[GJM] The Libertarian Contradiction

[Steve Consilvio]

I was thinking today that the primary contradiction between freedom  
and government revolves around the concept of a contract.

A contract is something that is freely agreed upon by two parties.   
No government need be involved.  But if someone feels that the  
contract has been broken, then he goes running to the government.   
Pretty quickly, the government is spending all its time enforcing  
contracts that private citizens agreed to.

The original agreement between the two citizens had an element of  
risk involved, for both sides.  They have to trust each other, and  
the vast majority of contracts work on a gentlemen's agreement.    
But, once a dispute arises, all the risk is transferred to the  
government to decide, and thus all the people bear the weight of  
honoring that contract, even though they were not a party to the  
agreement.  It would be far better for the government to refuse to  
judge any contract, than for it to be judge of all of them.

Of course, many would complain that they want the "protection" of the  
government, but it is that very act of transferring risk and creating  
a government "of protection" that has destroyed our freedom and  
create Big Brother.  Taxes become a reflection of the costs of all  
contracts, since even the government is "under contract" to its own  
employees.  And, most businesses are selling to the government,  
either directly or indirectly.

Libertarian is more than just a political idea, it is also the idea  
of economic liberty.  For there to be liberty, there must also be  
risk.  Most Libertarians, I suspect, want the rule of law (ie, the  
force of law) on their side.  (They tend to be self-employed.) If  
they are willing to pay for that "service," then they need to admit  
to themselves that the rest of the apparatus must come along with it.

If the courts limited themselves to criminal cases of violence, then  
we would be far better off.  Nothing can be stolen twice, but by  
getting the government involved, the loss can be many times greater.   
Insurance is a state-regulated pyramid scheme, and making the  
government the enforcer of contracts turns the government into a  
taxing pyramid scheme.  (Of course, no insurance should be  
mandatory.  That is forcing people into a contract.)

More people are swindled because they think the government is  
regulating the contract.  People would be wiser with less government,  
but there would also be less need to commit fraud.  Even in the act  
of trying to protect people the government is destroying the value of  
the currency, because all contracts revolve around "the right to  
profit."  Since capitalism, by definition, is an imbalanced trade,  
where one person loses and another person gains, the right to profit  
is inherently at risk when entering into the contract.  The  
government is now insuring people's expectations; this need not  
involve the state.

Take copyright protection, for example.  If I buy a CD I am under  
contract to the artist and the record company.  It's totally nuts how  
far this concept of contract has grown.  While people are no longer  
considered property (slavery,) the concept of private contracts is  
still seriously out of whack, along with the government's role in  
enforcing them.  Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives all go  
running to the government for protection of their contracts, when the  
better strategy would be to limit the government's power to decide  
certain issues, and all contracts would be strictly voluntary.  (How  
many soldiers would be in Iraq now if their heads were not full of  
the foolishness that they are "under contract?")

We are all making ourselves a victim of our own government, but more  
specifically, it is our understanding of contract that is at fault.   
Even the covenant with God is voluntary,  He may judge at the end,  
but in the meantime you can keep or break the contract at will.  Why  
would contracts between man be less flexible?  The more we enforce  
our expectations, the less they come to be.  Without trust, we have  
nothing.  The government becomes an instrument of revenge, and  
nothing will correct the past, but the attempt to "right wrongs" can  
destroy the present and the future.

peace,
steve consilvio
www.behappyandfree.com