The Right Opinion
There Ought Not to Be a Law
I'm a libertarian in part because I see a false choice offered by the political left and right: government control of the economy -- or government control of our personal lives.
People on both sides think of themselves as freedom lovers. The left thinks government can lessen income inequality. The right thinks government can make Americans more virtuous. I say we're best off if neither side attempts to advance its agenda via government.
Let both argue about things like drug use and poverty, but let no one be coerced by government unless he steals or attacks someone. Beyond the small amount needed to fund a highly limited government, let no one forcibly take other people's money. When in doubt, leave it out -- or rather, leave it to the market and other voluntary institutions.
But this is not how most people think. Most people see a world full of problems that can be solved by laws. They assume it's just the laziness, stupidity or indifference of politicians that keeps them from solving our problems. But government is force -- and inefficient.
That's why it's better if government didn't try to address most of life's problems.
People tend to believe that "government can!" When problems arise, they say, "There ought to be a law!"
Even the collapse of the Soviet Union, caused by the appalling results of central planning, didn't shock the world into abandoning big government. Europe began talking about some sort of "market socialism." Politicians in the United States dreamt of a "third way" between capitalism and socialism, and of "managed capitalism" -- where politicians often replace the invisible hand.
George W. Bush ran for president promising a "lean" government, but he decided to create a $50 billion per year prescription drug entitlement and build a new bureaucracy called No Child Left Behind. Under Bush, Republicans doubled discretionary spending (the greatest increase since LBJ), expanded the drug war and hired 90,000 new regulators.
Bush's increases in regulation didn't mollify the media's demand for still more.
Then came Barack Obama and spending big enough to bankrupt all our children. That fueled the tea party and the 2010 elections.
The tea party gave me hope, but I was fooled again. Within months, the new "fiscally conservative" Republicans voted to preserve farm subsidies, vowed to "protect" Medicare and cringed when Romney's future veep choice, Rep. Paul Ryan, proposed his mild deficit plan.
It is unfortunate that the United States, founded partly on libertarian principles, cannot admit that government has gotten too big. East Asian countries embraced markets and flourished. Sweden and Germany liberalized their labor markets and saw their economies improve.
But we keep passing new rules.
The enemy here is human intuition. Amid the dazzling bounty of the marketplace, it's easy to take the benefits of markets for granted. I can go to a foreign country and stick a piece of plastic in the wall, and cash will come out. I can give that same piece of plastic to a stranger who doesn't even speak my language -- and he'll rent me a car for a week. When I get home, Visa or MasterCard will send me the accounting -- correct to the penny. We take such things for granted.
Government, by contrast, can't even count votes accurately.
Yet whenever there are problems, people turn to government. Despite the central planners' long record of failure, few of us like to think that the government which sits atop us, taking credit for everything, could really be all that rotten.
The great 20th-century libertarian H.L. Mencken lamented, "A government at bottom is nothing more than a group of men, and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men. ... Yet these nonentities, by the intellectual laziness of men in general ... are generally obeyed as a matter of duty (and) assumed to have a kind of wisdom that is superior to ordinary wisdom."
There is nothing government can do that we cannot do better as free individuals -- and as groups of individuals working freely together.
Without big government, our possibilities are limitless.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

9 Comments
Rick in Kennesaw
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Spoken as a true Libertarian, bravo. However, I believe your point is clouded through your use of terms. Not that you used them incorrectly but in how people misunderstand them. Liberal and Conservative - words having definite connotation in American English. One thing I'd like to remind you of when writing your articles or speaking your piece on your TV show is that most American's still don't know there are conflicting definitions of "liberal" at work at the same time in the American vocabulary. This can become confusing or misleading. When you say "Sweden and Germany liberalized their labor markets and saw their economies improve", many Americans think you are referring to the party of liberals - the Democrats as opposed to classical liberalism.
Now, on to your criticism of both parties... The control of either party is in the hands of a few. It is unfortunate that the constituent opinion yields to the party leaders. The party leadership is the key and the control of both parties are in the hands of big government liberals (in the sense that liberals want more and bigger government). However, I think there is a difference and a clear choice between D'crats and Repubs. The D'crat constituency embrace leftism - big government. The Repubs favor less government. However, Conservatives are trying drive out the big government liberals from the Repub establishment. No "true" conservative I know was for the big spending, big government policies of Bush... we hated it. It is unfortunate that most Repub leaders because of their liberal big government proclivities) have fooled themselves into thinking they must do what they do (...give in to the big government liberals) to get along with the D'crats. I think libertarians would do well to recognize they have a lot more in common with Conservatives than Big Government Liberals. Libertarians would make greater headway into winning an election with their ideas if they would choose to work with True Conservatives (not the Repub Party) to move this country in the direction of the principles of the founders. Think about it.
Kevin in Michigan
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Good points Rick - an unspoken truth in the MSM is that Bush spent like a Democrat, doubling or tripling most 'social' spending. I stopped calling myself a Republican around 2003 - and still consider myself a Conservative w/ Liberterian leanings. I vote republican because the now Socialist/Democrat party is far worse for this country.
Note on the Democrat Party - run by the 'elite', all are '60s Socialists from enclaves that are full of socialists. I'm hoping 2012 burnishes them back to the fringes and let JFK Democrats to take leaderhip.
Tex Horn in Texas
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Like you, Mr. Stossel, I am a Libertarian. I'm also a Tea Party supporter. Much of what you say is true. And like you, I'm not convinced that the Republicans or the Democrats are really going to reduce the size of government to the extent it needs to happen. No governmental departments will disappear under either party. Under Paul Ryan's plan, the government will still grow, just a mite bit slower. All that said, we the people need to depose the pretender in the White House. And, because there is no viable Libertarian candidate (and may never be), I'll be voting for Romney/Ryan to dispose the racist holding the title of President. Then, I'll continue to do what I've been doing for years, writing to voice my concerns over their policies, in an attempt to move closer to the Libertarian principle of very small government. Let me repeat: "very" small government.
Brian in Newport News
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM
With you all the way. While I am a registered Republican, my politcal philosophy is nearly totally Libertarian. I believe in constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility and reliance on God for all things.
Government should focus strictly on protecting our God-given rights and nothing more. Life is not fair, and it is not the job of government to make it so. If our elected leaders would adhere to this idea, we would solve a lot of our problems.
Tex Horn in Texas
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Mac, I don't remember Ross Perot running on a Libertarian platform, rather a "third-party candidate"' running under the Reform Party, which is not the same. While I would like to see a "viable Libertarian" run, I honestly don't see it happening unless the two-party system continues to ruin America, then it may be too late.
J Henry in USSA
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 4:05 PM
I'm a conservative libertarian and I have all but given up hope for responsible government. I vote republican every election because they are slightly less irresponsible than the demonrats, but they still suck.
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 8:07 PM
Good one, John! The irony is that "market socialism" and "State Capitalism" are the same thing. Capitalism can't go away because capital has to be organized somehow to create a good or service of value. A free market is least prone to corruption. Governments must never operate a business because governments write the laws that can advantage them and disadvantage their competitors. Starve the beast. Yet it calls constantly, the ring of Sauron, the "precious" ring.
David Thompson in Bellville, TX
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 10:17 PM
"The right thinks government can make Americans more virtuous." And they think that, quite vociferously, right here on the pages of the PatPost, sadly. I'm glad they still publish your columns, Mr. Stoessel.
Attila in Fort Lauderdale
Monday, August 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM
For you youngsters, "There Oughta be a Law" was a regular syndicated cartoon some years ago that expressed everyday frustrations in an amusing way, usually. It soon became obvious to me at least that in most cases, a law would be counterproductive. Best would be to keep laws simple and few, as each law becomes a strand in the ropes that binds us.The Constitution was written as laws that bind government rather than the people. Both well meaning fools and self serving swine have twisted it all out recognition. Very few laws since have had any purpose other than to manipulate voters or reward political insiders at the expense of citizens.