The Statist Advantage
The nature of any government tends toward being a Frankenstein’s monster mash-up of Bastiat’s "great fiction" and Marx’s idea of “from those, to those".
Not that those paying attention need reminding, but here goes anyway:
The statist left has built-in advantage in America.
The reason for this is that the very nature of government is collective. It trends in that direction simply because it is charged with the collective task of managing a nation composed of individuals with disparate wants, needs, and desires – so it automatically searches for balance between the haves and the have-nots, at all levels. The mere duty of trying to maintain a civil society requires the consideration of entireties of populations, so collectivism is sort of built in.
And that amounts to a built-in advantage for political movements and parties with a collectivist bent.
And the state, through its government, can be overwhelmed with the idea that everything must be done for the good of the whole, no matter what those things are. Like an avalanche, the state picks up speed and power as it hurtles toward the base of the mountain, picking up boulders and trees along the way and creating collateral damage with each foot traveled.
The greatest losers in the avalanche of any state motivated by solely by “the good of the whole” are the individual and his freedom.
James Madison spoke of this when, as Publius, he wrote in Federalist #51:
“…The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Those “auxiliary precautions” of which Publius spoke, became the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.
In a way, the title of “Bill of Rights” is a misnomer. It would be better described as the “Bill of Stuff Prohibited to the State” because it was written, not to inform the people of their rights, but to remind them of the things the state shall not do.
And it is no secret that the very founding principles of our country – the Bill of Rights – can be used against the nation itself.
Governments always tend toward being a Frankenstein’s monster mash-up of Bastiat’s definition of government, that everyone “endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else”, and Marx’s idea of “from those according to their ability to those according to their needs.”
You combine those together and damn; do you ever have a war on your hands.
Real oil and water, gasoline and matches, Johnny Depp and Amber Heard sort of stuff.
It immediately puts the state and the individual at odds with each other, and exactly what the Constitution was designed to prevent becomes a reality.
The individual is placed at a severe disadvantage when faced with a state with practically infinite power and resources.
Frédéric Bastiat’s 1848 essay “Government” clearly identifies this situation:
“In fact, Government is not maimed, and cannot be so. It has two hands – one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that Government can restore to the public more than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.
Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma. If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes – to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quarter the general displeasure.
Thus, the public has two hopes, and Government makes two promises – many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises, which, being contradictory, can never be realized.”
To win such a war against the state, any opposing force must defeat both the political forces supporting the collectivism of the state AND an institution that exists of, in, and for collectivism.
That is why it is not enough to win elections, the institution of government must also be fought and defeated. Elections are easy compared to the real battle which begins after taking office.
Some will posit that the individual in conflict with the state is a natural occurrence, and to a large extent, that is true – and here comes the “but” – but men like James Madison and Frédéric Bastiat recognized human nature, that men are not angels, and simply aggregating humans into a governing body does not make them so. They recognized the “state” is often the excuse men use when doing evil under the guise of doing good.
And that is why they provided guidance for the maintenance of our liberty.
We inhabit a strange battlefield, one with the means of our victory scattered before us.
All that is necessary is for us to take up those means and begin the march toward victory.
Ayn Rand said something along the lines of the natural inclination of government is toward collectivism, and only "revolutionary" force can reverse that tide, temporarily. I've tried googling this and searching for it - it's in one of her books, but I can't find the exact quote. But it's true.
Another excellent essay and analysis. I especially enjoyed reading about the government's "two hands": it reminded me of how so-called charitable institutions (e.g. the Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Obama Foundation) magically transform all of their charitable donations into either political influence or, as in the case of Bill Gates, immediately back into the pockets of the nation's soon-to-be largest and most influential farmer.
Things always look darkest before the dawn, and while George Soros, the World Health Organization, the CDC, GPS Fusion, the Democratic Party, Dominion, the DOJ, the DOD, the State Department, and the completely corrupted United States government seem to have us all completely under their control, there are hints that an ACTUAL revolution (nothing like the FBI-instigated January 6 riot) is about to take place.