Has "Limited Government" Become a Contradiction in Terms?

Question

When a government makes it more attractive to ride in the wagon than pull it, those pulling get frustrated and discouraged, while the wagon load gets heavier.

"There will never be a free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
- Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience" (1849)

Answer 1

Over 200 years ago, the Scottish historian Alexander Tyler stated that democracies exist only until people realize that by capturing government they can enrich themselves. After that, though the form of democracy may endure, the substance will be lost.

Thoreau was an idealist, and like all others of his ilk, he failed to regard the negative consequences of his own propositions. How does the thought strike you that there is no contradiction between the all powerful, all controlling state, and what Thoreau says?

How does the proposition strike you that what people want (as expressed by the democratic process) is greater security from want, and greater fulfillment of desire? The growth of government power isn't some back-room conspiracy of a few power hungry maniacs -- it's the direct result of politicians giving the people what they're crying out for -- MORE!!!!

[EDITORIAL NOTE: If this concept doesn't quite make sense; please refer to Dostoevsky. His section from "The Brothers Karamatzov," entitled, "The Parable of the Grand Inquisitor" deftly lays out the chilling argument that people want to get rid of the burden of freedom as quickly as they can].


It is simply the nature of power that any government big enough to give you what you want, of necessity, must also be a government big enough to take from you everything that you have.

If you really want "limited government" you can have it. But you can only have it if you are prepared to accept total responsibility for every outcome in your life, and not ask for government assistance when things go wrong. And the incontrovertable fact is, the people have rejected this notion. The "power and authority of the individuals" as expressed at the ballot-box has spoken over the decades, and the politicians have simply listened, and given the people what they want.

What Thoreau is naively assuming is that people actually want government off of their backs, and are willing to assume the full burdens of their existences. He's wrong. People want the freedom to do as they please; but when things go badly, they want (and indeed, expect) the government to step in to make things right. This duality of desires inevitably leads to decadence and a diminution of the human spirit. This is EXACTLY what the great prophet, Aldous Huxley tried to warn us about in his masterpiece, "Brave New World;" and people still don't get the message. "The People" want to be taken care of; and out of respect for the "Will of the People," the government is increasingly giving the people what they want. But what the people want is ultimately destructive of the very spirit of freedom the people claim they wish to protect.

The journalist H. L. Mencken once said that Democracy is the theory that "The common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it -- good and hard." He's right.