The growth of Leviathan due to social unrest

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StudentMI

Guest
In the midst of all the commotion over the riots, talk of police reform, sending in the army, etc, I don’t see much reference to the growth of the federal government. Is this a real threat given the social unrest in our country?

It would seem to cut across political lines, though mainly for differing reasons. Those on the right would be against the growth of government per se. Note this excludes those on the right who talk about liberty but rarely practice it.

Those on the left would oppose federal intervention merely because it’s Trump, as would those in the center. That is, as long as we don’t mention the leftists (not a majority, I’ll admit) who don’t favor federal intervention in general.

It would seem the two can find common cause, though that seems unlikely given the current climate. With talk of racism coming to the fore, the issue will probably never see a joining of the hands between left and right to stand against the police state and federal tyranny. Sad, in my opinion.

Robert Higgs, in his classic book Crisis and Leviathan, meticulously shows how governments use crises to expand power via the ratchet effect. That is, during a crisis the state extends its power to ‘solve’ (to varying degrees of efficacy) the crisis. When the crisis is over, the state retreats, but never to the same level as before the crisis. Is that what we may see? What will that mean in the future, whichever candidate wins in November?

A link to a detailed summary of Higgs’ book is below.

 
I read today that a small majority of Americans would not mind the military being called in to help in the current crisis.

Are we boiling the frog here?
 
A friend of mine worked in government for several decades, through several different administrations. And he told me that, regardless of their rhetoric, both the left and the right like big government. Because once they’re in power, they realize that the way they impose their will on other people is through government. And both sides want to impose their own will on other people.

It’s like what happened with the debt in the United States. When the left was in power, the right couldn’t stop complaining about the debt. Once the right was in power, all of a sudden, it’s not a problem anymore (for them). But you do hear people on the left complaining about all the additional debt that was created through the tax cuts. Debt is only seen as bad when it’s the other side that’s accumulating it.
StudentMI said:
Is that what we may see? What will that mean in the future, whichever candidate wins in November?
Click to expand...
I do think it’s entirely possible (in fact, even probable) we will see an increase in tyranny in this country. It seems to be happening already.

I was just thinking about this earlier this morning. In the face of such things, I think it’s helpful to remember the tyranny that Jesus and the early Christians lived under, and draw hope from all they were able to accomplish (spiritually) despite the adverse physical environment.

As He said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
 
Last edited:
White_Tree said:
A friend of mine worked in government for several decades, through several different administrations. And he told me that, regardless of their rhetoric, both the left and the right like big government. Because once they’re in power, they realize that the way they impose their will on other people is through government. And both sides want to impose their own will on other people.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Pierre Bourdieu, in his book Acts of Resistance, distinguishes between the right and left hands of the state. The right is for things like military buildup, subsidies to business, etc. The left is for more social programs. But the point is it’s all the state, at least in my interpretation.

Please note I’m not advocating anarchism. But there definitely is something to say about the growth of the modern state that many anarchists have analyzed. Even Dorothy Day said much the same.
 
White_Tree said:
I do think it’s entirely possible (in fact, even probable) we will see an increase in tyranny in this country. It seems to be happening already.
Click to expand...
That has been going on for 100 years now. The more power and influence that states lose over the general government, the closer to tyranny we move. That power and influence was undermined by the 17th amendment and would be further eroded if the electoral college is neutralized.
These plus the revision of the meanings of the commerce and general welfare clauses, have added to central powers at the expense of individual rights.
 
Last edited:
Trump seems to favor decentralization so I don’t think it’s an issue with what’s going on now.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
Trump seems to favor decentralization so I don’t think it’s an issue with what’s going on now.
Click to expand...
He acts like he does, like many Republicans, but economically and politically he’s as centralizing as it gets.
 
Have there been options, as far as recent presidential races go? Ron Paul?
 
Buks said:
Have there been options, as far as recent presidential races go? Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
Ron Paul and the Libertarian party talk of decentralization but are far too bound to libertarian talking points to really bring it about. There is the Green Party but as a Catholic I find it hard to vote for them given their stance on abortion. I have before, however. Same with the Libertarians. More protest votes than anything.

I think there may be some sort of hope with the American Solidarity Party given they are on line with Catholic social teaching, of which subsidiarity is a fundamental principle. However they have no hope of winning office anywhere. If they ever did I’d suspect they’d be hampered by other politicians from ever getting anywhere near implementing any of their plans.

Just my take.
 
Drifting but… I voted for Nader twice, and will soon have voted for Trump twice. For all the latter’s warts, the mainstream options have just worried me, each for distinct reasons. I’m selectively worried about “leviathan”. Healthcare is a corporate leviathan.
 
Buks said:
Drifting but… I voted for Nader twice, and will soon have voted for Trump twice. For all the latter’s warts, the mainstream options have just worried me, each for distinct reasons. I’m selectively worried about “leviathan”. Healthcare is a corporate leviathan.
Click to expand...
If the topic interests you I strongly recommend America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz. It’s not a socialist tract but a great look at decentralization.
 
Last edited:
I’ll try to borrow that, but in the meantime I have a hold request in for another of his titles that was available. Thanks. I’d never heard of him.
 
Buks said:
I’ll try to borrow that, but in the meantime I have a hold request in for another of his titles that was available. Thanks. I’d never heard of him.
Click to expand...
Cool. Hope you enjoy.
 
Buks said:
Have there been options, as far as recent presidential races go? Ron Paul?
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem in a lot of democracies. A lack of choice. Quite often you have to choose the least worst option. And any two party state will, almost by definition, polarise the voters.

And go back even just ten years and if you told everyone the kind of world we would be living in now we’d all fight tooth and nail to prevent it happening. But people feel like this is the new normal. It’s almost acceptable.

God help us.
 
StudentMI said:
The right is for things like military buildup, subsidies to business, etc.
Click to expand...
And then we have Solyndra; so I would be a bit hesitant with the paint brush. Half a billion dollars up in smoke.

As to subsidies to business, the field is irfe with subidies on both Republican and Democratic state administrations subsidizing business through tax cuts in order to get the business to settle in the state as opposed to another state; and it is short term sight which calls “foul” as a business large enough to get a subsidy is going to provide employment, which in turn provides taxes to state and local jurisdictions as well as jobs.

Do they all work out? of course not, but the evidence is that they provide long term benefits in most circumstances.
StudentMI said:
Please note I’m not advocating anarchism. But there definitely is something to say about the growth of the modern state that many anarchists have analyzed.
Click to expand...
anarchists are the last group of people I would look to for any logical answer. Anarchism is in itself illogical.
 
Freddy said:
Therein lies the problem in a lot of democracies. A lack of choice. Quite often you have to choose the least worst option. And any two party state will, almost by definition, polarise the voters.
Click to expand...
From what I have observed over the last 40 years is that any country which has multiple parties of relatively equal weight has even more chaos in their governing than the 2 party system we have.And the more choices one has, the less likely there will be in forming a consensus.
 
otjm said:
And then we have Solyndra; so I would be a bit hesitant with the paint brush.
Click to expand...
I should have been clear I was trying to summarize what Bourdieu wrote. He was making a case for the left hand of the state but I sort of took my own interpretation away from it. Definitely not trying to paint with broad strokes.

I regret that you cut out the part about Dorothy Day at the end of my line about anarchism. It was kind of central to it. I feel Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin have a lot to say to us in our current predicament, and they were very influenced by anarchists to the point of calling themselves such. Though their proposed solutions are impractical and impossible and I have many disagreements, I would question anyone who read Kropotkin, Nock, Paul Goodman, Bookchin and many more and came away with nothing.
 
StudentMI said:
I feel Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin have a lot to say to us in our current predicament, and they were very influenced by anarchists to the point of calling themselves such.
Click to expand...
My recollection of Dorothy Day is that she was an anarchist prior to her conversion. And while I agree with her general “option for the poor” and the fact that the poor often are at the mercy of a system they often cannot comprehend, let alone find a way to work with, I don’t see her as an anarchist subsequent to the conversion, but rather a passionate advocate against what she perceived as inequities.

I respect those who speak from what I call the “fringes”, and who often speak ideologically but not necessarily practically. And that comes from personal experience.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top