Rules of Evidence

This post was part of a discussion about the great French economist Frédéric Bastiat.

I do not think that most people ever realize that force is that opposite of freedom. Thus, to increase freedom we must reduce that portion of society dedicated to the use of force. Government falls on the force side of the equation. Government driven transactions do not happen voluntarily. They happen because government has the ability to compel people to hand over a portion of their property to pay for the actions of government.

So, why not eliminate government? Well, history also shows us that there are always those out their willing to use force. Thus ironically, to protect freedom government must be of sufficient size and capability that it can dominate the use of force in society. For those of us lucky enough to live in a country like the United States, we do have a government that is both capable of supremacy in the use of force, but which is also tempered by the acceptance of democratic principles and the rule of law. However, even with democratic control, freedom is threatened as government grows in size and fewer transactions are the result of voluntary exchange. Remember that voluntary exchange results in a net increase in value and pushes forward economic growth. Forced transactions tend to be win-lose transactions that do not result in a net increase in value. Thus, big government threatens both freedom and economic well being.

However, if a government that is incapable of supremacy in the use of force, others will fill the void. Lebanon is an excellent example of this problem. With its weak national government, it is incapable of protecting its citizens from other groups committed to the use of force. In fact, in Lebanon the government is probably not even the organization most capable of using force. That title belongs to Hezbollah. The country is swarming with terrorist groups and proxies of foreign governments more than happy to take advantage of the weakness of the Lebanese government.

Columbia, in its battle with drug cartels and communist insurgents is another example of this problem. The government is incapable of monopolizing the use of force and thus the freedom of the people is taken away of drug dealers, communists and even right-wing death squads that try to fill the vacuum left by a weak government.

Ultimately, a successful country must find a balance. Like the founding fathers discovered during their hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787, freedom is maximized with a central government strong enough and capable enough to protect its citizens from all threats of force foreign and domestic. But, also by a government small enough and restrained enough that the government itself is not a threat to the freedoms of its citizens.

		July 2, 2007 *Freedom and the Balance of Force*
	This post was part of a discussion about the great French economist Frédéric Bastiat. Frédéric Bastiat I do not think that most people ever realize that force is that opposite of freedom. Thus, to increase freedom we must reduce that portion of society dedicated to the use of force. Government falls on the force side of the equation. Government driven transactions do not happen voluntarily. They happen because government has the ability to compel people to hand over a portion of their property to pay for the actions of government. So, why not eliminate government? Well, history also shows us that there are always those out their willing to use force. Thus ironically, to protect freedom government must be of sufficient size and capability that it can dominate the use of force in society. For those of us lucky enough to live in a country like the United States, we do have a government that is both capable of supremacy in the use of force, but which is also tempered by the acceptance of democratic principles and the rule of law. However, even with democratic control, freedom is threatened as government grows in size and fewer transactions are the result of voluntary exchange. Remember that voluntary exchange results in a net increase in value and pushes forward economic growth. Forced transactions tend to be win-lose transactions that do not result in a net increase in value. Thus, big government threatens both freedom and economic well being. However, if a government that is incapable of supremacy in the use of force, others will fill the void. Lebanon is an excellent example of this problem. With its weak national government, it is incapable of protecting its citizens from other groups committed to the use of force. In fact, in Lebanon the government is probably not even the organization most capable of using force. That title belongs to Hezbollah. The country is swarming with terrorist groups and proxies of foreign governments more than happy to take advantage of the weakness of the Lebanese government. Columbia, in its battle with drug cartels and communist insurgents is another example of this problem. The government is incapable of monopolizing the use of force and thus the freedom of the people is taken away of drug dealers, communists and even right-wing death squads that try to fill the vacuum left by a weak government. Ultimately, a successful country must find a balance. Like the founding fathers discovered during their hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787, freedom is maximized with a central government strong enough and capable enough to protect its citizens from all threats of force foreign and domestic. But, also by a government small enough and restrained enough that the government itself is not a threat to the freedoms of its citizens.