Last Saturday in a commencement speech, our President enlightened thousands of lucky college graduates with this gem of political philosophy:
"For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us. We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.
Government is the police officers who are here protecting us and the service men and women who are defending us abroad. Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe. Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them. Government is this extraordinary public university – a place that is doing life-saving research, catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small."
At least he got one thing right: "The truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades between more government and less government doesn’t really fit the times in which we live."
The times certainly call for different debates, which is why this forum exists!
This speech also brought to mind a quote from our first President: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
I thought someone might have fun translating President Obama’s fine rhetoric. I would also like to pose the question: Does he really believe this?
I don’t really see why it matters what he believes. He is an actor. His role is to make speeches and look presidential. His role is to give people the illusion of choice while they are being robbed blind.
“Government is the service men and woman who are defending us abroad.”
I agree completely, Nielsio. I just have this weird desire to get inside the minds of people like Obama and know what they truly believe. It’s like watching a moviestar on screen, and then wondering what they’re like as a real person.
For example, in that video did Obama let slip that he is actually a closet-libertarian who reads Rothbard?
My philosophy and history teachers, who were right-wing activists, told our class that the state is the monopoly of violence, the governement is the only one to have the right to use force, to put people in jail, to tax people even if they don’t want to. And that’s a good thing, because if the state wasn’t there, it would be the anarchy and everybody would kill each other and rape your grandmother.
Yeah, so you don’t need to be a libertarian to say that…
Yeah, you guys are absolutely right. I’m just not used to hearing the phrase “monopoly of violence” from non-libertarians. That’s a pretty good way to divide people: those who think this monopoly benefits society and those think it doesn’t. It just seems like when you put it in those terms, the case for libertarianism or anarchy becomes much more clear. So most collectivists won’t say the state has a monopoly of violence. They’ll just say government is for the greater good of society, or something like that…
But why worry about the weakness of limits on governmental power? Especially in a “democracy,” in the phrase so often used by American liberals in their heyday before the mid-1960s when doubts began to creep into the liberal Utopia “Are we not the government?” In the phrase “we are the government,” the useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the naked exploitative reality of political life For if we truly are the government, then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and not tyrannical, it is also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group on behalf of another, this reality of burden is conveniently obscured by blithely saying that “we owe it to ourselves” (but who are the “we” and who the “ourselves”?) If the government drafts a man, or even throws him into jail for dissident opinions, then he is only “doing it to himself” and therefore nothing improper has occurred Under this reasoning, then, Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and therefore anything the government did to them was only voluntary on their part But there is no way out of such grotesqueries for those supporters of government who see the State merely as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public
Read more: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard
If the Congress is not us who is it? A bunch of representatives representing whom? They represent the people who vote for them. I’m one of those people.
Moreover, what is government if not a tool? It’s not a man, it has no thoughts. It’s just a set of institutions. Buildings with people in them. The government is not some alien threat, not some demon. It’s a man-made instrument. The people that work for the government are people like all other people, there is nothing special about them, nothing unique, they are not demons. The only thing special about the government as a tool, imo, is the power it can wield through collective force. That is why I am both frightened of government and at the same time in love with government.
What about people who can’t vote? People who don’t go to the polls (be it because their political beliefs preclude it or simple apathy)? How can an individual appointed by less than 50, or even 30% of US citizens (and that’s only counting those on the electoral roll) conceivably be said to be a representative of the US citizenry? Foreign ministries can recall and fire ambassadors and consuls. People can hire and fire their lawyers and other legal representatives. Stockholders can (as much as restrictions and regulations impede them in doing so) fire their CEOs. It would seem that representation is not really the right word here, unless you reserve a seperate definition of such exclusively for elected officials.
You’re right, some groups of people are underrepresented. But I generally feel very well represented by the Republican Party. Many people feel very well represented by the Democrat Party. The Congress is made up of people who got elected in their districts because a majority of people in that district supported him/her. So the government is the people. Or at least people like me. Maybe not people like libertarians but libertarians are an extreme minority.
And no, people can’t just immediately fire their representative if they disagree with them, but they can always participate in the next election cycle and vote for someone different. I know libertarians aren’t satisfied with that, but that’s the game. Libertarians are malcontents who never get what they want, but I get what I want all the time with government. So I agree with Obama’s sentiments even though I don’t agree with all his policy decisions.
Perhaps my phrasing was poor. You are correct that anti-vote/apolitical folks are rare, but what about those who don’t vote at all? The US has some of the lowest voter turnouts in the world. And that’s not even taking into account things like broken election promises and false political rhetoric.
Do you feel well represented by democrats as well? They do all the same stuff.
Representation =/= is. Obama is not the same person as his voters. Congress are not the same people as their constituents. As Rothbard pointed out, people do not throw themselves in jail.
The very best you can say is that representatives carry out the interests of people inso far as these interests can be harmonized. I think the only reason there appears to be a ‘majority’ in the united states is that we basically have only two parties. 100%/2 = 50% then +/- random variation = 49%, 51% woohoo. I bet if there were three major parties in the election cycle the whole thing would look a lot more stupid with a president winning on 34% of the vote.
Heh. You want war, poverty, and slavery? We want peace, prosperity, and freedom. Good job getting what you wanted!