Power and Government: A Blast from the Very Recent Past

Back to Back “Blasts from the Past” again, and again a very recent one because this is so very topical.  Indiana just shut down with a “stay at home” order except for “essential businesses.” Well, my office is an “essential business” so I continue to go to work every day but, still, it’s hitting a lot of people.  The problem is, where is the government getting the authority to do this?  They have the “power” in that they have folk who will cheerfully use sufficient force to make people comply, but from where do they get the authority to put people on the next thing to house arrest?  And so this Blast from the Past:


militarized police

This one’s a bit of a ramble.

When people talk about the government having the power to do something there are two things they could mean.  The first, which can also be worded as “the right” (governments do not have rights–people have rights–governments have power and authority) to do something, is that they have the legitimate authority to do it.  The second, is the have the main strength, the “force majeure” to impose their will on the populace.  Unfortunately, entirely too many people confuse the latter for the former.

A quote attributed to George Washington (probably erroneously) is “Government is not reason.  It is not eloquence — It is force.  Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.” Whether Washington ever said that, or anything like it, it remains true.  Indeed, “the license to initiate force to achieve certain ends” is a pretty good definition of government.  What makes government different from other forms of organization is that it has some presumed legitimacy in using and initiating coercive force to accomplish at least some ends.  Government can use the threat of force to take money to pay for things like police, defense (and, yes, roads) and have that considered legitimate.  Private individuals or groups cannot.  To accomplish that, government has power in the second sense above–the main strength to impose upon others and force them to behave in certain ways (pay taxes, obey traffic laws, fight in wars, whatever).

This power, this ability to use force, can indeed be necessary.  In the case of invasion, one cannot take the time to discuss everything in committee, to hope to gather up sufficient volunteers to form a force sufficient to stave off the invasion, to hope that others will voluntarily pony up enough resources to arm and equip that force, train it (and that everybody will voluntarily go along with the training and not say “this is BS” and walk out), supply it, and get it to where it needs–all quickly enough to minimize the damage done by the invaders.  Well, one could but the results are unlikely to be anything we would want.  So, someone needs to be able to say “you must provide arms and equipment for a body of fighting men, ready to act at once to resist invasion” and when things happen they need to say “you, you, and you, go here.  Fight there” and so on.  And that someone needs to be able to enforce that promptly, and without debate.  This is an extreme example of the principle but it illustrates the point.  A nation needs the force of the second sense in my opening paragraph.

That government has the power to do something–in that it’s able to marshal sufficient force to impose that something on the populace–however, does not mean that it has the legitimate authority to do so–the “power” in the first sense of my opening paragraph.  It needs that as well.  The areas in which that first sense power can legitimately be exercised, and the limits to which it can be exercised, must also be circumscribed.  It is this limitation, this structure, that differentiates a legitimate government from tyrannical strong-man rule (whether by an individual, a committee, or even a majority of the people).

It was this that the Founders of the United States tried to establish first with the Articles of Confederation and when experience showed that those articles did not grant enough power to central authority to handle even the issues they had at the time, with the Constitution and its first ten amendments, “The Bill of Rights”.  These spelled out certain, specific powers granted to government and further certain things that were placed beyond government’s purview.  The “power” of government in the first sense.

Since then, however, the Government of the United States has grown far beyond those circumscribed limits.  That process began at the very beginning of the nation but was slow for a while.  It gained momentum in the Civil War and its aftermath.  Picked up real speed with FDR and his “New Deal” and made the jump to lightspeed in the 60’s.

Government kept accumulating powers to itself to dictate this, restrict that, control that other thing.  All without bothering to limit itself to those legitimate powers delegated in the Constitution, nor bothering to avoid aspects expressly forbidden.

But, the government had the power (second sense) to do this.  Congress would pass the law.  The President would sign it (or simply not veto it) or Congress would override the veto.  Law enforcement would enforce it.  Worse even, administrative agencies were granted power to create “regulations” which had the force of law, without bothering with the entire legislative process.  And the courts would permit it.

It wasn’t all one way, of course.  The courts would sometimes strike down a provision of law or an entire law.  Sometimes.  And sometimes the courts would find entire new “rights” to use as justification for overturning legitimate functions of government.

Still, the limits on the power (first sense) of government have come to be largely ignored in pursuit of power (second sense) of government.

And we, the people, have largely been forced to stand by and let it happen because the government has had the power (second sense) to enforce those laws.  Voters, entirely too many voters, would let their legislator’s behave this way–largely because they benefit from some aspect and don’t really see the extent of the harm, or they’ve been deceived into believing that the government legitimately has the power (first sense) to do what it’s doing and so…why fight it.  Those few who have are simply called “crazy” and, indeed, many are.  Robert Heinlein said “tilting at windmills hurts you more than the windmill.” Even if the “windmill” really is a giant, few “sane” people will rush headlong into when the only result is to be knocked onto ones backside, bruised and perhaps bloody (or worse, dead).

The problem is, this can only go so far.  Many will be driven to attempt to use existing political mechanisms to try to push things back.  To be honest, I am somewhat skeptical of how likely that is to be for reasons I’m not prepared to go into here.  In addition, there will be other, less acceptable responses. As the power (second sense) outstrips the legitimate power (first sense), more and more people become disturbed by the dichotomy we can expect to see more and more “crazies”. It would not be that there are more crazies, but that the situation has changed so slightly less “crazy” people are driven to act.  Their actions will be horrible, unjustifiable really (through poor target discrimination if for nothing else).  And please note that I am neither endorsing nor encouraging such action.  The prospect, to be honest, terrifies me.  But those “crazies” will serve as a warning of things to come, a “canary in a coal mine” if you will.  And it will come from not just one side.  Resistance, legitimate or otherwise, to the increasing power (second sense) of government will be seen as an attack by those who like the government gaining more power (second sense)–at least when it’s using that power for ends of which they approve.

The problem is, people who like the increasing use of government power (second sense) in causes they favor often don’t recognize that the same increase in power (second sense) will also be used in causes they don’t favor.  And they presume that the problem is the specific causes government power (second sense) is being used for rather than the government exceeding its legitimate power (first sense).  Instead of reducing government to it’s legitimate power (first sense) they try and use its power (second sense) to shut out people who want to use government for things of which they disapprove (while keeping their own use of power (second sense) intact).  That way lies tyranny.

So hang on to your hats, folks.  It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

5 thoughts on “Power and Government: A Blast from the Very Recent Past”

  1. It’s my view that native tyranny can only come about with the consent of a large majority of the population, and most often in the guise of that nation’s political culture. Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mao – all basically put on the mantles of their nation’s previously successful tyrants, and promised a return to the glory days of Peter the Great, Fredrick the Great, King Ferdinand II, Qin Shi Huang, and so on.

    The important thing is that the tyrant is seen by his people as successful, as possessing the ‘mandate of heaven’. Loser tyrants are usually thrown out (if lucky), or just killed- Ida Amin & Shah Pahlavi in the first group, and Ceausescu, Mussolini, Trujillo, Kadaffi, and many others in the second.
    People may admire an oppressor, but they can’t stand a loser or a weakling.

    The problem we face in the USA is that much of the regulatory overreach has the consent of a majority of the people. Most people don’t really grok the scope of regulations and legalese and restrictions until it actually affects them personally. They are ignorant of most of the scope of the laws and regulations, and have the odd belief that the rest doesn’t’ actually apply to them.

    The current firearms & ammo buying panic being a great example. There’s a lot of people in California utterly shocked that they, THEY! weren’t allowed to buy a gun to protect themselves at that very moment. It never really registered that all those bans and restrictions would ever affect them- those were supposed to keep the bad guys from buying mail order gun show assault machine guns!… which they also can’t legally buy, and no one is going to sell to them.

    I suspect that this will have a positive effect on state level gun rights in the years to come, the same way the 1994 Clinton AWB had a serious positive effect.

    Like

  2. Also worth noting that much like a swarm of fire ants, the first ants to reach you will get stepped on, before you get overwhelmed by the rest of the swarm; the first few to resist the tyranny of the government will get stepped on. Hopefully there will be a swarm and hopefully it will be a consolation for you from the afterlife. At what point do you stand up and say “Hell no!”?

    Like

    1. Two things about our current situation.
      1) It’s not that bad yet, and probably better than it was in other periods of American history. Check out the FDR period, when we came dang close to instituting actual Fascism. Pretensions of political persecution isn’t just for Leftist trust fund baby Che cosplayers or ivy league Smash the Patriarchy daddy’s girls.

      2) Any replacement is going to be far, far worse. If the Boogaloo comes, we’re NOT going to get any kind of freedom even remotely close to that of the most blue of People’s Democratic Republic cities have now, no matter which side wins. Once the bullets start flying and battle is joined, the look of the post-war government has nothing to do with the declared ideals, but with the personality of the leader. And a new Cincinnatius would be very very unlikely.

      Like

      1. There is one way in which a “Boogaloo” can lead to an improvement of the situation. As I have mentioned before multiple times the “war” that needs to be won is the culture war rather than the bombs and bullets war. If “we” won a bombs and bullets war without winning the culture war, we’d either have to impose a particular setup by force and restrict the ability of people to participate on ideological grounds, which would make it just another form of tyranny, or we would let people, the very people to whom we’d lost the culture war, participate in which case we’d be right back where we started.

        If you follow me much at all, you know that my outlook politically has generally been pretty dark. Yet lately, I’ve been more hopeful than I’ve been in a long time. There are signs that we’re making what a few years ago I would have thought a truly remarkable amount of progress on that culture war thing. Oh, sure, you wouldn’t know it to listen to the “major media” but that’s simply because they lie through their teeth in the pursuit of “political truth.” We have, however, been working around them to a large extent and they’ve gotten more and more shrill, driving more and more people away as the masks continue to become more threadbare.

        Their response is to turn up “fraud by mail”, “early frauding”, and “same day registration to fraud.” And that’s the sign of hope because that means that even they don’t trust their position in that culture war. Indeed, their very cacophony bears all the marks of a revitilization movement, the “doubling down” of core cultural tenets in an attempt to shore up a losing position.

        And the “fraud by mail” et al that opens the door for a possible….possible “Boogaloo” type response. You see, if we do have the upper hand in the cultural war (do not trust what the news outlets tell you), then simply going “Battle of Athens, Ga” on a national scale is what would be required. Enforce actual honest elections and an honest count and let the people make their actual voices heard.

        Strip away the fraud and the results might surprise you.

        Like

        1. The 1972 election was a good example of an election with the fraud stripped away. McGovern won against the best efforts of the Dem Establishment (especially the Chi Town crowd), so the Dem Establishment didn’t throw their machinery into action. Result- Nixon landslide.

          My suspicion is that the current crisis will knock the whole snowflake thing down a few notches. One may rightly argue that the panic and measures taken are a bit overblown, but it is forcing people to think about a lot of things they normally ignore- mortality, finances, ‘prepping’, personal security when law enforcement isn’t active, the unavailability of government services, what is essential- all of it.
          Snowflakery depends entirely on the charity of others, and that gets pretty short during these kind of times.

          The Higher Ed Ponzi Scheme is also going to seriously suffer from this, and it’s a good thing.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s