An Open Letter to Statists Everywhere
Ever-Expanding Government Burdens Us All
Dear Statist Friends:
I know, I know. You’re already objecting to my letter. You don’t like the label “statist.” You don’t think of yourselves as worshipping government; rather, you think of yourselves as simply wanting to help people, with government being your preferred means to achieve what is usually a very worthy end. “Statist,” you say, is a loaded term—a pejorative that suggests an overweening, irrational kinship with the state.
Well, let’s wait and see how the term stacks up after you’ve read my whole letter and answered its questions. Meantime, if you have any doubt about whether this missive is directed at you, let me clarify to whom I am writing. If you’re among those many people who spend most of their time and energy advocating a litany of proposals for expanded government action, and little or no time recommending offsetting reductions in state power, then this letter has indeed found its mark.
You clever guys are always coming up with new schemes for government to do this or that, to address this issue or solve that problem, or fill some need somewhere. You get us limited-government people bogged down in the minutiae of how your proposed programs are likely to work (or not work), and while we’re doing the technical homework you seldom do, you demonize us as heartless number crunchers who don’t care about people.
Sometimes we all get so caught up in the particulars that we ignore the big picture. I propose that we step back for a moment. Put aside your endless list of things for government to do and focus on the whole package. I need some thoughtful answers to some questions that maybe, just maybe, you’ve never thought much about because you’ve been too wrapped up in the program du jour.
At the start of the 1900s, government at all levels in America claimed about 5 percent of personal income. A hundred years later, it takes more than 40 percent—up by a factor of eight. So my first questions to you are these: Why is this not enough? How much do you want? Fifty percent? Seventy percent? Do you want all of it? To what extent do you believe a person is entitled to what he (or she) has earned?
I want specifics. Like millions of Americans planning for their retirement or their children’s college education, I need to know. I’ve already sacrificed a lot of plans to pay your bills, but if you’re aiming for more, I’m going to have to significantly curtail my charitable giving, my discretionary spending, my saving for a rainy day, my future vacations, and perhaps some other worthwhile things.
I know what you’re thinking: “There you go again, you selfish character. We’re concerned about all the people’s needs and you’re only interested in your own bank account.” But who is really focused on dollars and cents here, you or me?
Why is it that if I disagree with your means, you almost always assume I oppose your ends? I want people to eat well, live long and healthy lives, get the prescription drugs and health care they need, etc., etc., just like you. But I happen to think there are more creative and voluntary ways to get the job done than robbing Peter to pay Paul through the force of government. Why don’t you show some confidence in your fellow citizens and assume that they can solve problems without you?
We’re not ignorant and helpless, in spite of your many poorly performing government schools and our having to scrape by with a little more than half of what we earn. In fact, give us credit for managing to do some pretty amazing things even after you take your 40 percent cut—things like feeding and clothing and housing more people at higher levels than any socialized society has ever even dreamed of.
This raises a whole series of related questions about how you see the nature of government and what you’ve learned, if anything, from our collective experiences with it. I see the ideal government as America’s founders did—in Washington’s words, a “dangerous servant” employing legalized force for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. As such, it is charged with deterring violence and fraud and keeping itself small, limited, and efficient. How can you profess allegiance to peace and nonviolence and at the same time call for so much forcible redistribution?
Don’t invoke democracy, unless you’re prepared to explain why might—in the form of superior numbers—makes right. Of course, I want the governed to have a big say in whatever government we have, but unlike you I have no illusions about any act’s being a legitimate function of government if its political supporters are blessed by 50 percent plus one of those who bother to show up at the polls. Give me something deeper than that, or I’ll round up a majority posse to come and rightfully claim whatever we want of yours.
Why is it that you statists never seem to learn anything about government? You see almost any shortcoming in the marketplace as a reason for government to get bigger but you rarely see any shortcoming in government as a reason for it to get smaller. In fact, I wonder at times if you are honestly capable of identifying shortcomings of government at all! Do we really have to give you an encyclopedia of broken promises, failed programs, and wasted billions to get your attention? Do we have to recite all the workers’ paradises that never materialized, the flashy programs that fizzled, the problems government was supposed to solve but only managed into expensive perpetuity?
Where, by the way, do you think wealth comes from in the first place? I know you’re fond of collecting it and laundering it through bureaucracies—“feeding the sparrows through the horses” as my grandfather once put it—but tell me honestly how you think it initially comes into being. Come on, now. You can say it: private initiative.
I’ve asked a lot of questions here, I know. But you have to understand that you’re asking an awful lot more in blood, sweat, tears, and treasure from the rest of us every time you pile on more government without lightening any of the previous load. If anything I’ve asked prompts you to rethink your premises and place some new restraints on the reach of the state, then maybe the statist label doesn’t apply to you. In which case, you can look forward to devoting more of your energies to actually solving problems instead of just talking about them, and liberating people instead of enslaving them.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W. Reed
Pingback by Lawrence W. Reed on statists « Reassuring Quotes on 12 November 2011:
[...] L.W. (2000). An Open Letter to Statists Everywhere. Available: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/an-open-letter-to-statists-everywhere/. Last accessed 13th Nov [...]
Comment by New England Patriots on 4 February 2012:
Its like you read my mind! You show up to uncover out so a lot about this, like you authored the e book in it or something. I think that you just could do with some pics to generate the message residence only a tiny bit, but other than that, that is awesome blog.
Comment by Dave DiRienzo on 26 February 2012:
When you argue that the government used to take 5% of income, that the overhead of the government was different. They didn’t have to pave millions of miles of roads. The army needed a limited number of weapons, and all of them were relatively cheap. There were no planes, no nucle ar submarines, no nuclear power plants. There were only 47 states, all clumped together. There were fewer people
Comment by Joe Average on 26 February 2012:
“There were fewer people” ??? What? That’s the best reason you can come up with for a federal government that intrudes on every single aspect of American life?
More people and more “projects” don’t excuse the invasion of my life and my wallet. How do you think roads, railroads, and bridges were built before the 1900s?
The fact is that the feds have purposely intruded into American life (and the lives of those in other countries as well) for one reason: the desire for power and control.
Pingback by The Freeman: An open letter to statists everywhere « Quotulatiousness on 26 February 2012:
[...] a posting from twelve years ago, Lawrence W. Reed has some questions he’d like statists to [...]
Comment by Scottm1207 on 26 February 2012:
As I’ve often asked “if neo-commie ideas are so good and virtuous then why do they all have to be imposed by the full force of government”?
Comment by Robert Fellner on 5 March 2012:
So very well said.
Comment by The Voice of Reason on 5 March 2012:
Living in 1900, you could look forward to dying from the flu/pneumonia, TB, or diarrhea. A whopping 8% high school graduation rate was another perk, if you were lucky enough to be part of the 50% of the population to make it to eighth grade. Don’t even get me started on how crummy life was if you weren’t a white, upper-class male. So if you’d like to go back to that state (bad word, I know) of things, then yes, a 5% payout to the government (uh oh, another bad word) would probably be about the right amount to devolve us back to that in no time at all.
Since I’ve just pointed out that we don’t, nor should we want to (in spite of the tax benefits), live in 1900, let me also point out that the United States of 2012 is nothing like any communist (or socialist, for that matter, and yes, there is a difference between the two… wikipedia pretty much covers it) regime the world has ever seen. We live in a democratic, capitalist society, but enjoying this type of system is not a right; it is a privilege – just ask anyone who lives in a oppressive dictatorship or war-torn country, where vacations and a little discretionary cash are not exactly in the forefront of their minds. With this privilege comes responsibility and part of that responsibility is to provide a safety net for less fortunate than ourselves. It would be wonderful if all of this could be done through private initiative, but unfortunately the daily struggle of most people’s lives takes precedence. So instead of a precarious privatization of social welfare systems, we have a well-established and consistently implemented government mandated prerogative. This prerogative is not fulfilled at gunpoint (“forcible redistribution” is a cute phrase, but has nothing to do war or violence as the author, Mr. Reed, would have you think).
The government has shortcomings, but the solution is not to take away its power. The solution is to make the powers that it has work better for everyone. So as Mr. Reed suggests, let’s solve some problems, let’s actually crunch some numbers. Who knows, if the people who constantly criticize their so-called “statist” opponents actually took the time to collaborate and reach a middle ground, they might end up with a more efficiently run government AND a lower tax bill. Bigger isn’t always better, but neither is smaller. Better is better.
Comment by Blayne on 5 March 2012:
we became the world’s superpower when less than 50% of the US paid an income tax
Comment by JaredC on 5 March 2012:
The Statist has a complete lack of faith in their fellow men. The Statist truly believes that if “they” do not obligate others through the forceful arm and power of government to “do good” then who will? The Statists simply won’t believe that you and I when left to our own WILL choose to help others with “OUR” means. Then again the extremism of so many Statists regarding their “good cause” truly warps their perspective as to what is right for others to do with their earnings and to what degree others should “sacrifice” for the good of another. The Statist speeds along a slippery road when they supplant their own judgment for another’s in the name of “The Noble Cause” and by so doing seize, by force, the freedom of choice from another. No matter how noble the motivation, the actions are those of the tyrant not that of the benefactor.
Pingback by MeerVrijheid Blog » Blog Archive » Een open brief aan Etatisten on 11 March 2012:
[...] Lees de open brief op de site van de Foundation For Economic Education (FEE). [...]
Comment by Arjan on 11 March 2012:
@The Voice of Reason,
Who exactly came up with a response to flu/pneumonia, TB, or diarrhea? Was it a) the state that launched a succesful project to beat them or b) private universities, individuals and pharmaceuticals who came up with vaccines etc.?
You are implying that it is because of the state that people live longer and healthier, but you need better examples than those to prove it.
Comment by bob on 15 March 2012:
Voice of reason > the safety net of which you speak has become a hammock for the weary to rest their burdens upon or maybe just to take it easy while the 53% hold up the hammock and bring refreshments
Comment by Voice of reason is silly on 7 April 2012:
@voice of reason. You suggest the redistribution of wealth is not at gunpoint and does not even remotely resemble war… Do IRS agents carry guns? Yes, some do. If you don’t pay the taxes hat the IRS tells you to what happens? Sherriff’s Officers or some other armed individual from the state will come and arrest you and threaten you with imprisonment. Don’t be so delusional to think it is a peaceful and voluntary process.
Comment by Alex on 7 April 2012:
Arjan,
“Who exactly came up with a response to flu/pneumonia, TB, or diarrhea? Was it a) the state that launched a succesful project to beat them or b) private universities, individuals and pharmaceuticals who came up with vaccines etc.?”
Again I have to play the leftist devil’s advocate here. Would you please point me to ONE discovery that comes out of “private universities” that was not funded by taxpayers to some degree?
(While you’re at it, could you please point to one truly private university in the US?)
The problem is that your (a) and (b) are integrated: (a) acts through (b). Separate them carefully first, or your argument is flawed and open to attack by leftists.
{some moron who missed my point will surely give me a speech about free markets and government coercion. Here’s my reply: idiot, you missed my point. Read my comment again and stop lecturing me.}
Comment by Zharkov on 20 April 2012:
Do statists take notice that:
1. Governments never buy used cars, only new ones?
2. Government credit card charges, and conventions at holiday spas around the world attended by federal employees are never taxed as income?
3. Government pensions are almost double that of most working salaries in private sector?
4. Many government employees buy multi-million dollar homes while taxpayers can only afford to live in mass-produced, stick-built boxes?
Imagine how rich you would be if you could claim 50% of every dollar earned by your neighbors? And your government officials will never tell you about the secret slush funds they maintain from interest earned on bond money alloted for projects yet to be started and some may never be started, among other hidden revenue streams.
Our government is now a criminal syndicate; they make rules that nobody can leave forever without paying a price, called an “Exit Tax”. Our fundamental right to exile ourselves from the syndicate has disappeared because they say so. If they find a large sum of money on you, they will steal it at the airports or on the highway.
And if you resist, they will kill you, and that is what this government is good at doing and not much else.
Comment by Cry_Aboutit on 25 April 2012:
“Living in 1900, you could look forward to dying from the flu/pneumonia, TB, or diarrhea. A whopping 8% high school graduation rate was another perk, if you were lucky enough to be part of the 50% of the population to make it to eighth grade. Don’t even get me started on how crummy life was if you weren’t a white, upper-class male. So if you’d like to go back to that state (bad word, I know) of things, then yes, a 5% payout to the government (uh oh, another bad word) would probably be about the right amount to devolve us back to that in no time at all.”
So…paying more of our income to the government is the only, or at least the best, way to defeat disease, poor education, and income inequality? Then why shouldn’t we pay all of our income directly to the government if its power and direction benefits us so much? What is a “good” level of taxation and more importantly, how do we determine what that level is? I can assure you that the fiscal agents and employees of a government department will never complain that their budgets are too big.
“Since I’ve just pointed out that we don’t, nor should we want to (in spite of the tax benefits), live in 1900, let me also point out that the United States of 2012 is nothing like any communist (or socialist, for that matter, and yes, there is a difference between the two… wikipedia pretty much covers it) regime the world has ever seen. We live in a democratic, capitalist society, but enjoying this type of system is not a right; it is a privilege – just ask anyone who lives in a oppressive dictatorship or war-torn country, where vacations and a little discretionary cash are not exactly in the forefront of their minds.”
Yes, do ask them! Many people flee to the United States because we enjoy a level of freedom that they can scarcely imagine in their homelands. We should seek to avoid the fate of their failing states by avoiding their beginnings: a dangerously centralized, deeply rooted and pervasive government that is capable of using force against its citizens for compliance.
“With this privilege comes responsibility and part of that responsibility is to provide a safety net for less fortunate than ourselves. ”
Agreed, with this caveat: Do you believe that politicians cater to the needs of the less fortunate better than the voluntary actions of free people? I can’t remember the last time I saw a superPAC consisting of poor, non-networked, possibly non-voting citizens (thanks to draconian laws that target lower income populations). Despite what you may have heard in stump speeches, the government is no friend to the poor.
“It would be wonderful if all of this could be done through private initiative, but unfortunately the daily struggle of most people’s lives takes precedence. So instead of a precarious privatization of social welfare systems, we have a well-established and consistently implemented government mandated prerogative.”
We are being forced into precarious private retirement systems anyway because there is no way to retire on interest income anymore (thanks Fed). The only way to get a return that outpaces inflation is through investment, a scary proposition considering how entrenched and opaque many of the banks are. Government/business collusion is a phenomenon that you have simply not addressed and it is possibly the most dangerous aspect of government intervention.
I don’t think anyone can argue that social security and medicaid are performing in a sustainable way so I won’t elaborate on that.
“This prerogative is not fulfilled at gunpoint (“forcible redistribution” is a cute phrase, but has nothing to do war or violence as the author, Mr. Reed, would have you think).”
If your house gets condemned and sold in a government auction because you fell behind on taxes, or you serve prison time for failing to pay taxes, you have been subjected to the pointy-end of the non-voluntary exchange of taxation. Force is force, whether it’s positively applied (something bad happens to you) or negatively applied (something you enjoy is taken away).
“The government has shortcomings, but the solution is not to take away its power. The solution is to make the powers that it has work better for everyone. So as Mr. Reed suggests, let’s solve some problems, let’s actually crunch some numbers. Who knows, if the people who constantly criticize their so-called “statist” opponents actually took the time to collaborate and reach a middle ground, they might end up with a more efficiently run government AND a lower tax bill. Bigger isn’t always better, but neither is smaller. Better is better.”
Referring to the shortcomings you mention above, can you think of any where a scale-down in government would be appropriate or politically possible? Where will the cuts occur: law enforcement, military, farm subsidies, foreign aid, social security, energy subsidies, research and development, education assistance…do you really think any of these programs will take their budget cuts quietly? Each of these programs have lofty ideals that most people can get behind, but the agencies responsible for these programs are rife with waste, deceit, and outright thuggery in many cases. The author makes the point that if these goals truly carry the weight of an ethical imperative, why do we need to have someone force us to support them?
Comment by MMMark on 14 May 2012:
17:42 EDT
The Voice of Reason wrote:
Your implicit assumption here is that government spawns wealth and progress. In fact, the opposite it true: Wealth and progress feeds government. It is the host that supports the parasite, not vice versa.
Also, the suggestion that cutting the burden of government back to 5% parasitism would reduce the standard of living to that which existed in 1900 is both unsubstantiated and illogical.
.
.
.
This is pure welfare-state propaganda. The reality is that the “least fortunate” are the most heavily punished by the welfare state, mired in a poverty from which they have little hope of escaping:
- Taxes, laws, and regulations stifle or eliminate opportunity and competition and raise prices;
- Instead of being a transitional stage, poverty becomes institutionalized, subsidized, entrenched, and permanent. The welfare state is a poverty trap;
- A fiat monopoly monetary system continually steals the wealth, via inflation, from those who can least afford to lose it, and “redistributes” it to the wealthy elite who control and benefit from the system. This heartless, cruel scam ensures that the “least fortunate” can’t even keep the meager amount of wealth they do manage to accumulate.
The welfare-statist makes compassionate noises while simultaneously advocating the very measures which foment the evil he ostensibly opposes. The welfare-statist is either deluded or disingenuous. In neither case is he the friend of the “least fortunate.”
.
.
.
Let’s cut the crap and speak plainly and truthfully, shall we?
The only power the government has is the power to commit legal aggression.
That’s it! Every single thing the government has, does, or accomplishes, is made possible by the power to commit legal aggression.
Once you understand and acknowledge this simple but powerful fact, the “solution” becomes crystal clear.
The “least fortunate” are the greatest potential beneficiaries of freedom from welfare-statism in particular and statism in general. Anyone who truly cares about the “least fortunate” should be defending liberty, not mouthing statist platitudes and propaganda.
Utterly disgraceful.
Comment by Xerographica on 18 May 2012:
Selah.
Libertarian: The government keeps steadily growing. I recognize this pattern but I’m going to continue on with my same strategy. Einstein’s definition of insanity surely doesn’t apply to me.
Why not consider a new strategy? Instead of focusing on the taking…why not just focus on the spending? Have the statists offer any economic evidence that supports the idea of allowing 538 congresspeople to spend 150 million people’s taxes. Trust me…they won’t be able to do so because no such evidence exists.
There is no economic evidence to support allowing congress to spend 1/4th or 1/3rd of our nation’s income. Therefore, there’s a strong case to be made for allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes.
Is this trade off worth it? What’s the value of giving taxpayers the freedom to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions? Why wouldn’t you vociferously support allowing the invisible hand to determine the distribution of public funds?
A pragmatarian is a libertarian that actually understands how the invisible hand works. Because you can’t understand how the invisible hand works and not grasp the merits of pragmatarianism.