not by whim or chance. Something more logical is required, such as one final use of the political mechanism itself-for a noble purpose. That's why the philosophers who argue for the abolition of government make this promise in one way or another: First we'll wipe the slate clean by abolishing all those bad laws. Then we'll do away with government it self. But, again, government is not merely a mechanism or thing; it's a continuing process. It continues to exist as long as people continue to exist. It's however people act to gether. And if the rebels refuse to direct this process in one way or another, the deposed leaders of the former government will be happy to return. Thus those good people would have no choice but to use the power of government to do good to you and me in whatever ways that appealed to their particular sense of justice.

Probably the primary difference from what we now have is that the new leaders might well be more dedi cated and sincere than their pre decessors. I'm not· totally convinced Hanford Henderson that would be an improvement. I keep remembering that the Ayatol lah Khomeini is a sincere and dedi cated person who truly wants to do good for mankind. If you doubt it, just ask him. Perhaps we people who so clearly understand the evils committed in the name of government are ill advised to try to gain control of it for any purpose. Perhaps we could more readily accomplish our purpose of maximizing peace and prosperity and self-government in this fashion: just learn how to better explain the meri ts of a readily available alter-' native for most of the activities now performed by government. That alternative is, of course, the market economy of private own.;. ership and freedom of choice. The market, too, is a process. And (ex cept for the power-mad) it's the pro cess most likely to bring to.every one of us whatever it is we most want.

But if we ourselves devote our pri mary efforts to political attempts to gain control of that continuing proc esscalled government, then no one is likely to believe our promise to use it only for good purposes. That's what all the politicians say. , IDEAS ON UBERTY WE ask of the State and Society only one thing-a fair field and no favors . . . a strict cutting' out of all paternalistic activities, and the unfaltering insistence that government shall really perform its basic and fundamental duty, the protection of the individual citizen from violence and interference.