From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Dec 30 2002 - 21:11:59 MST
On Monday, December 30, 2002 7:54 PM Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:
>> First, not all "third-world banana republics" drag
>> people off for every little offense. The record
>> here is spotty and one of the big differences
>> between a banana republic and full fledged
>> totalitarian state is how uneven the authoritarianism
>> is enforced.
>
> Sorry, I don't quite follow. Are you saying that full-fledged
> totalitarian states have more uniform oppression?
Basically. It tends to be more efficient at that than banana
republics -- at least the examples of the latter I know of, such as
Mexico in former years (though the jury still out on whether it's gotten
past that stage recently).
> If so, I
> agree. I would also say, however, that any
> technologically advanced nation is apt to
> enforce its laws more uniformly.
This is true if only because enforcement because easier with better
transport and communication technology.
> In the U.S., however, the great profusion of
> laws devolves real power back to into the
> hands of individuals, either the cop on the
> beat or the judge ruling from the bench.
> Moreover, the notion that the law should not
> be interpreted literally has helped to further
> uneven enforcement.
I'd like to believe that too, but the truth is the profusion of laws has
led to those who are more politically connected or legally astute being
able to use the law against those who are not so connected or who are
ignorant. In some cases, no doubt, this helps the cause of individual
liberty, but that's sort of like the broken window fallacy applied to
law. Some bad laws or bad legal systems have unintended good
consequences. However, I suspect this legal chaos actually serves the
opposite cause -- here allows the government to use all kinds of
provisions to protect itself and attack others.
>> wouldn't you agree that the US government
>> now is more a threat to freedom -- I mean the
>> freedom of Americans NOT just foreigners
>> -- than in 1776 or 1789 or 1800 or 1900?
>
> The *federal* government is indeed now more of
> a threat, but I would say that government as a
> totality is less of one. The reason for this is that
> you have many kinds of legal appeal available
> now that were not available earlier.
For those who can afford it, maybe. For those who can't, if your cause
is unpopular or not worthy of attention from the Media, you might be in
dire straits. Also, a lot more today is illegal or falls under some
government provision at any level.
> I do note your fine choice of dates, however ;-)
Do not make too big a deal of this. I just rushed the email off.
> You didn't happen to choose 1846, 1864, 1917,
> or 1942.
Those -- with maybe the exception of 1846; I'm not as familiar with the
Mexican-American War -- years were years of explosive growth in
government which lends support to Robert Higgs' thesis in _Crisis and
Leviathan_: that government grows most during crises and then never
shrinks back to its precrisis size. To take but one example, during the
US Civil War, the Federal government intervened severely in the banking
system. After the war, the banking system did not go back to the
[semi-] free banking system that existed before it. Instead, the
Federal government continued to meddle in the banking system extending
its powers (sometimes at the behest of powerful interests in the banking
industry, such as the Morgans) until eventually the Federal Reserve
System arose.
Anyhow, this racheting up of government power was not something I was
denying. I do not see it as a steady growth, but periods of relative
stability, followed by periods of rapid growth, followed by periods of a
little pull-back. Even so, the 20th century appears to have been a
watershed. Government growth -- in the US and Europe -- has really been
rapid. Crises appear closer together and the spread of democracy has
removed most brakes on power. (I'm not sure there're more crises by any
measure, but the kind of special interest organization coupled with the
growth of government intervention in all aspects of life has led to any
crisis being a chance for any group to make a grab for something. In
former times, such crises probably had a similar rate, but the state and
special interests did not have the apparatus to exploit them.)
> Clearly a great deal depends on our emotions,
> through which we tend to view practically
> everything. For some people, the U.S. is
> presently at war. They'll keep on feeling this
> way until they get used to a background of
> minimal and ongoing minor threats.
But the truth is, there has been no declaration of war. Without such,
don't you think these legal machinations should be curbed? I don't mean
letting them run their course will find all of us locked up by
Independence Day, but it certainly does not paint an optimistic picture
for the future of freedom in America.
> On the other side, people would feel much
> differently if each day another American city
> went up in a nuclear blast. I dare say that
> they'd be more frantic than any of today's
> extremists, would demand that "something be
> done", and wouldn't worry too much about a lot
> of suspects being summarily rounded up and
> held without bail, or going to internment camps.
Happily, no city since 1945 has gone up in a nuclear blast. If that
happened again, yes, I agree, more people would be calling for more
draconian measures. However, if that happened long enough -- if cities
kept going up -- the government would probably not last long as a unit,
since it would not be able to defend itself. Surely, local units and
the military would probably assert themselves, but only at the expense
of Federal power.
I'm not looking forward to such a prospect. Also, there's little the
current government or any government could do to stop this scenario from
eventually playing out. (I'm not sure how much it can do to delay it
either, since by getting more involved, this would only make more pariah
states and groups rush frantically to get and use such weapons, don't
you think? What would you do in their shoes?) Let's face it, nuclear
weapons are going to proliferate. If not next year, in the next ten or
twenty years. (Heck, look at the track record of the last ten years.
At least two new nuclear powers have been added to the list -- India and
Pakistan -- and one of them is a military dictatorship that sponsors
terrorism against the other.) This is why, again, I advocate space
migration. Let's leave the madhouse instead of debating over whether
government X or government Y is better. (Or, at least, move away from
any likely targets, such as large cities or capitols.)
Best wishes for 2003!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:58 MST