# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Is "Limited Government" Too Much Government?

## Occam's Banana

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/is-limi...ch-government/



> An excellent chat with Gary Chartier, author of _The Conscience of an Anarchist_. Please subscribe to the show on iTunes by clicking here!


*The Tom Woods Show: Anarcho-Capitalism*
Tom Woods interviews Gary Chartier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fet5OGFDf8w

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Excellent commentary for Matt Collins and Theocrat.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I don't believe we can possibly know the answer to that question until we actually experience it for once.  Which we haven't done since something like 1815.  One can guess, but there can be no sure knowledge of the answer until it actually happens.  If we get there and it works, great!  If we get there and it doesn't work, then we'll have made it 70% of the way and only have another 30% to push.  In either case, one way or the other limited government is a train stop on the way between here and A/C, so we can all push that direction and see what happens when we get there.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't believe we can possibly know the answer to that question until we actually experience it for once.  Which we haven't done since something like 1815.  One can guess, but there can be no sure knowledge of the answer until it actually happens.  If we get there and it works, great!  If we get there and it doesn't work, then we'll have made it 70% of the way and only have another 30% to push.  In either case, one way or the other limited government is a train stop on the way between here and A/C, so we can all push that direction and see what happens when we get there.


Well said. As an an-cap myself, I would be tickled pink to live under the sort of "limited government" of which you would approve, Glen. If nothing else, it would at least be a respite from the totalistic monstrosity & bloody-minded mayhem that passes for "governance" today ...

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Well said. As an an-cap myself, I would be tickled pink to live under the sort of "limited government" of which you would approve, Glen. If nothing else, it would at least be a respite from the totalistic monstrosity & bloody-minded mayhem that passes for "governance" today ...


I'd be happy to live under "limited government" as well, but Americans already have lived under it.  The problem is that it seems invariably to metastasize and spread like the cruelest form of cancer, and we Americans today are burdened to rot with the disease it leaves in its wake.

And again, this is why I emphatically hold that the only answer to the problem of government is education.  Not until most people appropriately hold with utter scorn the very idea of government in the same way that most people look at child molestation, for example, will humanity actually be free.  No election, and no politician, could ever possibly bring that about.

----------


## familydog

Is "limited spousal abuse" too much abuse? I suppose no if you are the abuser.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'd be happy to live under "limited government" as well, but Americans already have lived under it.  The problem is that it seems invariably to metastasize and spread like the cruelest form of cancer, and we Americans today are burdened to rot with the disease it leaves in its wake.


Right. That's why I described it as a "respite" rather than as a "solution."




> And again, this is why I emphatically hold that the only answer to the problem of government is education.  Not until most people appropriately hold with utter scorn the very idea of government in the same way that most people look at child molestation, for example, will humanity actually be free.  No election, and no politician, could ever possibly bring that about.


It is a project for the ages. It has only been, what, a century-and-a-hallf or so, since the first systematic, rigorous and thouroughly worked-out defenses of liberty began to appear (Spooner, Bastiat, etc.) - defenses that were more than just roundabout apologia for the State? Education is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

In any given society, most people do not have any particular ideological basis for their political opinions. Indeed, many do not even have intellectually-grounded opinions at all, so much as mere unexamined "preferences" for or against this or that particular policy. The same would be true of any stateless society, as well. Although widespread adoption of the Non-Aggression Principle (or something like it) as a generally upheld & acknowledged social norm would be necessary, it is very unlikely that most people would be explicit Rothbardians (or even be aware of Rothbard & his work, except in the vaguest of terms).

If a stateless society is ever achieved, most people will have come to anti-statism by "experiential" rather than "educational" means - just as American colonial revolutionaries did not revolt because they were inspired by John Locke (of whom most of them had probably never even heard), but rather as a consequence of their first-hand experience of British tyranny. Nevertheless, the work of Locke (and others) significantly shaped and formed what came after and his (and their) ideas became part of the "taken for granted" cultural landscape - which is why education is so centrally (but not exclusively) important.

Liberty cannot be achieved by means of electoral politics (such politics ceding, as it does, control of law in particular and society in general to a group of priveleged elites, rather than to free people engaging in voluntary interaction). But as addled as our culture is with statism in general and electoral politics in particular, politics is not a venue that is entirely without value as a means of transmission (albeit not actual achievement) of liberty ideas & ideals. "Limited government" of the sort Gunny & others promote  - as impermanent an "unstable equilibrium" as it might be in actual practice - is a "station" on the way. Efforts to arrive at that "station" will establish an "experiential context" (distinct from any "educational effort") that will also serve to create more fertile ground for the possibility of going even further down the tracks ...

----------


## BuddyRey

Great stuff!

I'm lovin' Tom's new show, and I guess plenty of other people are too, since he made the top 5 podcasts in the iTunes store after just two weeks!

----------


## jkr

MAN is wholly INCAPPABLE of ruling others, so yes even limited gubber is too much

----------


## thoughtomator

> MAN is wholly INCAPPABLE of ruling others, so yes even limited gubber is too much


The point of limited government is that it doesn't "rule" anybody. It's there to take care of specific delegated responsibilities, full stop - none of which require anyone to rule over anyone else.

----------


## AFPVet

Is limited government too much...? Yes and no. Can the private sector manage the same systems and be accountable? Yes—universities are a perfect example of this. Universities are governed and _accredited_ by private institutions. Accreditation is important in this regard because it holds universities to the same level of performance and expectations. Likewise, the private sector can offer a type of 'accreditation' to governing agencies in order to keep things in check. Conversely, our current system is a monopoly. The checks and balances don't work when they are all on the same payroll and not accountable to the people. 

The no part is that some government is going to be needed for defense since the private sector is great at contracts, but their ability to manage military operations is questionable (see Blackwater). Perhaps if there was a private regulatory agency enforcing the standards, the private sector could do it as well. The problem I see is that war could become profitable business. We already use the GWOT as an excuse to install global banks and control oil supplies—and this is under a "government"; although some would argue that the U.S. is already a private business that is controlled by the world banks.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I don't believe we can possibly know the answer to that question until we actually experience it for once.  Which we haven't done since something like 1815.  One can guess, but there can be no sure knowledge of the answer until it actually happens.  If we get there and it works, great!  If we get there and it doesn't work, then we'll have made it 70% of the way and only have another 30% to push.  In either case, one way or the other limited government is a train stop on the way between here and A/C, so we can all push that direction and see what happens when we get there.


Harry Browne, running for President, said when he accepted the LP nomination that after he got government down to, I believe a 100 billion dollar annual budget was the figure he used, then he personally would rent out the Superbowl for an entire month and we could all go there and argue over what to do next.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If a stateless society is ever achieved, most people will have come to anti-statism by "experiential" rather than "educational" means - just as American colonial revolutionaries did not revolt because they were inspired by John Locke (of whom most of them had probably never even heard), but rather as a consequence of their first-hand experience of British tyranny.


 And more importantly, first-hand experience with decades of de facto freedom -- statelessness or near-statelessness.  "Benevolent neglect".  Syphilis isn't always a bad thing, nor madness, nor laziness, nor incompetence... when it's the king that has them and it means he forgets all about you and leaves you alone.

----------


## erowe1

All government is limited.

Is there anyone out there that actually tries to distinguish some governments as limited and others as unlimited?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> All government is limited.


  Limited in what sense?  Limited by what?

----------


## erowe1

> Limited in what sense?  Limited by what?


Limited in any sense you want, by lots of things.

All rulers in history have had to recognize their limits, or else succumb to defeat on account of them.

How can a government be unlimited? I can't even conceive of what that would mean.

----------


## jkr

GOVERNMENT = MONOPOLY ON FORCE

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Limited in any sense you want


 Well, anything can be anything, if you open it up to whatever sense you want.

Bananas are people... in a sense.

Manufacturing is curvy... in a sense.

Immunochemistry is subumbelliferous... in a sense.

Just take any two random words!  Your statement will never be false.  Whee!

----------


## erowe1

> Well, anything can be anything, if you open it up to whatever sense you want.
> 
> Bananas are people... in a sense.
> 
> Manufacturing is curvy... in a sense.
> 
> Immunochemistry is subumbelliferous... in a sense.
> 
> Just take any two random words!  Your statement will never be false.  Whee!


But it will never be false anyway. You pick the definition. Don't let me pick it.

Is there any sense at all in which any government has ever been, or ever could be, unlimited?

ETA: Are all governments limited in size? Yes.
Are all governments limited in power? Yes.
Are all governments limited in resources? Yes.
Are all governments limited in number of people they rule over? Yes.
Are all governments limited in land they rule over? Yes.
Are all governments limited in what the people they rule will allow them to get away with? Yes.
Are all governments limited by what those who control them are willing to do? Yes.
Are all governments limited by what other governments will tolerate from them? Yes.
Are all governments limited by the abilities of the people who comprise them? Yes.

What am I missing?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But it will never be false anyway.


 _What_ will never be false anyway?




> You pick the definition. Don't let me pick it.


 Definition of what?




> Is there any sense at all in which any government has ever been, or ever could be, unlimited?


 Yes.  Obviously.

----------


## erowe1

> _What_ will never be false anyway?


My claim that all governments are limited.




> Definition of what?


Limited government.




> Yes.  Obviously.


Got an example? Because to me, it's obvious that no government ever has been or ever could be unlimited.

I thought my claim that all government was limited would be noncontroversial.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> My claim that all governments are limited.


 Ahh, got it.





> Got an example?


 The US government used to be unlimited in the sense that Presidents could be President for unlimited periods of time.  Now, it is limited in the sense that Presidents may only be President for a limited amount of time.




> I thought my claim that all government was limited would be noncontroversial.


 Since people are discussing the properties of limited government, disclaiming its very existence seems extremely unlikely to be non-controversial.

----------


## erowe1

> The US government used to be unlimited in the sense that Presidents could be President for unlimited periods of time.


First of all, that's just not true. There never was potential for someone to remain president after they died.

Second of all, even if it were, the government would be limited in other ways. Unlimited would mean no limits. Wouldn't it?

ETA: Third of all, more importantly than how long a given presidency can last, the government itself must still be limited in how long it can last.





> Since people are discussing the properties of limited government, disclaiming its very existence seems extremely unlikely to be non-controversial.


I didn't disclaim the existence of limited government. I disclaimed the existence of unlimited government.

And I still can't fathom how that could be controversial. Of course all governments are limited.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> First of all, that's just not true. *There never was potential for someone to remain president after they died.
> *
> Second of all, even if it were, the government would be limited in other ways. Unlimited would mean no limits. Wouldn't it?
> 
> ETA: Third of all, more importantly than how long a given presidency can last, the government itself must still be limited in how long it can last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The 2 term limitation for POTUSes is just a tradition started by Washington.  There was never an intent before that to limit re-elections.  (see article II)

----------


## erowe1

> The 2 term limitation for POTUSes is just a tradition started by Washington.  There was never an intent before that to limit re-elections.  (see article II)


That doesn't mitigate what I said that you bolded.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That doesn't mitigate what I said that you bolded.


You were responding to helmuth's post:



> The US government used to be unlimited in the sense that Presidents could be President for unlimited periods of time.


It's pretty clear that he meant that within the limits of a lifetime, so I assumed you were making a funny.

----------


## erowe1

> It's pretty clear that he meant that within the limits of a lifetime


If he did mean that, then it didn't support his point.

----------


## Theocrat

> GOVERNMENT = MONOPOLY ON FORCE


Therein is the main problem with anarchists. There are several problems with the "equation" above. For starters, there are many types of government in the world. Besides civil (state) government, there also exists family government, church government, and self-government (which is the basis for the other three). Just labeling the left side of the "equation" as "government" says absolutely nothing, if the term is not defined and explained on what level the word "government" is being used.

In addition to that, another problem with the "equation" above is that it is simply false that any government has a "monopoly on force." There are many advocates of limited (civil) government who do not hold to the belief that such government ought to have complete possession and power to impose force on others without any ethical dictate. If nothing else, common sense shows that the phrase "limited government" precludes any instance that a monopoly exists for governments to use force, whether it's civil, family, church, or self-government. Really, the key question is "Who gets to decide the boundaries upon which force can be used in any type of government?"

Along that same line of thought, when we address the thread title, "Is 'Limited Government' Too Much Government," it just begs the question of "Who gets to determine how much is 'too much' government?" Anarchists? Constitutionalists? Socialists? The thread title makes the baseline issue a quantitative one, as if the measurements used to come to a quantitative analysis about a given phenomenon (such as data in economics, finance, or physics) can be easily applied to measure how much "government" is "too much."

The issue is not quantitative, in nature, but qualitative. In other words, perhaps we should asking whether limited (civil) government is ethically right, and therefore, absolutely necessary for individuals in society, or not.

----------


## Czolgosz

From no government to today's United States Fed, if you don't have a permanent force to defend freedom (both philosophically and physically) you will lose it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> First of all, that's just not true. There never was potential for someone to remain president after they died.
> 
> Second of all, even if it were, the government would be limited in other ways. Unlimited would mean no limits. Wouldn't it?


 You said "in any sense you want."  That is, "limited in any sense you want."  You are adding/changing the sense to the sense that _you_ want.  You want to talk about the limits on a Presidency term  in a practical sense.  Indeed, "in a practical sense" is the sense in which you want to discuss all of this.  And yes, _in a practical sense_ there may indeed be limits on how long a human is likely to live.  However, "in a legal sense" is a different sense, now isn't it?  If a President were to remain alive until he were 969 years old, continually being elected during that time, would the Constitution require he be placed under arrest?  No, not before it was amended.  He could keep being re-elected an unlimited number of times.  If you say that it was limited, then what was that limit?  Name a number.  No, there was no such limit.  Furthermore, in the unlikely event of the electors or the Senate choosing to elect a dead person as President, it is not clear what the legal situation would be.  There is nothing explicit in the Constitution about such an eventuality.  But since there is no explicit requirement that the President be alive when elected (only provision for what happens if they die after being elected) it could be that the dead person then becomes President for the next 4 years (unless impeached).




> ETA: Third of all, more importantly than how long a given presidency can last, the government itself must still be limited in how long it can last.


 Oh?  In what sense?  If the United States federal government is limited in how much it will last, what is that limit?  Name a number.  No, there is no such limit, not legally.  Nor logically.  Nor in any number of senses.  Only in a practical sense is it possibly limited, and then only possibly.  On the other hand, it is certainly possible that it will last forever.






> I didn't disclaim the existence of limited government. I disclaimed the existence of unlimited government.


 Ah, well, same thing, effectively.  Either way, you make the phenomenon non-existent, the term meaningless, and the topic in question moot.  "And when everyone's Super, then no one will be."

*Governments can be limited in a legal sense*, and they can then lose those legal strictures.  Or they can gain new ones.  As surely you know.

For example, the United States used to have a Presidency with occupancies of unlimited duration.  The United States central government today has, as best I can tell, unlimited legal power for income redistribution.  They have unlimited legal power to regulate the manufacture of motor vehicles.  They have unlimited legal power to declare what they call "bank holidays" at any time of the executive's choosing.  There are many senses in which it was once limited in which it no longer is.  As surely you know.

The US _is_ today limited in its legal power to outlaw the expression of opinions antagonistic to its regime.  It is also legally limited in what manner it can restrict gun ownership.  There are other governments which are _not_ legally limited in the same ways.  In these areas, the US gov't is more limited than those others.  As surely you know.

So since you know all this, what are you playing at?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Therein is the main problem with anarchists. There are several problems with the "equation" above. *For starters, there are many types of government in the world. Besides civil (state) government, there also exists family government, church government, and self-government (which is the basis for the other three). Just labeling the left side of the "equation" as "government" says absolutely nothing, if the term is not defined and explained on what level the word "government" is being used.*
> 
> In addition to that, another problem with the "equation" above is that it is simply false that any government has a "monopoly on force." There are many advocates of limited (civil) government who do not hold to the belief that such government ought to have complete possession and power to impose force on others without any ethical dictate. If nothing else, common sense shows that the phrase "limited government" precludes any instance that a monopoly exists for governments to use force, whether it's civil, family, church, or self-government. Really, the key question is "Who gets to decide the boundaries upon which force can be used in any type of government?"
> 
> Along that same line of thought, when we address the thread title, "Is 'Limited Government' Too Much Government," it just begs the question of "Who gets to determine how much is 'too much' government?" Anarchists? Constitutionalists? Socialists? The thread title makes the baseline issue a quantitative one, as if the measurements used to come to a quantitative analysis about a given phenomenon (such as data in economics, finance, or physics) can be easily applied to measure how much "government" is "too much."
> 
> The issue is not quantitative, in nature, but qualitative. In other words, perhaps we should asking whether limited (civil) government is ethically right, and therefore, absolutely necessary for individuals in society, or not.


The word "government" is used so rarely in those contexts that it doesn't need qualification in modern everyday language.  It's a semantic shift in the American idiom issue-it happens in every language.  When someone says "the government", does your family or church spring to mind?  

At any rate, even in rather esoteric discussion like this one, the anarchist definition of "government" has been so thoroughly discussed in anarchist literature that it doesn't need to be qualified every time the subject comes up.

----------


## erowe1

> You said "in any sense you want."  That is, "limited in any sense you want."


Yes. Limited in any sense you want. All governments are limited.

No matter what sense of limited you want to use, there is no unlimited government. You gave an example of a limited government, but not an unlimited one.

----------


## erowe1

> *Governments can be limited in a legal sense*, and they can then lose those legal strictures.  Or they can gain new ones.  As surely you know.


And, once again, this is true of all governments. All governments are limited in a legal sense. They may not all have the same legal limitations. But they all have legal limitations. There do not exist exceptions to this rule.

So when people talk about "limited government," I have to wonder, as opposed to what?

----------


## erowe1

> Therein is the main problem with anarchists. There are several problems with the "equation" above. For starters, there are many types of government in the world. Besides civil (state) government, there also exists family government, church government, and self-government (which is the basis for the other three). Just labeling the left side of the "equation" as "government" says absolutely nothing, if the term is not defined and explained on what level the word "government" is being used.


This is such an important distinction. We should be more careful with our terminology. Our enemy is not government in general, or even civil government. It is specifically the state.

----------


## Theocrat

> The word "government" is used so rarely in those contexts that it doesn't need qualification in modern everyday language.  It's a semantic shift in the American idiom issue-it happens in every language.  When someone says "the government", does your family or church spring to mind?  
> 
> At any rate, even in rather esoteric discussion like this one, the anarchist definition of "government" has been so thoroughly discussed in anarchist literature that it doesn't need to be qualified every time the subject comes up.


That's the problem, my friend. We, as a people, have been so conditioned to thinking of only one type of government (the civic one) when the term "government" is used that we have forgotten that there are other governments out there which have other jurisdictions in individuals' lives. It is such ignorance of those other types of governments which has allowed the American civil government (both on the state and federal levels) to usurp the authorities of the other types of governments.

For instance, in the area of family government, it is the parents' chief responsibility to educate their child(ren). However, the civil government has taken over that duty, supposing that it is the primary role of the state and federal governments to educate children, not the parents'. Thus, the civil government has usurped family government in the arena of education (which is a private affair, anyway).

So, when I hear someone use the term "government," I've trained myself to ask, "What government is that person referring to?" Anarchist literature may define "government" as exclusively a civil polity or organization, such as the United States. However, that is a very limited view of what "government" truly entails. And as long as anarchists confine the word "government" to mean simply a civil entity (or "the State"), they will never come to a true solution and strategy of how society can uphold freedom, prosperity, and peace for all people, in my opinion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> That's the problem, my friend. We, as a people, have been so conditioned to thinking of only one type of government (the civic one) when the term "government" is used that we have forgotten that there are other governments out there which have other jurisdictions in individuals' lives. It is such ignorance of those other types of governments which has allowed the American civil government (both on the state and federal levels) to usurp the authorities of the other types of governments.
> 
> For instance, in the area of family government, it is the parents' chief responsibility to educate their child(ren). However, the civil government has taken over that duty, supposing that it is the primary role of the state and federal governments to educate children, not the parents'. Thus, the civil government has usurped family government in the arena of education (which is a private affair, anyway).
> 
> So, when I hear someone use the term "government," I've trained myself to ask, "What government is that person referring to?" Anarchist literature may define "government" as exclusively a civil polity or organization, such as the United States. However, that is a very limited view of what "government" truly entails. And as long as anarchists confine the word "government" to mean simply a civil entity (or "the State"), they will never come to a true solution and strategy of how society can uphold freedom, prosperity, and peace for all people, in my opinion.


Cool, we agree.   To be far to anarchists, however, in their literature they are very specific in what they mean by "government" and "The State".

If you haven't already, I suggest you read "Anatomy Of The State" by Rothbard and "The State" by Oppenheimer.

(Honestly, anarchists have done more in developing a sound theory of law than Constitutionalists ever have)

----------


## robert68

> GOVERNMENT = MONOPOLY ON FORCE


That definition doesn’t distinguish between justified and unjustified use of force. Any prison for those with records of aggressive violence has a monopoly on force over its prisoners, and therefore would be a government by that definition. The same holds for any situation where a party prohibits a person(s) from possessing arms do to threatening or past aggressive behavior.

A definition of government (or the state) that identifies it only with aggressive force is: an agency of institutionalized aggression.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Governance or social order of some kind I believe is inevitable and human nature.  Humans are tribal beings so there will always be a social hierarchy and a tribal leader(s).  Even if you shrink this down to an individual family unit you will still see this scenario play out, maybe even more apparently.

----------


## pcosmar

> Governance or social order of some kind I believe is inevitable and human nature.


^^this^^

Is why I am not an anarchist,, and why I do not believe that anarchy can exist (beyond momentary).

I am a constitutionalist,, but am dismayed that the Constitution is ignored by both the government and the people.

Limits are of no use if they are not enforced. And that is what has happened here.
the limits have not been enforced.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No matter what sense of limited you want to use, there is no unlimited government.


 This sentence is completely and utterly wrong.  *Not all governments are limited in all senses.*  Surely you know this.  So what are you playing at?  Why are you writing things which you know are completely and utterly wrong?




> So when people talk about "limited government," I have to wonder, as opposed to what?


 You are just playing dumb, pretending to not understand what obviously you _do_ understand.  Not all governments are limited "in any sense you want."  There are many different limits, limiting many different functions, in many different senses, many of which are often not present in many of the various nation-states around the world.  Surely you know this.  This cannot be news to you.

There must be some reason you are trying to shut down discussion of "limited government."  I just don't know what it is.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?  Why should we not be talking about this (ineffective?  counter-productive?), and what direction are you trying to wrench the discussion around to?

----------


## erowe1

> This sentence is completely and utterly wrong.  *Not all governments are limited in all senses.*  Surely you know this.  So what are you playing at?  Why are you writing things which you know are completely and utterly wrong?


I still can't think of any governments that are unlimited in any sense. If you can, help me out here.




> You are just playing dumb, pretending to not understand what obviously you _do_ understand.  Not all governments are limited "in any sense you want."


I really am dumb enough to think this.




> There are many different limits, limiting many different functions, in many different senses, many of which are often not present in many of the various nation-states around the world.  Surely you know this.  This cannot be news to you.


It is news to me.

Unless what you're getting at is that you can come up with some very narrowly defined limit placed on a government, and then say that other governments don't have that precise limit, and are therefore unlimited in that sense, even though they all without exception do have other similar limits. To use your earlier example, they may not all have the same limit on how long someone can rule, but they all have some limit on it. There are no governments that are unlimited in that sense, nor have any ever existed.




> There must be some reason you are trying to shut down discussion of "limited government."  I just don't know what it is.  Perhaps you could enlighten us?  Why should we not be talking about this (ineffective?  counter-productive?), and what direction are you trying to wrench the discussion around to?


I'm not trying to shut it down. I'm trying to understand what it means.

"Limited government" as opposed to what? Is there any other kind of government?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Governments can be limited in a legal sense.  And they can then lose those legal strictures. Or they can gain new ones. As surely you know.

*Being limited in a legal sense is obviously the sense in which people talk about limited government.*  You have heard the libertarians whom you associate with talk about it all the time over the years.  What they were talking about was never a great mystery to you.

For example, the United States used to have a Presidency with occupancies of unlimited duration. The United States central government today has, as best I can tell, unlimited legal power for income redistribution. They have unlimited legal power to regulate the manufacture of motor vehicles. They have unlimited legal power to declare what they call "bank holidays" at any time of the executive's choosing. There are many senses in which it was once limited in which it no longer is. As surely you know.

The US is today limited in its legal power to outlaw the expression of opinions antagonistic to its regime. It is also legally limited in what manner it can restrict gun ownership. There are other governments which are not legally limited in the same ways. In these areas, the US gov't is more limited than those others. As surely you know.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Enumerated powers vs. unenumerated powers is another way the dichotomy is sometimes phrased.

----------


## erowe1

> Governments can be limited in a legal sense.  And they can then lose those legal strictures. Or they can gain new ones. As surely you know.
> 
> *Being limited in a legal sense is obviously the sense in which people talk about limited government.*  You have heard the libertarians whom you associate with talk about it all the time over the years.  What they were talking about was never a great mystery to you.
> 
> For example, the United States used to have a Presidency with occupancies of unlimited duration. The United States central government today has, as best I can tell, unlimited legal power for income redistribution. They have unlimited legal power to regulate the manufacture of motor vehicles. They have unlimited legal power to declare what they call "bank holidays" at any time of the executive's choosing. There are many senses in which it was once limited in which it no longer is. As surely you know.
> 
> The US is today limited in its legal power to outlaw the expression of opinions antagonistic to its regime. It is also legally limited in what manner it can restrict gun ownership. There are other governments which are not legally limited in the same ways. In these areas, the US gov't is more limited than those others. As surely you know.


But again, all governments are limited in a legal sense. Is that not true?

----------


## erowe1

> Enumerated powers vs. unenumerated powers is another way the dichotomy is sometimes phrased.


Here's the constitution of North Korea. The whole thing reads like a list of enumerated powers. Some articles are explicitly pure enumerations of powers (e.g. 91, 103, 109, 116, 125, 140, 147, 156, and 162).

http://asiamatters.blogspot.com/2009...pril-2009.html

So, if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an example of a legally limited government, what's an example of one that is legally unlimited?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> But again, all governments are limited in a legal sense. Is that not true?


 Not all governments are limited in the _same_ legal sense.  Not all governments have Constitutions.  Some Constitutions are easier to change than others, making the hurdle to exceed the limit lower.  Some Constitutions are more strict than others in the limitations they impose.

The Magna Carta does not limit the British monarch in exactly the same ways and same senses that the US Constitution limits Congress.  The French declaration of rights certainly did not limit the French government in the same way that the Constitution of the Roman Republic limited the senate.

When we libertarians speak of limited government, we are generally speaking of a government that must follow very strict and clear rules, and *most importantly is limited to doing only a very particular set of things* and no others, ever.  That is, its powers are enumerated and limited.  There's a list.  Here's the 17 things you can do.  That's it.  No others.  If you want to do anything else whatsoever, like ban alcohol, the principles must first amend the charter to give you that power.

That is what a limited government is.  It is a government with a legally limited purview; limited functions.  These limits are either permanent or difficult to change.  They are clear and well-understood by any layman.  They are enforced.

Not all nation-states' governments meet that definition.  Few do.  There may not be any today.  I do not think the US government does, for instance.  What limits it has are ill-defined and liquid.  Congress could pass a law today confiscating all teddy bears, for instance, and the courts would uphold it.

----------


## erowe1

> Not all nation-states' governments meet that definition.  Few do.  There may not be any today.  I do not think the US government does, for instance.  What limits it has are ill-defined and liquid.  Congress could pass a law today confiscating all teddy bears, for instance, and the courts would uphold it.


I would say the US government is definitely limited in precisely that way. At least it is legally. It just doesn't follow the law. My guess is that most other nation-states' governments are also legally limited in that same way, although I don't know for sure. But even if they're not legally limited in that precise, narrow, and idiosyncratic definition, they're still all legally limited in some other way.

But that's the thing about limitations that are merely legal, they don't have to be followed. There need to be some other limiting factors.

There always do exist legal limitations on all governments, and there always do exist other limiting factors. And the things that actually limit any government in what it ends up accomplishing are always those other factors.

The whole point of having legal limitations is to make the regime more tolerable to the people it rules, so as to stifle the other kinds of limitations on government power that might otherwise arise from unwilling subjects.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Here's the constitution of North Korea. The whole thing reads like a list of enumerated powers. Some articles are explicitly pure enumerations of powers (e.g. 91, 103, 109, 116, 125, 140, 147, 156, and 162).
> 
> http://asiamatters.blogspot.com/2009...pril-2009.html
> 
> So, if the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is an example of a legally limited government, what's an example of one that is legally unlimited?


I do not agree that it is limited, in the meaningful and widely-extant use of the word which I explained in post #46, above.  What action would be forbidden to that government under that constitution?  I see all manner of vagary, and no attempt to exclude the government from any area of life.  One example:

"In the DPRK, the means of production are owned by the state and social cooperative organizations."

If the means of production are owned by you, you can do absolutely anything you want with them.  What is a means of production?  Is a printing press producing anything?  Is a kitchen knife a means of production?  Sounds to me like if the government wanted to confiscate your kitchen knife, or require you to paint it blue, or make rules requiring it to be stored under lock and key, or give free kitchen knives to everyone, it could do all of the above.  Ownership gives unlimited rights, so long as you don't infringe on any other rights.  And "means of production" is an unlimited term, which could be easily and naturally applied to virtually everything in existence.

----------


## erowe1

> I do not agree that it is limited, in the meaningful and widely-extant use of the word which I explained in post #46, above.  What action would be forbidden to that government under that constitution?  I see all manner of vagary, and no attempt to exclude the government from any area of life.  One example:
> 
> "In the DPRK, the means of production are owned by the state and social cooperative organizations."
> 
> If the means of production are owned by you, you can do absolutely anything you want with them.  What is a means of production?  Is a printing press producing anything?  Is a kitchen knife a means of production?  Sounds to me like if the government wanted to confiscate your kitchen knife, or require you to paint it blue, or make rules requiring it to be stored under lock and key, or give free kitchen knives to everyone, it could do all of the above.  Ownership gives unlimited rights, so long as you don't infringe on any other rights.  And "means of production" is an unlimited term, which could be easily and naturally applied to virtually everything in existence.


First of all, it is limited in exactly the way you defined. It's powers are enumerated. That means it is not limited by saying what it is not allowed to do, but by saying what it is allowed to do. Earlier that's what you said. Now you mention the government being explicitly excluded from things.

Second of all, even in this definition of explicit exclusion, it is limited in more specific ways where it prohibits the government from doing things (although this is not part of the definition you presented), such as taking away private property or forcing people to work more than the legal number of hours per day.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> There always do exist legal limitations on all governments


 There do _not_ always exist legal limitations.  Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe had no legal limitations on the government.  Not all nation-states have any Constitutions whatsoever.  A government that can make a way about whatever it chooses, can make a law about whatever it chooses.  It is unlimited in that sense.

Practical matters, such as public opinion, budget constraints, lack of paper, etc. may provide limits.  But legally, it is unlimited.  I agree with you that on paper, the US central gov't is limited.  According to the courts, it is not.  We have a system wherein the courts can change the limits via reinterpretation.  In the US's case, changing limits that way ended up being easier than going through the lengthy amendment process.  And so that was how it was done.  An oversight that should probably be corrected if an attempt to form such a limited government is ever tried again.

----------


## erowe1

> There do _not_ always exist legal limitations.  Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe had no legal limitations on the government.


Thank you for giving this example. I'm not familiar with it. I'll have to look into it.

Needless to say, I'm very skeptical that what you say is correct.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> It's powers are enumerated.


 An enumeration of powers is only meaningful is none of those powers amounts to "we can do whatever we want."

If there is truly an area of life where North Koreans can say "I know that the government can't do anything about this; it would be illegal," then the North Korean government _is_ legally limited.  But I do not get that from glancing at that constitution.  It is not clear to me that the prohibition of taking away private property takes precedence over the provision that the government owns everything that can be used to produce anything, nor is it clear that it is absolute, nor how literal it can be taken (it's obviously not; this would preclude taxation).  It seems to me like a huge spaghetti bowl of a mess that will not place any clear nor reliable legal limit on the government's actions in any discernible way.

----------


## erowe1

> An enumeration of powers is only meaningful is none of those powers amounts to "we can do whatever we want."


Legal enumerations of powers for a regime do tend to have a way of getting broadened by reinterpretation on the part of the regime.

This too is a factor that I would assert to be present in all states. In the end, the limits they have will be what they can get away with.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Legal enumerations of powers for a regime do tend to have a way of getting broadened by reinterpretation on the part of the regime.
> 
> This too is a factor that I would assert to be present in all states. In the end, the limits they have will be what they can get away with.


And it tends to be pressed upon just shy of getting hung for a long time, then some get hung when they forget or ignore where the line is.  I'm not sure that even the people here in these united states know where the line was/belongs anymore.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I do not agree that it is limited, in the meaningful and widely-extant use of the word which I explained in post #46, above.
> 			
> 		
> 
> First of all, it is limited in exactly the way you defined. It's powers are enumerated.


 This is false. My post #46 does not consist of the words "It's powers are enumerated."  This single sentence, which you have intentionally vastly skewed and misinterpreted (how "meta" of you) was not "exactly the way [I] defined" limited government.  North Korea does not meet the criteria I explained.




> Legal enumerations of powers for a regime do tend to have a way of getting broadened by reinterpretation on the part of the regime.
> 
> This too is a factor that I would assert to be present in all states. In the end, the limits they have will be what they can get away with.


 This is false, because not all states have legal enumerations of powers at all.

You are determined to continue asserting untrue things.  You appear to have no interest in understanding whatsoever.  Furthermore, I am still convinced you have a complete and thorough understanding of exactly what I am saying, and the sum total of your point is that _legal_ limitations on their own are ineffective, and that only _practical_ limitations ("what they can get away with") matter, and that you are simply making that point in an infuriating and stupid way.

----------


## erowe1

> This is false, because not all states have legal enumerations of powers at all.


I still doubt that you're right about this.

Maybe you are. But I'm working under the assumption that you aren't.

----------


## FindLiberty

Got way too much now! I'd like to think ZERO is best, but my gut says that won't work out too well either. Therefore IMO, it needs to be just enough to protect freedom AND NOT DO A BIT MORE*.




> Immunochemistry is subumbelliferous... in a sense. ... Whee!


 *BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAW PUNISHING BIG WORD USERS. PLEASE STOP. REPORTED!!! http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subumbelliferous

----------

