excerpted from: Whole Number 106 - October 2000

Freedom or Government?

The other day we received a letter in wich the writer stated that in his opinion the choice was between government and anarchy. He asked what we proposed in place of government and we said that we proposed freedom.

Government by its very nature must govern. To govern is to dictate. All governments are dictatorships of one form or another. They may be one-man dictatorships, constitutional dictatorships, dictatorships in republican or democratic form, majority rule dictatorships, dictatorships by bureau or what have you. But the fact remains that to govern is to dictate.

The alternative to government is freedom. The individual who believes in freedom does not seek to govern others. He merely wants to govern himself. He is perfectly willing to let other people govern themselves also.

"Ah, but what about the criminals who would aggress against people who would be helpless without the protection of government?" say those who are afraid of freedom.

In the first place, the criminals are a small proportion of the population. We do need protection from criminals but we should recognize the size of the problem and not blow it up out of all proportion as is done when we organize our whole society around an agency (government) whose only [alleged] legitimate function is to protect us from the small proportion of the population who are criminals.

If criminals were more than a small proportion of the population, it would be impossible to protect the rest of the population from them anyway. As big as the government now is, it, or any agency its size, could not protect innocent people from criminals if criminals represented a large proportion of the population.

Most people by nature are not criminals. Most people do not seek to aggress against others. People are not naturally thieves, murderers, rapists, etc. They are naturally peaceful and harmless. This is the nature of things as they are.

The nature of government is to govern, to dictate to everyone in its sphere of influence. Since government dictates to everyone in its sphere of influence and since most people are peaceful and harmless, most government actions involve dictation to peaceful, harmless people. This is the nature of government and this is the nature of people.

Is this what any thinking person wants?

Do we want dictatorship be it by a sole dictator, an oligarchy, a president, a legislature, a government, a county commission, a city council, the school board in a school district, or the majority in any political area?

Or do we want freedom?

That is the question of our age.

Either we want dictatorship, which we now have in every governing body constituting our government, or we want freedom.

Freedom by its very nature is not government. It is self-control, no more no less.

Editor's note: This is only part of the story. For the balance of it, read the ensuing editorial entitled: "Protection by Voluntary Means."

In the foregoing editorial we discussed the idea of freedom or government. We suggest that you read that editorial before proceeding.

"But how about the criminals?" those who are afraid of freedom again ask.

In answering this let's make two observations.

First, as stated above, this is a much smaller problem than is generally recognized. And it would be even smaller were it not for the fact that mankind has sanctioned government power to such an extent that power in itself has thus been sanctioned. By sanctioning government power, mankind has increased the tacit acceptance of power as a means to an end. The criminal believes that the end justifies the means. The increased acceptance of power as a means to an end leads to increased criminality. This is a logical inevitable development of mankind's acceptance of government power as a means to an end.

Second, power attracts criminals. The bigger government gets, the more power it has, the more criminals are attracted to get in government and use this power for their [own] benefit. This is the nature of things.

Therefore, the size of the criminal problem is increased in two ways by mankind's acceptance of government. One, the sanction of government power increases the sanction of power per se, and causes lack of recognition of abuses of power. Two, the existence of government power attracts the criminal and makes it possible for him to do much more harm than he could without this power.

Remove mankind's sanction of government power and the problem of criminality would be greatly reduced.

Another factor which would cause this reduction is increasing individual responsibility.

Government today, far from claiming only to protect the individual from criminals has become a great factor in penalizing the productive and rewarding the non-productive. As a result individual responsibility is on the wane. "Let government do it," is the cry on all sides when a problem arises. The only way government can "do it" is to take assets from those who have responsibly saved these assets and distribute them in a way people who have not saved them desire. This by its nature reduces responsibility and increases irresponsibility. Since criminality is irresponsibility, the actions of government in redistributing the wealth increases criminality.

A person who fears freedom then might say, "Granted government in three ways increases criminality but, even so, there would still be criminals. How would I be protected from them?

The answer is, by private protection agencies. Some of the largest organizations in the world today are insurance companies which now provide protection in areas which have not been usurped by government. Under freedom these companies provide protection which works in these areas. Under freedom, these or other companies could and would provide protection which would work much better than the illusion of protection which we now have in the areas usurped by government.

Freedom works when not outlawed by government. The history of these United States proves that. It cannot work effectively in fields dominated by government. Who can compete with government? Who can compete with dictatorship which is inherent in every government ever organized in human history?

The choice is not between government and anarchy.

The choice is between government and freedom. Or more accurately expressed:

The choice is between dictatorship and freedom.

[Editor's Note: These editorials probably first appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, and were copied from A Voice For Freedom, published by Register Division of Freedom Newspaper, Inc. on September 1, 1962. Readers who question Mr. Hoiles' view of human nature may wish to consult Murray Rothbard's comments in The Voluntaryist in Whole No. 95 where he refutes the myth that "Libertarians are utopians who believe that all people are good, and that therefore state control is not necessary."]