What is Government?

What is government? Frederic Bastiat defined government as “the great fiction, through which everbody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” While there is much in this definition to commend itself, the best definition is to say that government is force. To exercise government is to compel other people to engage in behavior, refrain from behavior, or to give of their resources under the threat of violence, either explicitly or implied.

All government activity is performed by the barrel of a gun. In some cases this gun is clearly seen. If someone commits a crime like robbery, then police officers, as agents of the government, will come with guns to arrest the perpetrator. In other cases, the gun is implied. To see the gun, just follow the chain of non-compliance. Harry Browne gives an excellent example in his book Why Government Doesn’t Work :

            Suppose, for example, that you’re a barber. One day the state Board of

Tonsorial Cutters of Hair (BOTCH) issues a regulation to stop “cut-throat

competition” — decreeing that no barber can charge less than $8 for a haircut.

(Many states do have laws prohibiting barbers from charging less than a stated

minimum price.)

                So long as you charge at least $8, you won’t even notice the regulation. But

suppose your price is only $6. Perhaps you’re in a low-income neighborhood

where people can’t afford $8 haircuts, or maybe your shop is new and you want

to attract customers, or perhaps business is slow and you need to stimulate sales.

For whatever reason, suppose you offer haircuts for $6.

                You may be able to get away with this for a month or two. But eventually

the folks at BOTCH will send you a letter, ordering you to desist.

If you comply by boosting your price to $8, you’ll hear nothing more. But if

you keep cutting hair for $6, eventually some men in suits will come to your

shop and warn you to stop undercharging.

                If you continue to ignore the law, you’ll receive a subpoena — telling you to

appear in court. If you don’t show up, or if you ignore the court’s order to raise

your price, your barber’s license will be revoked.

                If you defy the court by continuing to cut hair, another group of men will

come to your shop. These fellows may not be in suits, and they probably will

have guns. They will be there to close your business.

                If you resist, their job will be to “take you into custody” — which is  a

euphemism for seizing you, handcuffing you, and taking you to jail against your

will.

                At this point, it will be obvious that the regulation’s purpose is to force

barbers to charge at least $8 — not by persuasion, but with a gun.

EVERY government activity is an exercise in force. Every government activity is designed to compel its citizens to engage in behavior that they may or may not choose to do voluntarily under the threat of violence. There is nothing voluntary about it. While some may say that they have no problem with paying taxes and support the way that the government spends its money, the threat of force does not disappear, only the appearance of it.

Every time a citizen says “there ought to be a law…” or “government ought to provide…” what they are saying is that people should be forced under the threat of violence to behave in a certain way or fund a program, whether they are willing or not.

This is not to say that some programs are unworthy or have poor intentions. The National Endowment for the Arts is a good example. Art is a wonderful thing. Every civilized society has artists and patrons of the arts. I, myself, love art, theater, and music. Does the worthiness of art in society justify using the threat of violence against its citizenry in order to fund it? I think not. The vast majority of government activities, from patronage of the arts, to funding of scientific research, to aid to the unfortunate can be handled voluntarily, and done so more effectively than government. Just because the intention is good or the program is worthy does not justify the use of government to deliver it.

Do not get me wrong. I am not advocating anarchy. As a Christian, and even as a rational human being, I do see that there is a role for governments. The Apostle Paul speaks of submission to secular governments.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whosoever rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement upon themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also a matter of conscience.- Romans 13: 1-5

Do notice what Paul says government does! Government is the institution charged with maintaining civil order. There is a place for the sword of government in encouraging good behavior and punishing evil behavior. Laws prohibiting theft, rape, murder, fraud, and such are necessary for a civil society. Enforcement of these laws do require use of the sword. Paul did not charge government with the duty of providing alms, subsidizing art, or managing economic activity.

While there are certainly anarchistic arguments for private production of public goods (see The Market for Liberty) I would still argue that it is acceptable for the government to provide TRUE public goods. These are services that benefit ALL of society. These public goods would include roads and infrastructure, police and fire services, national defense, and a fair and impartial judicial system.

While these functions are exercises in force, they can be justified. Maintaining civil order is absolutely necessary. True public goods are absolutely necessary. While there may be the occasional dissenter, any rational person would have no problem contributing to the maintenance of these public goods nor would they dissent to allowing government to maintain reasonable civil order.

The question the citizenry must ask when asking government to do something is “would I personally put a gun to the head of someone to enforce compliance or fund it?” The politician should ask the same question when voting to create or fund a government program or pass a regulation. If you are not willing to get your own hands dirty to pull the trigger yourself, is it right to delegate that to an intermediary (i.e.; the government)?