Posted August 19, 2002

The Social Contract

Regarding Steven Small on the nature of government (Backtalk, August 14): the "social contract" he refers to is a rather curious type of contract. Apart from being purely metaphorical (and mythical), it differs from any other kind of (legitimate) contract in that one party (the State, society, etc.) can unilaterally decide when the other party is in violation of the contract and hence under obligation to surrender some property. It is not my actions that cause me to be in violation of the contract, but rather the actions of others (e.g., when they vote themselves access to my property, or decide to ban certain activities or transactions).

The "social contract" involves no kind of legitimate exchange, anymore than a victim handing over his wallet to a mugger legitimizes theft. In fact, before any contract can be entered into, both parties presuppose that they are legitimately using the property that the contract concerns; the contract itself cannot establish whether that property is legitimately held. So Mr. Small's comparison of hiring a plumber with the use of government "services" is invalid: he assumes that the government is the rightful owner of the goods it "provides," and that issue is precisely what is in question.

If Mr. Small is looking to learn about "improvement[s] on democracy," not to mention critiques of the concept of "public goods," he is encouraged to consult the works of Rothbard or Hoppe.

~ Dan Mahoney

Democracy

[Regarding Steven Small's letter of August 14:]

...None of us has a contract with the state. The state unilaterally takes our money via force. If you doubt this, stop paying your taxes and see what happens. Taxation is theft, plain and simple. Your plumber analogy totally fails because I can voluntarily contract with any plumber that I wish to. Government doesn't work that way. My disagreement is not with how these services are administered but with the very concept of brute force at the bottom of them. I totally reject the idea of democracy as the worst possible form of government, as did the Founders of the United States. The US is supposed to be a constitutional republic of limited government. That has long since been subverted. I agree with the late Murray Rothbard in advocating the privatization of all state functions, anarcho-capitalism. See Hoppe's Democracy: The God That Failed. Since the USA was born in a violent revolution we are not limited to your bogus "legitimate" means to change things either.

~ Michael Hardesty

Why War

I read with interest your excellent article "How to Destroy America in One Easy Lesson" [Harry Browne, August 16]. I jotted down some of my thoughts on US-Iraq conflict which I list below.

My thoughts on why US will go to war against Iraq:

1. Iraq has 2nd largest known reserves of oil in the world.
2. Bush and his gang are mostly from oil companies. The oil companies are interested in controlling Iraqi oil. They supported both Bush and his father. It is time to collect now for their past and current support.
3. Saddam ... nationalized Iraqi oil 30 years ago. US oil companies want to be back in control of that Iraqi oil....
4. Saddam is supposed to have tried to kill Bush's father. Which may or may not be true.
5. The excuse that is often used in the media to drum up support for war against Iraq is that Saddam is supposed to have weapons of mass destruction, or may develop such weapons in the future. This excuse is a propaganda item to influence the US population and world population to allow US and UK to go to war against Iraq. Other countries that have weapons of mass destruction are US, Russia, Israel, UK, France, China, India and Pakistan. Why not go to war with Russia? Because US knows of the response from Russia. War with Iraq involves only killing Iraqi people with no retaliation by Iraq on US.
6. It is also to ensure that Israel has no opponent in the middle east....
7. Why now? The November elections are coming up soon. As a diversion from the troubles in the US economy. ...

~ Dave C.

That Darling of the Well-Born

Kyle Johnson (["The Founders"] Backtalk, Aug. 14, 2002) misreads my critique (["Standing Army"] August 5) of Justin Raimondo's assertion [in "Attack of the Chicken-Hawks"] that the "Founding Fathers" were wary of a standing army. As I stated in my letter one must distinguish between the so-called Founding Fathers who (craftily) crafted the Constitution and its standing army and the true Founding Fathers who fashioned the Articles of Confederation without any army, standing or otherwise, unless approved and funded by the sovereign states; a concept much more in agreement with our Declaration of Independence.

Any schoolboy worth his books knows the provision for a standing army and that it must be renewed every two years etc. The question is: why was there any provision at all for a standing army? Because those who had exceeded their mandate in discarding the Articles wanted to put teeth behind their new usurpation of power. The only reason they could not make the army permanent in print was due to the strong opposition they would face from the public, as well as the few in the closed Constitutional deliberations who forced the compromise.

But the so-called Founding Fathers won the day if not the argument. They knew that the Constitution they had written had conferred upon the new national government the power to decide the limits upon its own power. Would the proposed Congress ever vote against providing a standing army? A standing army, in the words of Centinel the Anti-Federalist, "That darling and long wished for object of the well-born of America; and which, if we may judge from the principles of the intended government, will be of no trifling establishment, for cantonments of troops in every district of America, will be necessary to compel the submission of the people to the arbitrary dictates of the ruling powers?" Hardly.

And so the proof is in the pudding. Does the two year funding provision, Mr. Johnson, provide any real check upon the danger of a standing army, an army that is part and parcel of the entire apparatus of the national government in extending its control over your life and liberty? I think you know the answer to that question.

~ DW

Sleepwalking

My wife and I agree [with Murray Polner's guest column, "Sleepwalking & Silent"]. We see no benefit in waging war on Iraq. We Americans are under the misguided notion that we have a "divine right" or "divine missionary (really mercenary)" role in world affairs. We must understand as the 6% of the world's population consuming 90+% of the current known world raw materials and resources that we do not have a moral right to determine any number of issues including the sovereignty of another country regardless how see their internal affairs.

We, our current elected leadership, simply does not get it. They are so caught up in being responsive to terrorism that they have forgotten how to govern, how to lead. Had we Americans collectively been alert, enforced our long standing laws on immigration and access to our country, without sacrificing our personal freedoms, we would not find ourselves being led by a small group of wealthy, out of touch people bent on maintaining the status quo of corporate wealth and health at all costs, both domestically and overseas. We forget that we compete for known world resources, we do not have an inalienable right to them -- the world's resources and the world's respect. Who do we think we are?

We have established Israel with a debit card to our national treasury over the years and we, through them, wage a lopsided war against a group of people that never did receive what they were promised by the British and American establishment, post world war II. I wonder if we Americans would go along with what the Palestinian people have had to deal with? Our hands are totally responsible and are directing the "action" in Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and wherever the Israelis deem it appropriate to test our latest military technology against a group of people carrying C-4 strapped to their bodies. They (the Palestinians) get in return Jewish settlements in and on land set aside for a Palestinian state by the Americans and British in 1948 and we tell them they have to get a hold and grip, clap or shackles if you will on their people. They don't understand (the PLO) how important it is for the Israelis to call all the shots with American approval backed up with American tax dollars in the form of F-15s, etc.

A new meaning to Christianity should be becoming clearly evident; we Christians kill in the name of our God because we are right, we need the raw resources and we have been paying for the right to do the killing over the years with our tax dollars. Christianity is our culture and it should be the culture of the rest of the world. That is why our President and his cronies feel this invisibility and predestination to do whatever they, we choose to do, wherever we choose to do it.

We will eventually get it and we will not like what we get as the world's bully.

~ Marc S.

Rationalism Brings Interesting Assumptions

Let's assume that we all agree with the policy of the USA to do wars and kill thousands of people in every country through bombardments, whenever a country is breaking the so-called "international rules". Then we should all do a coalition and start bombardments on the USA because this country is breaking the international rules (environment, nuclear and biological weapons, etc.) much more than any other country. ... As you can see rationalism brings interesting assumptions. I think that the USA has no way other than all empires during human history. USA is leading to empire's death. Any man who knows history and is reasonable can see that.

~ Yiannis T., Greece

Vendetta

Witness the voices of criticism over the coming war with Iraq. In particular Brent Scowcroft. Worked for Bush Sr. Almost a family member, he's so close! Close family friends don't hinder; they help. They help by making it seem as though Daddy says "No" while junior says "Yes". Makes Junior look like he's his own man. Also gives the impression that the war will not be fought as a "vendetta" (since Sr. is against), but will happen because of solid intelligence reports etc.

The latest GOP criticism also gives the impression that there really is a debate. Sort of a moot point seeing that the administration has already crossed the Rubicon.

~ Dr. Paul Kindlon, Moscow, Russia

Previous Backtalk