Libertarian Land Philosophy:
Man's Eternal Dilemma
Oscar B. Johannsen, Ph.D.
BOOK V: COOPERATION, GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE
Chapter 2 - Government
This is not a treatise on the nature of government, or the state and
its genesis and growth. Still in virtue of the tremendous importance
which government plays in the affairs of men, and particularly as it
relates to land, money, and freedom, a discussion of it may prove
worthwhile.
In attacking this problem, logically a definition of government
should be given at the outset. However, as this writer's conception of
the true nature of government is so radically different from the usual
one, possibly some background is necessary to avoid the definition
being dismissed out of hand.
Three questions should be posed.
First, Do men require government?
Second: Are men capable of government?
Third: What is the degree of government of which men are capable?
Usually, it is assumed, without much argument, that men require
government if for no other reason than for protection of life and
property. As far as men being capable of government, their conceit
assures them that such is the ease. About the only one of the three
questions which is seriously discussed is the degree of government
which men can administer. This has been particularly true in arguments
on world governments.
Do men require government? Those who assert that this is too obvious
to deserve consideration should be reminded that mathematicians
discovered that the questioning of axioms which had been accepted
uncritically for thousands of years led to the development of new
geometry's and a better understanding of the mathematical discipline,
So, possibly it will do no harm to analyze some of the more or less
obvious assumptions related to government.
Do men require government? Let us see. In the discussion which
follows some of it is repetitious of what has been given before.
However, it seems necessary in order to present a logical argument.
Each man is born with the right to life just because he is born. And
this right to life is equal for all men, for no person has a superior
right to life than another. If someone has a superior right, it should
be possible to demonstrate it. But so far no one has been able to do
so. A king's son has no better right to life than a cobbler's son. If
he has, why? Just because his father happens to be king? What occurs
if his father is deposed? Is his right to life less now? Since it
cannot be shown that any individual has a superior right to life than
anyone else, the conclusion is forced upon us that all men have equal
rights to life.
To live, each individual must labor in order to acquire the
necessities to maintain life -- the primary needs being food, clothing
and shelter. There is only one place on which a person can labor and
from which the person can obtain these things, and that is the land.
Thus, every person has the right of access to the land for this comes
from the right to life. If the individual does not have access to the
only source from which to obtain the necessary goods to sustain that
life, then the right to life is meaningless. Since all rights to life
are equal, so are all rights to access to the land equal.
But this gives rise to a problem caused by two physical facts. One is
that land varies in productivity. One piece may be gold-bearing land,
another fertile farm land, and still another utterly useless. That is,
land represents different opportunities; some excellent, some
mediocre, some worthless.
The other fact is that two things cannot occupy the same place at the
same time. This means that two men cannot occupy the same land at the
same time.
Now, justice requires that all men have equal rights to the
opportunities of the land for all men have equal rights to life. But
since two things cannot occupy the saline place at the same time, some
men will have access to the better opportunities to which they are no
more entitled than anyone else.
Man's eternal dilemma, then, is how to divide up the unequal
opportunities of the earth among the equal claimants to them with
justice to all.
The contradictions posed above constitute the reasons why men require
government for the only way in which these contradictions can be
resolved is by the collective action all men.
Government is a group of men who divide up the unequal opportunities
of the land among themselves -- the equal claimants to those
opportunities -- on a basis of justice.
If anyone can devise a means of allocating these opportunities justly
without the collective action of men, then government would not be
necessary. But this appears to be as impossible to do as it is to live
without eating.
If the above is government, then the second question must be
considered. Are men capable of government? It is difficult to answer
this question except indirectly. The world men inhabit appears to be
one of perfect harmony. Everything dovetails with everything else.
Plants, trees and animals all harmonize with their surroundings or
they would not survive. To live, an animal or plant must have certain
characteristics. Fish have the necessary physical requirements to live
in water. Birds have the wings needed to fly. Men have the necessary
physical characteristics to breathe and live on the earth- Since this
is so, as not only men but all of Nature have the necessary faculties
to survive, it follows that since men must establish government, they
have the ability to do so.
This argument does not have the directness and conviction that one
would wish. This is particularly true because men have made such a
miserable mess of government. If anything. history would seem to prove
that men are incapable of government. But, on the other hand, men
probably have never really established a government at any time or in
any place, What they have set up is something different -- States.
Possibly the closet practical examples of governments were those
collective arrangements which the Indian tribes in America had. They
seemed to have established something approximating government in that
all the adult men participated and they probably did try to allocate
the hunting grounds among themselves with some degree of fairness.
Most men would not be bothered spending too much time on recondite
arguments on whether they have the ability to govern or not. If
government is necessary, whether they have the ability or not, men
will make a stab at it. However, the question is worth considering. If
men are not capable of government and yet still need it, at least,
they may recognize their deficiency and maintain a healthy skepticism
of any solution offered.
Once it is conceded that men are capable of government, the third
question comes to the fore. What is the degree of government of which
men are capable?
It does not follow because men are capable of government, that they
are capable of government on a city, state, national or international
level. Because men can Jump up in the air, it does not follow that
they can jump up a thousand feet. There are limits to everything.
There is a limit on how old a man can live; how fast anything can
travel; the dimensions of the earth. Just as everything is limited, so
too the degree of government which men can administer is limited.
But the limit is not easily determined. Inasmuch as government is a
group of men, and since it is difficult for more than a few hundred
men to come together and participate actively one with the other, it
would follow that the degree of government must be quite small.
Probably it is just above the family level. Only trial and error would
determine the optimum degree and this might vary as conditions change.
But at any rate, the degree of government would be small because each
man would have to he a part of it and each would have to participate
in the allocation of the land.
For justice to rule, the allocation of the land would have to be on
an auction basis wherein the parcels of land are auctioned off to the
highest bidders . Each area of land would also probably have to be
relatively small. That would also depend upon circumstances. In built
up areas as cities, the area of land would probably be quite small. In
rural areas, it night be fairly large.
Thus, government is just big enough so that all can participate in
it. Its function is to lease the land in its area by auction, plus the
corollary one of dividing up the rent among all the members of the
government on a pro rata basis. This leasing of the land might be on
an annual or biennial basis. It could be for five or ten year leases,
if so desired by the members. Experience would determine which would
be the best length of time.
It will be noted that under this definition, government is not
responsible for post offices, education, roads and the many different
services which all States presently administer. These functions belong
in the marketplace.
Governments, usually with the best of intentions, have intervened in
the educational process for so long that many people have lost sight
of the fact that education is the responsibility of the parent. Thus,
for a person to remind them that education is not a function of
government is to lead to expressions of horror and dismay. How could
one he so benighted as to believe that? Nonetheless, just as the
feeding and clothing of the child is the parents' responsibility. so
is the feeding of his mind.
In America, primary and secondary education is, for the most part,
carried on in schools owned and operated by local governments. As
such, they are socialized schools. Few in America ever think of them
in that light as they are called public schools instead of being
called government or state schools. But the fact that they are
socialistic institutions has meant that they are heir to the
inefficiencies and problems associated with any socialistic endeavor.
It has been fortunate for America that the local communities have been
in charge, even though hampered severely by the state boards of
education which direct them.
Until, relatively recently, local control has meant that the people
have been close enough to the schools to prevent some of the more
serious socialistic abuses from arising. However, as the people have
increasingly migrated to the cities, and as the cities have grown
larger the people's control has been breaking down. The typical
entrenched bureaucracy of socialistic institutions has been taking
over control. The most glaring example of this is New York City. That
city has become a battleground between opposing vested interests. On
the one side are the teachers united in their labor unions. On the
other side is the centralized administrative bureaucracy. In between
are the children, the unfortunate pawns in the power struggle. One
attempt after another has been made to decentralize the educational
process, not because the bureaucrats wanted decentralization but
because the parents, particularly of minority groups, have demanded
it. It became only too obvious to the black parents as well as parents
of other groups) that their children were being short-changed and they
demanded action. So far, little success has been attained. However,
one happy result is that gradually more and more are beginning to
recognize that education should be conducted under private auspices,
Surprisingly it is the minority groups who seem to have a greater
awareness of this. Suggestions are increasingly being advanced that
the government's aid should take the form of financial help rather
than of operating the schools. One suggestion has been that vouchers
be given to parents which would be presented to private schools to pay
the cost of their children attending such schools. This has certain
disadvantages. The principal one is that "he who pays the piper,
calls the tune". Since the government would be doing the paying,
it would call the tune, and what is wanted is to divorce government
from education entirely.
There are non-profit private primary and secondary schools in
America. For the most part, they are so superior to the socialized
schools that there simply is no comparison. Unfortunately, there are
not enough of them.
It seems rather obvious that if Americans want the finest possible
educational system, the schools should be operated on a profit-making
basis just as any service is. This applies not only to primary and
secondary schools, but to our colleges and universities. The privately
operated colleges in America are actually not private enterprises in
the true sense of the word. They partake of a hybrid character --
partly private, partly eleemosynary. The sooner they are put on a
businesslike basis for the purpose of selling the service of a college
education on a profit-making basis, the sooner will America have the
finest kind of university education possible.
Such a statement as this will, no doubt, be greeted particularly by
academia, as the expression of a madman. But, if It is proper to feed
the mind as it is now fed, partly by private, partly by eleemosynary
and partly by socialistic institutions -- why not the even more
important function of feeding the body?
It is precisely because the food industry is operated as a
profit-making enterprise that Americans suffer from the happy
indisposition of over-indulgence. Put it on the same basis as our
educational system is on, and they will probably be in a state of
chronic hunger, instead.[1]
There is no more reason for education to he socialized than the
raising of food, for to reiterate, education is simply not a function
of government.
As for roads, in the early 1800s about five million miles of
turnpikes were built by private businessmen in America. If the roads
of our country bad been left in the hands of private enterprise, as
the manufacture of cars was, our roads would be far superior to
anything now in existence. True, a little ingenuity would be required
to put roads in the marketplace. The main highways would probably be
private toll roads. The streets in the cities and towns would have to
be the responsibility of the businesses and homeowners contiguous to
them. They, no doubt, would hire private contractors to keep the
streets in repair.
Protection is invariably advanced as the principal reason for
government. But, it too belongs in the marketplace. No doubt, this
statement appears to the reader as the height of absurdity. But the
protection of the individual is the individual's own responsibility
just as much as the feeding and educating of himself. It is because
this fact is still recognized to some degree in the United States that
Americans are still permitted to own rifles, although that precious
right is constantly under attack.
The argument raised today is that in earlier days it might have been
possible for a man to protect himself. His old-fashioned blunderbuss,
hanging over his fireplace, epitomized this right and ability. Today,
however, it is asserted that the State must protect him. But, that the
state is doing a very poor job in what many claim is the one field in
which it has competence -- protection -- is obvious. The streets and
parks of many of our great cities, as New York, are almost jungles,
particularly after dark. With all its modern weapons, the State cannot
protect its own citizens.
The result has been that vigilante committees have been springing up
throughout the country, particularly in crime infested areas, for the
protection of the members of these committees and their families. No
doubt, as crime in America increases, there will be an ever greater
reliance tot only on volunteer groups but on private police and
detective concerns. Individuals wilt hire such firms to protect their
homes and themselves. It is being done now.
And, finally, it might be pointed out, when a war erupts, the State
does not protect its citizens. On the contrary, it conscripts them to
protect the State.
Although this anticipates the following chapter, in order that the
reader does not think that the writer is bereft of his reason, it
might be well to point out that he does not expect that government, as
he visualizes it, will be substituted for the State at the present
time.
Government is a voluntaristic organization and operates on a small
scale. Today, with the world in a continual turmoil due to the unjust
institutions which men have erected, it appears very difficult,
indeed, to substitute government for the State. If somehow a people
did, it may be that some individuals within the country would seize
power and substitute themselves as the State. If this did not occur,
some outside power might invade the country, particularly if it
contained valuable resources. Something of this order occurred when
the white man conquered the Indian. The Indian had some conception of
what Government as; the white man did not.
In the following chapter, a brief analysis of the State is made. It
might be well, however, at this point to note that over the years the
power of the State has been circumscribed. This has arisen as the
result of such important influences as custom, tradition, as well as
constitutions written or unwritten. Inasmuch as the State has the
monopoly of coercion, literally there is nothing it cannot do to those
under its control. However, the aforementioned influences have helped
to ameliorate its power.
Probably before truly voluntaristic government can be established,
the unjust institutions must be removed, or at least recognized and
efforts directed toward their removal. It may be a long and difficult
task taking generations. It may well be that no area of the world
would dare set up the idealized government visualized by the writer
until most of the injustices rampant today are eliminated from most of
the great nations.
It may well be, however, that the writer is in error. The youth of
today are certainly disenchanted with government in almost every
nation of the world. They do not seem to have the blind confidence in
government that their elders have. They have no desire to be engaged
in these insane conflicts in which governments engage almost
constantly. Their hearts seem to be in the right place. Unfortunately,
their understanding of what is wrong is lacking. Too many of them,
with the probable exception of those in communistic countries, look
upon socialism as the answer. The youth in countries as the Soviet
Union have learned only too well through sad experience that socialism
is no answer. If anything, they recognize that the distorted form of
market economy existing in the western countries is far superior as
regards economic and social freedoms. They wish they had the freedom
and opportunities that exist in the western countries. But, at any
rate, the youth in most countries of the world recognize something is
dreadfully wrong and many, if not most of them, arc increasingly
skeptical of the State. With better understanding of the State and
Government, possibly they will do what their elders have failed to do.
This writer's purpose is to attempt to indicate what is Government
and what its real function is. Also, it is his purpose to point out
that Government is a natural and necessary institution because all men
have equal rights to the opportunities of the universe, and no two
things can occupy the same place at the same time.
He is not so naive as to suppose that the substitution of the State
by Government can be achieved cheaply. But, if men recognize what
Government really is, then they know what path to take to arrive at
it.
At the present time, all attempts at reform are merely efforts to
substitute one State by another, either by the ballot box or by
violent means. Whether the succeeding State will be better or worse
may be largely a matter of good fortune. When the British State was.
overthrown here and the America State substituted, it was a gain for
the people. The American State was weak and therefore it had to listen
to the people to a greater degree than the British State did. Today,
the American State is powerful and as its power grows it listens less
and less to the people. When the Russian State was overthrown, a far
worse one was substituted in the form of the Soviet Union, as the
Russian people learned to their sorrow.
Until men recognize what Government is, no doubt, they will continue
to erect State after State. It is to be hoped however, that as
knowledge of the difference between Governments and States grows, the
States will tend more and more to become Governments until that happy
day arrives when all States disappear and Governments exist in their
stead.
Recapitulation
Government is required to resolve the contradictions posed by the
physical fact that land is of unequal opportunity and two men cannot
occupy the same place at the same time, plus the ethical fact that all
men have equal rights to all the opportunities of the land.
Government is a group of men in an area who divide up the unequal
opportunities among themselves on a basis of justice to all.
As men cannot act together collectively and still maintain justice if
the number of men is large, or the extent of land too great,
government must be barely above the family level--on the order of the
New England Town Hall governments with the land area small enough so
all members of the community can be acquainted with it.
NOTES
- Oscar B. Johannsen, "Private
Schools for All"
|