This essay is only a little over 40 pages long, (footnotes included) but packs a lot of punch into such a small space.
The essay does a wonderful job of explaining what government really is and is not, how/why governments maintain and expand their power, and why government doesn't really serve the interests of the people.
Rothbard lays out what all governments throughout history have in common, whether they be monarchy, democracy, or totalitarian dictatorships.
I would encourage everyone to read the essay itself, but I wrote this blog to summarize a few of its points and whet everyone's appetite. And to offer a bit of my own commentary, particularly as to how it ties to today's events. People have said that their views on government have changed dramatically after reading this essay.
Murray Rothbard
 |
| Murray Rothbard |
Murray Rothbard was one of the biggest proponents behind libertarianism in this country. He founded the Cato Institute, and inspired many of the great libertarian thinkers of today, notably Ron Paul. He also founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank that I really enjoy. He coined the term "anarcho-capitalism", that is capitalism free of any government intervention.
 |
| Dr. Ron Paul |
Rothbard was truly a genius. It appeared that he would learn everything he could, about any subject that he was interested in. Although his degrees were in economics, he was also a skilled historian, mathematician, political theorist, and philosopher. I'm not sure that I've encountered too many people that enjoy learning anywhere near as much as he did.
I admire Rothbard because he was so confident in what he believed, that he wouldn't back down. He had trouble getting his PhD initially because of his views. Fortunately for Rothbard, (but not for America!) his dissertation supervisor Arthur Burns was called off to Washington to become Federal Reserve Chairman.
Rothbard got a job at Brooklyn Polytechnic, which wanted to hire him because they agreed with his criticisms of the Vietnam War. He believed that they might not have hired him if they knew his economic views.. He ultimately secured a professorship position at The University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Rothbard's writings are endless. I have read several of his books and essays, which are only a tiny fraction of everything. If anyone ever says "I've read everything that Murray Rothbard wrote.", they're most likely lying. His works are all available for free on Mises.org.
It's a shame that Rothbard passed away in 1995, for someone like him is needed now more than ever.
Like one of the great artists, he appears to have gathered more fame in death than life. This is largely due to the Internet, and the fact that anyone can easily access his works for free. I first found out about him by seeing his image up on numerous libertarian websites.
If you read his works, you realize how clear the truths he presents are. I recently began reading his magnum opus "Man, Economy, and State" and he completely debunks everything that we were told about monopolies in school. There are powerful special interests, that have a vested interest in keeping someone like him silent.
I think that perhaps I am inspired by most by him, because he didn't care how much money or fame he got, but was motivated more by the belief that he was doing the right thing. That is the mentality that propels me when I write these blogs.
What the State is not:
That State is considered for the most part, to be an institution of "common good" or "social service".
In the modern Western world, the State's actions are usually justified by saying that because the government is democratically elected.
"We are the government." or
"The government is chosen from the people, by the people, and for the people."
There are several falsehoods in that:
1) A tiny fraction of the population actually votes. (Or even cares.)
Last Presidential election, approximately 1/3rd of the population of the United States voted .
2) "The government's actions are decided by the people, because we vote for them"
How many Americans wanted the Iraq War, the Trans Pacific Partnership, or Citizens United? How many wanted, or even know about the Federal Reserve?
How many want these tax increases? And how many times have the tax rates changed with what have been promised?
When you vote for a politician, you elect nothing but promises.
If you read enough American history, you realize that what most of the presidential candidates did in office was at complete odds with what they did once in power:
- Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural "I have no desire to interfere with slavery in the states where it exists."
In 1848 as a young congressman, Lincoln said: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have a right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
- Woodrow Wilson was elected a second time for "keeping us out of the War". (World War 1)
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that he would cut back Herbert Hoover's government programs to relieve the Great Depression. He also said that he would balance the budget.
- Lyndon Johnson said that his administration wouldn't send ground troops into Vietnam.
- Ronald Reagan said that he would "stop the march of big government". Government continued to grow, albeit more slowly under Reagan's time in office.
- George Bush Sr. was famous for saying: "Read my lips.. no new taxes!"
- George W. Bush told Al Gore that he didn't want the American military to be used in "nation building"... Well, we see how that turned out.
- President Obama said "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. PERIOD."
Just to give a few examples.
3) Death by the State
If a man is drafted for one of the State's wars, and killed in combat... did he "do it to himself"?
Were the German Jews killed by Nazi Germany (a democratically elected government) murdered? Or did they "commit suicide" if a democratically elected government truly represents "the people"?
I think that most people know the answer to that question.
4) The State is the only institution that funds itself through coercive rather than voluntary means.
I can choose whether to shop at a store or not.. If the prices are too high for me, or the products aren't to my liking, I can leave at no personal cost.
I have no real say in how much of my money the government is allowed to take, or what they spend it on. If I resist paying, I go to jail.
"Your money or your life!"
It's not the fault of future generations, that the people in power currently and over the last 200+ years, have accrued $18 trillion in debt for them to pay off.
What the State is:
Man is born into this world needing and wanting resources. He gains these resources by use of his mind, and through actions.
The German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out two ways in which people can gain resources. (Although David Friedman added a third.)
1) Trade: I give a person a good or service, in exchange for something else.
2) Force: I take something through the use of coercion or violence, or it is done to me.
3) Love: I give something of my own volition, expecting nothing in return. Or it's done to me.
I think that most people can agree that the first method is perhaps the best choice for acquiring wealth, overall. Obviously the third is ideal, but we can't perform all of our societal functions through donations.
The State acquires what it wants through the second one.
Oppenheimer called taking things through force: "The political means to wealth"
Having obtained its "legitimacy" by force, I think that this definition is best:
"The State is nothing more than an agency that holds the monopoly of force over a given geographical area."
The State has never been created through any alleged "social contract", but always by force.
Many of the European countries were made up of numerous counties and provinces that were united by force. A prime example is my ancestral home of Germany, which wasn't a united State until about 140 years ago. Modern day Germany is younger than the United States.
The original "nobles" from right after Rome fell, were nothing but bandits that seized their own power. By proclaiming titles and ownership over land, they became "legitimate sovereigns".
How the State preserves itself:
The purpose of the State is to preserve its own hegemony. Once in charge, the ruling class, has several means in which to maintain its power.
Any government, must have the support of the majority of its subjects, one way or another.
The general strategy is through supporting vested economic interests, keeping some of the people scared, buying off others, and achieving resigned acceptance of the vast majority. The State rarely seeks to achieve active participation from everyone.
I think that it was the economist Thomas Sowell, who pointed out that Nazism or Fascism are more politically viable than Communism.. since the State is tied to the large corporations, and it can easily blame them for the problems.. which in fact are the problems caused by government.
Example:
The State's central bank prints a lot of money, devaluing the currency. Prices go through the roof, and it's blamed on "greedy business owners", "foreign wreckers", "speculators", etc.
Vested economic interests:
The rulers promise certain moneyed groups privileges, in exchange for financial support.
In the older days it was financial kick backs and protection: The king licensed guilds to maintain a monopoly on an industry, (The Middle Ages) and/or used taxed money to subsidize certain businesses (The mercantilism system of the 16th-18th centuries). The king got a share of the proceeds in return.
Today, it's a combination of government policies and campaign contributions.
Politicians promise major corporations favors once in power, in exchange for funding their campaigns.
It could be argued that the American Civil War was really a struggle between two groups of financial elites: The Northern industrialists who relied on "free white labor" for their political base, and the Southern slave owning plantation owners. Both sought control over the new territories in order to expand their wealth and influence. And both governments fought the war to appease each group, respectively.
Politicians create all sorts of permits and rules which make it harder for new businesses to emerge.. thus entrenching those that already exist. They put heads of major companies in powerful positions, who once in power, enact policies that favor their former employers.
Examples:
Obama appointing the former head of Monsanto to run the FDA.
George W Bush appointing the former CIA of Goldman Sachs to run the Treasury, which bailed out the corrupt banks including Goldman Sachs, with our tax dollars.
The majority of the presidential cabinet members in the late 19th century either worked for JP Morgan or John D. Rockefeller before coming into power. Rothbard himself wrote that:
"America of the late 19th century was really a struggle between two financial groups; JP Morgan and his allies on one hand, and Rockefeller and his on the other"
Ideology:
Governments have always had a cozy relationship with the opinion molders.
In the old days, it was the Catholic Church. The Church convinced the people that their leaders ruled them by "divine right". To question them, was to question God himself. Monarchs, including Charlemagne and Napoleon Bonaparte, were often crowned by the clergy.
In some of the Eastern monarchies and in Ancient Egypt, the ruler himself was a god. One of the priestly caste's roles was to promote the worship of said ruler.
The Church held a monopoly on education during the Middle Ages, only allowing someone to be educated if they served the Church, and the monarchies it supported.
In exchange for this, monarchs protected the clergy and funded them through taxation. Some clergymen owned land themselves.
The old expression "Throne and Altar" came from this.
Today, media and academia have replaced the Church.
This is why certain media outlets favor different political groups; Fox and the Republican Party, or MSNBC and the Democrats. Also, look at how funds the different media outlets, and which way those financial backers vote.
Academics tend to speak more positively of government action and programs, because they get financial support in exchange for this.
For example, the French economist Thomas Piketty getting tax grants after calling for higher taxation. Or certain universities getting research grants, paid for through tax dollars.
There are obviously, intellectuals that speak out against the State (such as Rothbard himself), but they are either dismissed, mocked, or called "fringe", "cranks", or "conspiracy theorists". They had to really fight to get their positions in academia.
This is also where the expression "court historian" comes from. The "court historian" was a member of the king's court, that was rewarded for writing well of the leader... and punished for doing otherwise.
Nationalism:
This is especially true in the last few centuries. To convince people to support the State, because staying together means unity, and unity means power.
"Strength through unity, Unity through faith"
As long as people are united against other States, they are less of a threat to those in charge.
Mankind's natural tendency to band together with similar folk under one banner, serves the interest of those that want to maintain their power.
During the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, wars were just viewed as conflicts between different sets of nobles. During the Renaissance, many moneyed groups relied on mercenaries to do their fighting for them.
It's only during the 20th century and on, that the State is able to fund massive world wars through powerful centralized governments and central banks.
Think about the strong sense of national unity that occurred just after 9/11.
Tradition:
To convince the population that things are the way they are because "that's how it's always been done".
There's no reason things need to changed.
"This dynasty should rule, because they have for many years and we have done just fine."
"Tradition!!!" (My homage to "Fiddler on the Roof for those who don't get that right away.)
Novelty:
This is the reverse of the above point, but it still lures people in and gains their support.
"Incomes need to equalized for us to have social justice. Capitalism is old hat, and doesn't work anymore. We've moved beyond it."
I always find it funny, how socialism is touted as "new" and "progressive", when in fact its' origins go all the way back to the French Revolution in 1789.
Which of course, was only a few years after the American Revolution.
I completely reject an idea being better on the basis that it's new. Marxism was once a new idea, and praised highly be some of our government officials who visited the Soviet Union.
Exalting collectivism over the individual:
This was especially true of the totalitarian dictatorships of the 20th century.
Convincing a population that the government can take better care of individuals than they themselves can. The ills of society are due to "greed", "capitalists", "foreign wreckers" etc.
Silence anyone who questions the motives of the people in power as "conspiracy theorists".
This was the underlying ideology that brought Hitler, Mao, and Lenin to power.
This is usually combined with nationalism, notably in the cases of Hitler and Mussolini.
Fear:
Convince the population that they need the people in charge.
Without them, a foreign power, "anarchy", or another form of worse rule will emerge.
I always think of that scene from "V for Vendetta" where the Chancellor Adam Sutler says:
"I want everyone to remember why they need us!"
Guilt:
To convince members of the population that they are somehow bad people for not having loyalty to the people in charge. That somehow the government is owed respect, regardless of what it does.
In light of the recent debate with Confederate flag, I have heard a few complain that it's "disrespectful to our government." Last time I check, respect is earned, not owed. Mark Twain famously said:
"Patriotism is loyalty to your country all of the time, and your government when it deserves it."
To convince people that their personal success is due to "greed", (I'm referring to people who earn their wealth free of government assistance. The Wall Street types would be exempt from this category, because their wealth is heavily influenced by the Federal Reserve and the financial structure which supports it.) which needs to be "appropriated" for the "public good."
Allowing the State to appropriate wealth that it didn't earn is done "for the greater good".
It's not hard to be "compassionate" with other peoples' money.
Scientific Rationalization:
Since we live in a more secular society today, it's hard to coerce people through superstition regarding the rulers.
It's easier if their actions are hidden by terms and equations, that the people in power know that the average person doesn't know about or understand.
Keynesian economists proclaim that "government spending is good for the economy" and "the government needs to run deficits during a recession." They hide their calculations behind a series of mathematical jargon, and the "multiplier effect".
All people reading this agree of course, that it wouldn't be good if there was a highway robber, and the money that he took was spent at a local store, and it was rationalized as: "Well, he has to take your money and spend it at a store, because it will be good for retail."
Look too, at the length of bills and treaties that our Congress have signed in recent years. The Dodd-Frank banking regulation is over 2,000 pages long, and most of the population has no idea what's in it.
The Trans-Pacific Parternship, like NAFTA that came before it, is touted as a "free trade agreement" which most people know is bunk. It's just another handout to corporations, which is why people in both political parties are opposing it.
If the government truly wanted free trade, it could issue a one page statement saying that all tariffs, import quotas, and "dumping laws" are null and void.
Appeal to emotion:
Corrupt action is disguised with nice sounding words.
"Free trade agreement", "Progressive", "Fairness", "Equality", "Rights"
And so on...
How the State transcends its limits
This was one of my favorite sections of the essay, and a fascinating topic in general.
How to restrain government power is one of the greatest questions of political science.
Kings ruling by "divine right" weren't restrained; "divine right" was justification for the king's actions.
This is how and why the system of Parliament developed, in order to keep the king's power in check.
Perhaps the American system, through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution has been the most ambitious attempt at limiting government power. However, as we can see, it hasn't really worked.
If you examine many of the current policies that we have/have had, you realize that most of the government's actions are indeed unconstitutional:
- The draft is a violation of the 13rd amendment. "No involuntary servitude except as a means of punishment."
- The government's Post Office is technically unconstitutional, on the grounds that it holds a monopoly on mail delivery. The Constitution says that the government can deliver mail, but not maintain a monopoly on it.
- Warrant-less wiretapping.
- The President's US of executive orders, which supersede his powers.
- Gun control laws
- A public run school system isn't even mentioned. Education was originally handled by the parents and their religious community.
- The existence of the Federal Reserve
Just a few examples, although there are many more.
Rothbard cited the work of Professor Charles Black. Professor Black argued that the Supreme Court is actually the gap in our system limiting checks and balances.
Black's overall thesis, summarized:
The problem with the Supreme Court, is that it is a branch of the government which decides what the government is allowed to do.
Thinking about this now, this would almost be like if your parents asked you when you were a kid, about what kind of rules you wanted to live under.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be "neutral" but we know that's not true. The President (who himself has biases, whatever his party/views are.) appoints the Justices. The judges decide different things, and list different rationalizations for their actions.
The fact of the matter is that the judges are human beings, all with bias, prejudices, and different interpretations. As much as they try to stay neutral, it's not 100% guaranteed.
It's always interesting when a major Supreme Court ruling comes out, how widely divergent the Justices' views are... and yet, they claim to be operating under the same laws.
The Supreme Court like "divine right" before it, has become a rubber stamp with which to justify the government's actions.
Black finished by saying that when the courts do rule in a just manner, it's "something of a miracle".
John Calhoun
 |
| John Calhoun |
John Calhoun served as Vice President under Andrew Jackson, and later as a senator for South Carolina.
Calhoun is largely forgotten today, only noted for his role during the "Nullification crisis" and his blatantly racist views. (He gave a speech on the Senate floor calling slavery a "positive good" for the South, and trashing the Jeffersonian line "All men are created equal".)
However, one thing that Calhoun did get right, was his realization that the Supreme Court was an inefficient check on government power. Calhoun was an advocate of concurrent majority, or that is to say a state having the power to nullify a law, based on the fact that it's a member of the government in question.
This is like a particular family member's needs or wants being taken into consideration, even when the rest of the family disagrees. The family member isn't ignored.
He knew that if a particular party gained power over most of the government, there would be little stopping them. The Supreme Court could ultimately just serve as a rubber stamp committee for the ruling party, and the Constitution would essentially be meaningless. Over enough time, the government could ultimately become one of unlimited powers.
This made states' rights an essential check on federal tyranny.
States' Rights and secession in the early United States
I touched on this briefly in my blog about the Civil War.
Early in America's history, President Thomas Jefferson issued a trade embargo for New England. Since they were at war with one another and the President wanted neutrality, he ordered that the New England states stop trading with either Britain or France.
The New England states knew that this would devastate them economically. So citing Jefferson's own work, the Kentucky Resolutions, they used their power as a state to nullify the trade embargo. Jefferson had written in that document that he believed he a state should have the right to nullify federal law, if it went against the well being of that particular state.
Jefferson pressed them, but they wouldn't back down, claiming that it was their right as a sovereign state.
In those days, states were viewed as members of a voluntary union, in the same sense a member of a club chooses to be a part of it. Said member could leave when they saw fit.
This was the original view at the time of the Constitution's ratification. (Even among the Federalists, who favored a stronger central government.) The states were almost like individual countries that were joined through treaty, not districts to be managed by the Federal government.
The New England states threatened to secede and form their own country, but Jefferson reached a compromise. A tariff (which Jefferson wasn't really for in principle) was placed on goods imported into New England, in order to shut out foreign competition, and give the New England producers an advantage.
Almost 30 years later, when Calhoun was Vice President, a high tariff was placed on South Carolina. Since this was harsh on South Carolina, which relied heavily on foreign trade, Calhoun declared that his state could nullify the law.
This enraged President Andrew Jackson. He threatened to personally march troops in, and collect the tariff by force.
During this time Jackson famously said:
"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body!"
Fearing the Civil War 30 years early, Jackson ultimately agreed to compromise on a lower tariff.
States' rights from the Civil War, onward
As I wrote in my blog about the Civil War, the South seceded from a combination of slavery, not having influence in the new territories, and the tariff issue.
This is the common reason that many oppose states' rights today: They feel that the Federal Government needs to intervene, when the state tramples on the rights of the individual.
This is where the issue becomes complicated. We can see that nullifying federal law was a moral act, in the cases of the trade embargo and South Carolina tariff.. but what is to be done in the cases of slavery and segregation in the Southern states?
There is something to be said about keeping federal power in check, but state governments have their own agenda and can be just as oppressive as the federal government.
Where does that end? Should the rights of secession and nullification go down to individual counties? Towns? Wards?
Rothbard's view (which is mine as well) is that Calhoun and the people he influenced, didn't take the idea of concurrent majority far enough, all the way down to the individual.
Perhaps Calhoun reached this conclusion himself, when he said:
"It should be impossible to keep it (the government) in action without the concurrent consent of all."
Let us ask this question:
When a state government tramples on the right of the individual.. shouldn't the individual have a right to secede, or nullify the law?
This is the problem... no matter what, the ability to nullify law only is only confined to the agencies of the government itself.
So far as we can see, there has been no real solution to keeping the powers of government confined to what it was originally established at.
No matter what, the State will always have the monopoly of force, and serve as the "political means for wealth" for the ruling class.
What the State fears
I think that this is pretty obvious:
1) Conquest by another State.
2) A revolution.
Randolph Bourne said it best:
"War is the health of the State."
During wartime, the State can "legitimately" grab powers that it didn't have during peace.
A few examples:
The Alien and Sedition Act, signed by President John Adams. This made it illegal to criticize the government.
Abraham Lincoln shut down newspapers in the North, that opposed the Civil War. He also suspended habeas corpus, which under the Constitution only the Congress is allowed to do. And this is only on the grounds that things become so chaotic, that judges can't even get into their courtrooms. He also deported a Congressman, Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, who spoke out against him.
Woodrow Wilson signed the "Espionage" and "Sedition" Acts, which arrested those who criticized American involvement in World War 1. One man was arrested for making the film "The Spirit of '76" which glorified the American Revolution. This was on the grounds that it demonized the British, one of America's allies. Parts of those acts are still in effect today.
Harry Truman's undeclared war on North Korea.
Richard Nixon's secret, unauthorized bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War.
The Patriot Act and all of its extensions, after 9/11.
President Obama ordering a drone strike against a US citizen in the Middle East. The man was a traitor, but technically, as a US citizen he was supposed to have been brought to trial.. not killed outright.
Judge Napolitano speaks out:
Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote the book "Suicide Pact", in which he talked about how each President has gained more power than the last, and each one has tried to hide behind the actions of his predecessors.
 |
| Judge Andrew Napolitano |
It would appear that the State uses more power to protect itself, rather than its citizens during wartime. The numerous violations of free speech, and illegal internments are proof of that.
How States relate to one another
Countries tend to shift through various diplomatic stances to one another, depending on what is convenient or beneficial at the time.
States also have a tendency to place in power "puppet rulers" which serve the interests of the State making the regime change.
In the book "Wilson's War" by Jim Powell, the author explains how Woodrow Wilson bribed the Russian government with billions of our tax dollars to stay in World War 1. This backfired: It both weakened Russia, with them still withdrawing, and with the government weakened, it made it easier for Vladimir Lenin to come to power.
Sadly, this has been the case of the United States for the last 70 or so years.. and it has been the case, even since the Iron Curtain fell.
As I wrote above, it's only through a more centralized power and the central banking (such as our Federal Reserve) that world wars are even capable of being fought. If we didn't have a central bank, the government would have to fund these massive wars through direct taxation, or the Treasury department itself would have to borrow money from other countries. The population would surely revolt, if taxes were raised to the point where they paid for the wars out of their own pocket.
Combine this with the weapons of mass destruction now available.
Treaties are the common way of trying to bind states together in times of peace, but as we can see with the European Union, this doesn't always work. Greece's economy is dragging down the value of the Euro, and Germany is really the only one keeping the rest going. I predict the Eurozone fragmenting over the next several years. There is even talk of individual countries splitting up; Catalonia wants to separate from the rest of Spain, and there was even talk of Venice leaving the rest of Italy. And most people reading this can remember Scotland trying to leave the UK, which wasn't that long ago.
History as a race between State and Social Power:
The great libertarian thinker Albert Jay Nock coined the terms "state power" and "social power".
 |
| Albert Jay Nock |
State power is exactly what it sounds like.. the powers and responsibilities of the government, and how they expand over time.
Social power is the "power over nature" or mankind's inventiveness, technological progress, and rise in the standards of living caused by these.
State power is the draining of the resources of the private sector for the unproductive (or in some cases, even anti productive) rulers.
Those who demonize the private sector for "greed" or "self interest" are ignorant of the fact that the majority of the improvements that we have in our standard of living are because of the private sector.
iPhones, computers, new food items, video games, and cars are all the results of entrepreneurs looking for ways to profit... and satisfying their consumers in the process.
The quality of electronics has increased dramatically in the last several years, and the price has gone down proportionate to the quality.
I like to give this example:
The first cell phone cost a few thousand dollars, and you only had one if you were say, Gordon Gecko or another financial hotshot. And all it could do was make and receive calls.
We now have iPhones, Galaxies, etc. that cost a fraction of that and are essentially computers that you can hold in your hand. Were it not for inflation, (caused by the government's Federal Reserve) they would most likely be even cheaper.
Contrast this with areas in which the government spends money:
- The cost of college has risen 1000% since the 70's.
- The cost of grade school has roughly doubled since the 70's.
- The cost our military is $600 billion a year. We have seen an increase in quality, but it's killing us financially.
- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid all have over $126 trillion (yes, you read that right) of unfunded liabilities.. if these programs don't reform dramatically, they won't be around when my generation is older.
In conclusion
I think that I have sufficietly laid out consistencies which governments all throughout history have in common.
Anyone who follows what is going on currently, knows that our governments don't truly represent us.
Freedom is a hard sell for a lot of people.. It requires a philosophical understanding of politics, and ouside of the box thinking. I feel that once it's explained however, it makes sense to most people.
In addition to reading this essay, I would highly recommend this book:
Many of these "anarcho-capitalist" ideas seem radical at first, but really make sense once broken down. I would in fact argue that some of the solutions advocated in this book have more checks and balances than any political system.
If you're not 100% sold on what I've written in this blog, just stop and ask yourself this question:
"How much of what we take our government doing for granted, can be done through voluntary, rather than coercive means?"
Thank you all for reading! I hope that you enjoyed it!
-STK
