An Argument Against Government

Here's something that has fascinated me for quite a while now. I speak for myself when I say this. It's interesting that people on both the Left and the Right can be opposed to and decry monopolies in the private sector but at the same time support the government. If anything, the government is the largest monopoly ever to exist in human history. Take a moment and think about why that is. Here are a few reasons why the government is the single largest monopoly:

1. Control of Money: National governments in most countries have the authority, indirectly through the proxy of their central banks, to issue currency and determine its value. When governments control the printing of money they also have to control the interest rates. Interest is referred to as the "time cost of money." For example, whenever somebody takes out a loan from a bank the borrower is expected to pay back principal plus extra money accrued over the life of the loan which is the interest. Depending on the interest rate a central banks decides to set, borrowing money can either be very costly or very cheap. This give governments pretty much an exclusive monopoly over all economic activity within a country. Those who control the money supply ultimately determine the economic decisions of the citizens.

2. The Rules of the Game: The legislative branch of the federal government has the prerogative to draft rules and regulations that govern the activities of the general population. I would urge people to not take me out of context here: I do not believe there should be NO rules whatsoever. I do believe, however, that bureaucrats and politicians within government are just as ill equipped to write rules as Joey the plumber who lives down the street. Politicians are not autonomous, artificial intelligence robots that can plan for decades into the future for what a modern economy will look like. For crying out loud we can barely predict what the stock price of Apple will be in 10 minutes. Never mind planning for the intricacies and complexities of a 21st Century economy, that is just ridiculous. Often I get accused of not knowing everything. Exactly! That's the point, I don't know the best way to run society. But if I don't know then neither do these sleazy, corrupt politicians being voted into office year after year. You cannot just say that I don't know everything and then say "But yeah man those politicians they know everything, we just have to get the right guy/women into office." To do so would be to set up an arbitrary category of people in society, call it government, and the acquiesce all of our rights to this entity. If we wish to remain morally/philosophical consistent and universal, this contradiction cannot be allowed to stand. This notion is simply delusory as there is no "anointed" man or women or group of men or women. There are simply human beings trying to make the best decisions on how to efficiently distribute resources in society. The idea that any one person would be able to know exactly what everyone in a country wants done and then be able to deliver on that promise would be to pretend that we have infinite resources on a finite planet like money, natural resources, time etc. it's just we aren't trying hard enough. Is it any wonder then that despite all of the new regulations being imposed on say the financial sector the lobbyists and special interest groups continue to find ways around it? As a learned man once said and I paraphrase here: "If you make corruption the source of someone's income, don't be surprised when they become really good at being corrupt."

3. Declaration of War: At the drop of a hat, at any moment, governments can commit citizens to war that can last 15 years. These protracted wars of attrition accomplish nothing and only lead to continued feelings of resentment between countries. The idea that we can solve violence with more violence is one thing that baffles me about discourse in this country. Make no mistake, I am grateful for American veterans who have themselves. What I question is why the strategy of preemptively initiating force and aggression in countries that pose no threat needs to continue? We've tried that regime replacing method for the last 15 years, basically for as long as I have been alive, and the Middle East is not a shinning beacon of Western ideals yet. How many more Hellfire missiles and drone strikes is it going to take before Iran or Afghanistan is a Constitutional Republic? Is there really no other way? Also it's quite easy for politicians to sign off other people's lives to war they are too old to participate and their children are exempt from the Draft. Similar to the moral hazard that happened in 2008 with the housing crisis, it is very easy to make decisions that do not appear to directly affect you. It is other people who must pay for the consequences of your actions whether you are the person voting for the war or the politician who sponsored the legislation. It's all immoral and just plain misanthropic.

To conclude, these are just three reasons why governments are not fit to literally shape the course of human history. Perhaps I have proselytized a few of you out there in the inter-web. If I have, feel free to share this essay with as many people as possible. The truth must be spoken at all costs. If you don't see me posting within the next couple of days, I have probably been arrested and sent to room 101 for my re-education. Live long and prosper my fellow human beings. May the light of philosophy finally shine bright in this age of delusion and darkness. This is Isaac Gage signing off.