I wonder if our country, and several other populous countries, have become too big to be governable. When the states adopted the U.S. Constitution, the national population was on the order of tens of millions of people. We had 13 or 14 states (when was Maine admitted?), so 26 or 28 Senators and one President. Now, we number more than 330 million people in 50 states, and 100 senators. The population has grown tenfold or 20-fold, but we only have 4x the number of Senators, a somewhat larger contingent of Representatives, and still one President and one Supreme Court. Is the country simply too big to be limited through the original form of checks and balances? Is the tradeoff that as a large country we are better able to defend ourselves against other large malign actors (China, Russia, Iran, etc.)?
There is an additional problem: We the people love deficit spending, whatever we say about it. We want individual benefits and our favorite causes and businesses subsidized. But we emphatically do not want personally to pay for any of it. In light of your critique and the additions to it in the comments, how could a libertarian candidate declare his/her governing principles to enough voters to win office? Should they try to infiltrate one of the major parties a la the largely ineffective Pauls? Run as a Libertarian or independent? And what would be the message? Expect less help from government and higher taxes to create a balanced budget? Hundreds of thousands of govt. employees entering unemployment? How do we sell that? It looks to me like the current system is in its death throes and will run its course all the way to collapse.
(a) Demand for Government in order to reduce social conflict.
(b) Slack in Government accountability despite the bill of rights and the system of checks and balances.
(c) Adverse selection in government.
If I understand correctly, Arnold holds that Government overreach arises because voters look to government to provide order and safety, constitutional limits on power don't suffice to 'guard the guardians,' and Government attracts power-hungry people. True, true, and true.
Lord Acton would emphasize also:
(d) Adverse 'treatment effects' in Government: Power corrupts.
(a) + (b) + (c) & (d) --> We get the Government that Government wants.
I submit that, in modern constitutional democracies, yet another cause explains a wide range of government overreach:
(e) Majority desire -- indeed, determination -- to bind minorities: Tyranny of the majority.
I acknowledge that majorities often make their case against a liberty, which a minority wants, by asserting that the liberty would harm public safety and/or the minority itself. Here I would say that, although the principle of charity in interpretation should indeed govern civic debates, psychological realism and long observation suggest that majorities are motivated largely by sentiments of repugnance or stigma, rather than careful assessment of public safety.
On many issues, we get the Government that the majority believes everyone deserves.
One thing we need to do is to stop this idea that corrupt government officials who, for instance, accept bribes are _very_ _serious_ _wrongdoers_ while the firms that offer the bribes are merely naughty boys only doing what we should expect them to. Once a firm is sufficiently wealthy you cannot punish them in a meaningful way by simply fining them. We've tried that with the pharmaceutical companies, and it hasn't worked. Fines do not scare them, it is just factored in as part of their cost of doing business. What we need to do is order the complete and utter shutdown of the company, sieze its intellectual assets and put them into the public domain, revoke its patents -- the whole scorched-earth bit. Bribe an official, lose your company. Of course, getting the paid-for politicians to actually pass legislation to address the supply-side of bribery problems is going to be extraordinarily difficult. But in theory ...
Two institutions subvert checks and balances in Government:
1. Political parties. These often thwart the separation of powers. When one party controls Congress and the Executive branch, tyranny of the majority can increase polarization and social conflict, although the baseline justification of Government is to reduce social conflict.
2. Government bureaucracies. Selection effects and treatment effects in employment in career civil service tend to create entrenched interest groups in favor of bigger Government.
New and better "exit options" (markets, decentralized jurisdictions, vouchers, internet matching, perhaps some forms of crypto) merit attention as potential external 'check and balances' on Government.
What the problem seems to be is the ever widening scope of government accompanied lately by a cohort of creepy, primitive and vicious politicians and wannabe politicians. The solution suggested, that is, to widen the scope of political accountability is a sound and practical strategy to reverse both trends, which is perhaps enough reason to seriously doubt its widespread adoption.
In addition to the exceptionally odd fish entering politics today, there are exceptionally uninformed new voters who are motivated by some pretty retarded archetypes that have everything to do with a reassertion of tribalism and out-group demonization. Rational solutions would appear to be rather low on their list of must-haves. Have a nice day.
There are many ways to achieve a government that truly aids human flourishing, but there are also cultural aspects which must be changed as well.
The first thing that must be done is understanding mind control, both individual and of the masses, and educating the people about it, so that they may defend against it. Mind control is quite simple, it depends on repetition to create beliefs (beliefs are nothing more than thoughts consistently thought upon until they become subconscious), and degradation of the individual by toxins & bad food (e.g. saturated fats and cholesterol are essential to proper brain development and functioning, and have been demonized by those in control).
As Mao noted, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, it would be helpful if the people regularly trained with each other with arms and in 4th & 5th generation warfare, e.g. under the ageis of the Sheriff's department, who could legally and lawfully deputize every willing man or woman, thus making a large, legally protected, local, body of armed protectors in the county where they live.
Sound money is critical to frugal funding of government and for preventing malinvestment, preferably there would be competing sound monies, e.g. a free float of gold, silver, Bitcoin, and anything else desired as money, with no taxation on conversion between them.
If implementing a Direct Republic is too challenging, then changing the nature of taxation is imperative. One way this can be achieved is by what I call allodial progressive Georgism/Geoism/Geolibertariansim: A land tax only, with a high minimum threshold (e.g. no tax on the equivalent of 50 acres of agricultural land AKA homesteaders pay no tax), and afterwards steeply progressive (e.g. very little increase in tax from 50 acres to 500, but accelerating rapidly so that if someone wants to own 10k acres, they pay e.g. 90% tax). This automatically limits the growth of oligarchs by restricting rent-seeking, and forces those wanting a return on capital to innovate instead of control.
We must create a culture of virtue, centered in always seeking and practicing truth.
Complete personal financial and communication transparency of any public official at all times. Withholding information should be punished by life imprisonment or death. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
Removal of any public official with a 10% referendum at any time.
There must be absolute freedom of association and contract. Forcing people who hate each other to live in the same community guarantees violence.
We must create a culture of enhanced protection of children, and then women of childbearing age. They matter more, because without them there is literally no future for the human race.
-=-
I’m going to be writing and podcasting on solutions to our problems in the future, so if you want to know them, sub to my Substack.
People who don't seek authority are often just fleeing accountability faster than those who do seek authority.
We do worse in selecting political leaders than you suggest, because we also make the entire process a kind of mudslinging that disgusts and revolts anyone with a sense of honor. People who care about their own self-image and reputation can't participate without an undue sense of injury.
The Constitution continues to be unique in the 2nd Amendment and the rejection of a standing Army, both of which were meant to leave the political establishment exposed to physical harm from even a substantial and enraged minority. This revolutionary concept would seem to make it even more difficult to obtain desirable political leaders than the last issue - but it is actually the reverse. Under potential threat of bodily harm as opposed to guaranteed threat of malicious accusations/slander and misrepresentation, one secures leaders with a completely different risk-benefit balance.
In Phase One, China spent three years preparing for this moment. GDP grew 400% faster than America's, with 0.001% of America's deaths.
Phase Two means that hospitals are ready and, like treatment and drugs, free. People are healthy and well informed. Omicron is weak. This is the perfect time to move on.
Expect Phase Two to be as well managed as Phase One and just as successful.
Today, it appears that we are in a vicious cycle. Government officials have obtained high status and power??
Chinese Government officials have obtained high status and power, but they are not in a vicious cycle. Quite the contrary.
The problem is not 'human nature' so much as human immaturity. If you allow emotionally immature people to run your country, you'll get abusive of power. That's why, 2500 years ago, Confucius forbade such people in government.
His rule – which China still follows – was to hire only geniuses then test their competence and moral fiber in the wilderness for 5-10 years. That's how most senior officials, including Xi, began their political careers.
I wonder if our country, and several other populous countries, have become too big to be governable. When the states adopted the U.S. Constitution, the national population was on the order of tens of millions of people. We had 13 or 14 states (when was Maine admitted?), so 26 or 28 Senators and one President. Now, we number more than 330 million people in 50 states, and 100 senators. The population has grown tenfold or 20-fold, but we only have 4x the number of Senators, a somewhat larger contingent of Representatives, and still one President and one Supreme Court. Is the country simply too big to be limited through the original form of checks and balances? Is the tradeoff that as a large country we are better able to defend ourselves against other large malign actors (China, Russia, Iran, etc.)?
There is an additional problem: We the people love deficit spending, whatever we say about it. We want individual benefits and our favorite causes and businesses subsidized. But we emphatically do not want personally to pay for any of it. In light of your critique and the additions to it in the comments, how could a libertarian candidate declare his/her governing principles to enough voters to win office? Should they try to infiltrate one of the major parties a la the largely ineffective Pauls? Run as a Libertarian or independent? And what would be the message? Expect less help from government and higher taxes to create a balanced budget? Hundreds of thousands of govt. employees entering unemployment? How do we sell that? It looks to me like the current system is in its death throes and will run its course all the way to collapse.
This is the most incisively written articles that I have seen on Substack for months.
Arnold's incisive analysis focusses on:
(a) Demand for Government in order to reduce social conflict.
(b) Slack in Government accountability despite the bill of rights and the system of checks and balances.
(c) Adverse selection in government.
If I understand correctly, Arnold holds that Government overreach arises because voters look to government to provide order and safety, constitutional limits on power don't suffice to 'guard the guardians,' and Government attracts power-hungry people. True, true, and true.
Lord Acton would emphasize also:
(d) Adverse 'treatment effects' in Government: Power corrupts.
(a) + (b) + (c) & (d) --> We get the Government that Government wants.
I submit that, in modern constitutional democracies, yet another cause explains a wide range of government overreach:
(e) Majority desire -- indeed, determination -- to bind minorities: Tyranny of the majority.
I acknowledge that majorities often make their case against a liberty, which a minority wants, by asserting that the liberty would harm public safety and/or the minority itself. Here I would say that, although the principle of charity in interpretation should indeed govern civic debates, psychological realism and long observation suggest that majorities are motivated largely by sentiments of repugnance or stigma, rather than careful assessment of public safety.
On many issues, we get the Government that the majority believes everyone deserves.
Government, consisting of humans wanting more comfy jobs, does NOT stay limited, as you note.
We need 10 year limits on "public service" - so those who enter gov't join it knowing it is a temporary job, not a lifetime career.
Utah just made 98% of their gov't jobs eligible for those without college degrees - that's also a good step.
One thing we need to do is to stop this idea that corrupt government officials who, for instance, accept bribes are _very_ _serious_ _wrongdoers_ while the firms that offer the bribes are merely naughty boys only doing what we should expect them to. Once a firm is sufficiently wealthy you cannot punish them in a meaningful way by simply fining them. We've tried that with the pharmaceutical companies, and it hasn't worked. Fines do not scare them, it is just factored in as part of their cost of doing business. What we need to do is order the complete and utter shutdown of the company, sieze its intellectual assets and put them into the public domain, revoke its patents -- the whole scorched-earth bit. Bribe an official, lose your company. Of course, getting the paid-for politicians to actually pass legislation to address the supply-side of bribery problems is going to be extraordinarily difficult. But in theory ...
Two institutions subvert checks and balances in Government:
1. Political parties. These often thwart the separation of powers. When one party controls Congress and the Executive branch, tyranny of the majority can increase polarization and social conflict, although the baseline justification of Government is to reduce social conflict.
2. Government bureaucracies. Selection effects and treatment effects in employment in career civil service tend to create entrenched interest groups in favor of bigger Government.
New and better "exit options" (markets, decentralized jurisdictions, vouchers, internet matching, perhaps some forms of crypto) merit attention as potential external 'check and balances' on Government.
Godfree could be some high level parody, but in today's world parody is often reality in a matter of months.
it's weird how even liberals still insist on only talking about the politicians
when they know it's the DEEP STATE that is the problem
What the problem seems to be is the ever widening scope of government accompanied lately by a cohort of creepy, primitive and vicious politicians and wannabe politicians. The solution suggested, that is, to widen the scope of political accountability is a sound and practical strategy to reverse both trends, which is perhaps enough reason to seriously doubt its widespread adoption.
In addition to the exceptionally odd fish entering politics today, there are exceptionally uninformed new voters who are motivated by some pretty retarded archetypes that have everything to do with a reassertion of tribalism and out-group demonization. Rational solutions would appear to be rather low on their list of must-haves. Have a nice day.
There are many ways to achieve a government that truly aids human flourishing, but there are also cultural aspects which must be changed as well.
The first thing that must be done is understanding mind control, both individual and of the masses, and educating the people about it, so that they may defend against it. Mind control is quite simple, it depends on repetition to create beliefs (beliefs are nothing more than thoughts consistently thought upon until they become subconscious), and degradation of the individual by toxins & bad food (e.g. saturated fats and cholesterol are essential to proper brain development and functioning, and have been demonized by those in control).
Jason Christoff has done excellent work in describing both the problem and the solution to individual and group mind-control. See https://courses.jchristoff.com/podcasts/psychology-of-freedom
Another is rethinking government's structure and funding via usage of new technology. Donnie Gebert has done excellent work in outlining how this might be done. See https://mises.org/library/donnie-gebert-explains-direct-republic-now-possible and https://www.thenullhypothesisofpolitics.com/home
As Mao noted, political power flows from the barrel of a gun, it would be helpful if the people regularly trained with each other with arms and in 4th & 5th generation warfare, e.g. under the ageis of the Sheriff's department, who could legally and lawfully deputize every willing man or woman, thus making a large, legally protected, local, body of armed protectors in the county where they live.
Sound money is critical to frugal funding of government and for preventing malinvestment, preferably there would be competing sound monies, e.g. a free float of gold, silver, Bitcoin, and anything else desired as money, with no taxation on conversion between them.
If implementing a Direct Republic is too challenging, then changing the nature of taxation is imperative. One way this can be achieved is by what I call allodial progressive Georgism/Geoism/Geolibertariansim: A land tax only, with a high minimum threshold (e.g. no tax on the equivalent of 50 acres of agricultural land AKA homesteaders pay no tax), and afterwards steeply progressive (e.g. very little increase in tax from 50 acres to 500, but accelerating rapidly so that if someone wants to own 10k acres, they pay e.g. 90% tax). This automatically limits the growth of oligarchs by restricting rent-seeking, and forces those wanting a return on capital to innovate instead of control.
Restorative justice must be implemented https://restorativejustice.org/what-is-restorative-justice/three-core-elements-of-restorative-justice/ laws punishing “crimes against the state” are corrosive to civil society and pit The State against man.
We must create a culture of virtue, centered in always seeking and practicing truth.
Complete personal financial and communication transparency of any public official at all times. Withholding information should be punished by life imprisonment or death. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right?
Removal of any public official with a 10% referendum at any time.
There must be absolute freedom of association and contract. Forcing people who hate each other to live in the same community guarantees violence.
We must create a culture of enhanced protection of children, and then women of childbearing age. They matter more, because without them there is literally no future for the human race.
-=-
I’m going to be writing and podcasting on solutions to our problems in the future, so if you want to know them, sub to my Substack.
Three comments:
People who don't seek authority are often just fleeing accountability faster than those who do seek authority.
We do worse in selecting political leaders than you suggest, because we also make the entire process a kind of mudslinging that disgusts and revolts anyone with a sense of honor. People who care about their own self-image and reputation can't participate without an undue sense of injury.
The Constitution continues to be unique in the 2nd Amendment and the rejection of a standing Army, both of which were meant to leave the political establishment exposed to physical harm from even a substantial and enraged minority. This revolutionary concept would seem to make it even more difficult to obtain desirable political leaders than the last issue - but it is actually the reverse. Under potential threat of bodily harm as opposed to guaranteed threat of malicious accusations/slander and misrepresentation, one secures leaders with a completely different risk-benefit balance.
This article was a very nice summary of government and human nature. The last paragraph doesn't really fit with the rest, though...
In Phase One, China spent three years preparing for this moment. GDP grew 400% faster than America's, with 0.001% of America's deaths.
Phase Two means that hospitals are ready and, like treatment and drugs, free. People are healthy and well informed. Omicron is weak. This is the perfect time to move on.
Expect Phase Two to be as well managed as Phase One and just as successful.
Today, it appears that we are in a vicious cycle. Government officials have obtained high status and power??
Chinese Government officials have obtained high status and power, but they are not in a vicious cycle. Quite the contrary.
The problem is not 'human nature' so much as human immaturity. If you allow emotionally immature people to run your country, you'll get abusive of power. That's why, 2500 years ago, Confucius forbade such people in government.
His rule – which China still follows – was to hire only geniuses then test their competence and moral fiber in the wilderness for 5-10 years. That's how most senior officials, including Xi, began their political careers.