If You're a Collectivist, You Advocate for Slavery

This week’s article closes out my initial walk-through of the 5 Questions series.  We’re going to delve into the fifth question; what is the proper role of government?

Let’s clear up a very common misperception right off the bat.  Society is not the government and government is not society.  This distinction is fundamentally important to a proper understanding of the role of government.  The difference lies in the fact that government has been granted the power of physical violence as a surrogate for the individual’s power of physical violence.  But in transferring this individual power of physical violence to the government, no individual has transferred that same power into society at large.  What do I mean by this transferring of physical violence?

An individual has the power of physical violence and when coupled with his right of self-defense, this is a good thing.  Uncoupled from that defensive right and allowed to inflict harm on others in an aggressive manner, the individual violates the rights of others.  Aggressors and defenders have long waged their struggle against each other.

When aggressors team up to overcome a solitary defender, the solitary defender must find allies of their own in order to deal with this increased threat.  There are natural allies to be found in family, tribes, communities, etc.  This allying for common defense is one of the foundational roles of communities.  However, as allies, no one individual’s power of physical violence is surrendered, only augmented. 

This is not the simple case when it comes to governments.  Remember our “game of life” analogy from the prior article?  If we are going to play the same game together, we have to know what the rules are.  If the rules are going to have any meaning at all, there also have to be rule enforcers.  Those rule enforcers are given the power of physical violence to enforce the communally agreed upon rules with communally agreed upon consequences.  While I still retain the right of self-defense, I have also granted the right of physical violence to the government to act on my behalf to protect my interests.

What I have not done, though, is to grant that power of physical violence to every random individual I may encounter in my life.  Individuals outside of an official capacity still do not have the right to attack me or to force me to do anything against my will.  Society may shun me, mock me or even ostracize me if I abandon common social norms and choose to wear monstrous periwinkle top hats, but they are not granted the right to physically force me to not wear a monstrous periwinkle top hat.  This is the essence of the protection of the individual’s right as the most threatened and vulnerable minority. 

To be clear, there are very few things for which I have agreed to allow the government to exercise physical violence.  In fact, that is the entire purpose of the “negative” powers delineated throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights; to set out limitations for what the government cannot do for me or to me with its enormous power for physical violence.  Former President Obama even criticized this aspect of the US Constitution by pointing out that the Constitution as a document of negative powers does not spell out positive powers for things which the government has to do for me.  But that was the entire point!

We must be very, very careful about the powers we allow the government to assume, because every power we grant to it is enforceable by the vast scope of the government’s power of physical violence.  While society could only mock my pretentious top hat collection, the government could actually arrest, fine and even imprison me to enforce a legally acceptable head covering policy.  Additionally, if I resisted the government’s efforts to enforce its anti-top hat legislation, I could end up be tasered, beaten or even killed at the hands of the government’s rule enforcers.  

Returning to my opening argument; society is not the government and government is not society.  Those seeking a government solution for social issues should be very concerned about granting power to the government to solve such social issues. Any solution the government imposes will be necessarily inequitable to some individuals and will be backed by the government’s ability to enforce those rules with the threat and reality of physical violence.  The best path forward for all social issues at the individual level via discussion and dialogue between individuals. 

What then is the proper role of government to be if powers not granted to them by the constitution remain with the states and the individual?  What is the government to do if individual issues should be handled by individuals?

The actual answer is . . . not much of anything at all!

In our day and age it is all to common to hear politicians promising anything and everything as “free” such as healthcare, education and living wages.  Regardless of the fact that free does not actually mean free and actually simply means “taxpayer funded”, this promising of a government solution to social issues is out of place and unwise.

Government’s role is not to be a charity.

Government’s role is not to take responsibility for my health or education.

Government’s role is not to be my moral guide and authority.

Government’s role is not to protect me from the consequences of my choices.

Government’s role is not to enforce polite or acceptable speech between individuals.

The right and proper role of government is to confine itself to the exclusive powers delineated within the Constitution and nothing more.  These can be summed up fairly concisely: protect and defend its citizens from all acts of physical aggression and regulate trade across state and international borders.  There are other exclusive powers (makes treaties, declare war, establish post offices and pass laws), but the two mentioned above encompass the main duties citizens expect of their government with the Bill of Rights limiting the actions the government can take in pursuit of any of those duties. 

This means that there is no Constitutional basis for the existence of the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy or Interior.  Even the Dept. of Commerce is dubious at best.

Why is this important?  Because what has slowly happened over the centuries since our founding is that issues that should be discussed and settled on an individual basis have been subsumed by the government.  This is a horrible idea because the government should never be allowed to decide what is the proper ideology, societal norms or acceptable belief and value structures of any person let alone an entire national community.  People have a difficult enough time determining the path for their own lives, how could any person or group of people every be able to make such decisions for other individuals?

If you think this is the case, that certain people among us should be able to tell us all how to think, what to say and what to do as we go about our personal lives, then you actually support slavery.  Perhaps you only think that government should be allowed to regulate “hate speech” – then you believe that government has the right to tell us what to say.  Perhaps you only think that government should decide marriage is just between a man and woman, or not – then you believe the government has the right to dictate who we are allowed to marry.  Perhaps you believe the government has the right to provide “free” healthcare – then you believe the government should take the fruits of your labor and give them to someone else for their benefit.

If you believe that the government should solve social issues like this, then there is no escaping the fact that you believe in and support slavery. 

That’s the final point – Collectivism always leads to the enslavement of the individual.  So, if you are a collectivist, then you advocate for slavery to some degree.