The Impossibility of Limited Government
In his lecture, The Impossibility of Limited Government, Hans-Hermann Hoppe examines three sources of American national pride. The sources include, (1) America’s colonial past of natural human liberty, (2) the original American revolution, and (3) the American constitution. In Professor Hoppe’s view the first two are justified sources of pride, but the third represents a fateful error.
In an interesting, enlightening and entertaining lecture, Hoppe rigorously applies economic theory to the American constitution and outlines the anarcho-capitalist alternative of the provision of security in a free society, and how such reform can be brought about.
The 47 minute audio lecture (mp3 file, 8.1 megabytes), was part of the Reassessing the Presidency conference. Be aware that there is a gap in the audio from the time 23:20 to 24:05.
His related paper is The Private Production of Defense.
© Danny Haynes
nicholas gray, 6 January 2009, 13:03:
I’m back! The book sounds like a good one! I once wanted to know if it was alright for christians to rebel against their governments, if the governments did bad things. St. Paul advises submission to the governing authorities, after all. But the history of Israel shows that complaint and secession are valid options- witness the splitting of the kingdom after King Soloman. (to your tents, oh Israel!)
I think the Americans go too far in calling it a revolution, since my dictionary defines a revolution as an overthrow of the center, and london was the center of the Empire, and was not overthrown. The war of Secession sounds right.
Also, we sometimes take some of Jesus’s sayings out of context. One of the speeches about submitting, when you study the context (you will go to jail and pay everything you owe), sounds like Jesus was speaking to a guilty man who wanted to avoid his debts! This is not meant as general advice to innocent people.
So it is possible for nations to rebel against unjust governments, and to secede. John Locke gives us good reasons for this.
As to flaws in the American Constitution, I think the ability to create standing armies is a flaw. Volunteer militia should be the only armed forces- perhaps a condition of citizenship could be such training at a local level. And abolish all taxes at all levels, or govmints will just grow like any weed.
Danny Haynes, 8 January 2009, 21:05:
In my view, in certain (rare) circumstances, a Christian would be justified in disobeying the orders of a government, but must be prepared to accept (submit to) the consequences. This disobedience must be peaceful and uphold the character of God.
nick gray, 4 February 2009, 16:29:
But can Christian States rebel, as the Americans did? They believed they were right to do so. Were they wrong?
Danny Haynes, 5 February 2009, 12:38:
Hi Nick, in my comment above, I was thinking about an individual issue like being conscripted into the military.
In your comment, I take it you are referring to the secession of the southern states from the united states in 1861.
First, I don’t think you could describe any state as ‘Christian’. A Christian is a person who is a follower of Jesus Christ. The state is an organisation set up by people, an entity separate from its people. While the great majority of it’s subjects may be Christian people, this does not make a state ‘Christian’. While you could stretch the term to describe particular church or charitable organisations, given the nature of a state (a territorial monopolist on ultimate decision making, with the power to tax), I don’t see how a state could be described as Christian. The state is a secular organisation.
Second, it seems to my untrained eye, that the commandment to submit to the governing authorities (Roman 13:1-7) is directed towards individual Christians, not secular organisations like the state. Nevertheless, it is an issue for Christian people acting through the state, but if there is a lawful right to secede, then there is no problem. I’m not sure how the commandment to submit to governing authorities would apply to the state. How could an independent state submit to itself?
Finally, if the southern states were independent and had a right to secede, then it cannot be described as rebellion. In my view they did have such a right. On this issue, I would highly recommend The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas Woods.
nicholas gray, 6 February 2009, 15:33:
Actually, i meant the original war, called the American Revolution, though it was more like an act of secession. the definition of revolution means the government gets overthrown, and that didn’t happen. King George continued on for many a year afterwards.
All the states had Christian constitutions, and were settles by people who wanted to establish ‘paradise’ on Earth. Did those states have a right to secede? God allowed the Northern Israelites to secede from Judah and Jerusalem, when Solomon’s taxes were very onerous, so states seem to have a right to go their own way, so long as there is a cause. This implies that the colonies had a right to selfgovernment, as did the southern states. When Christians were minorities, they had to tolerate the magistrates, but when the magistrates are Christians, they can be held accountable by Christians.
This still leaves some questions unanswered- my taxes pay for abortions through Medicare, so should I pay taxes that will be used immorally? I suppose the answer is to pay taxes, and let the tax authorities do whatever they like with what is now their money- just as I don’t inquire what will be done with money used to buy things in the marketplace. And I can claima right to secede and start a society run on moral lines, if I really want to make a difference.
nicholas Gray, 13 February 2009, 14:49:
Dan,
I commented earlier, but my comment seems to have disappeared.
I was originally writing about the War of Independence, but the Secession issue is also good.
They called themselves Christians, and even thought they were fighting for the rights of Englishmen, originally. The British Parliament did not recognise a right to secede.
As for taxes being used for immoral purposes, I have finally realised that this is a weaker argument than I thought. I don’t ask the baker or butcher how they will use whatever money I swap for their goods or services, so I should not worry what use the state might make of the money, so long as I am not compelled to perform antichristian acts.
Still, the Northern Israelites did rebel with God’s blessing, so some rebellions are allowed, depending on circumstances.
Danny Haynes, 14 February 2009, 12:24:
Hi Nick, my apologies for not showing your comments earlier. I have shown your comments now, and will follow up with a comment soon.
Danny Haynes, 17 February 2009, 13:45:
We must distinguish the paper laws of the state from natural law. While an individual state constitution may or may not allow secession, I believe there is a natural right to secede from a federation of states, or from a state. The natural right “to alter or to abolish” government is recognised in the Declaration of Independence (1776).
While I haven’t read this book myself, I understand you may enjoy No Treason by Lysander Spooner on this topic.