Limited government vs. democracy

Libertarians have objected that they're not anarchists -- they don't want to eliminate government, they just want limited government.

Some thoughts.

1. If the majority of individuals do not support the actions of the government, the only way to impose those actions upon them is at gunpoint.
2. The majority of individuals in America have decided that they like a large number of so-called Big Government programs like OSHA, Social Security, and so forth.
3. Thus the only way to do away with Big Government is by overturning democracy and forcing the elimination of those programs at gunpoint.

It's all a matter of, who decides?. In democracy, the majority decides, and the majority in America over the years have decided they want and like Big Government. Every time there is a disaster or crisis, the cry "there ought to be a law!" goes up, and lo and behold, shortly there is.

In Libertopia, a minority that wants limited government decides, then imposes their will upon the majority at gunpoint. Because that's the only way you can impose a limited government upon people that want Big Government -- at gunpoint, by preventing them from electing their own to office. By, in effect, becoming the Ayatollahs of Libertopia.

Even the founder of the Libertarian Party, David Nolan, admits that only 16% want the limited government that Libertarians advocate. Meaning that the only way to do it is at gunpoint -- the Pinochet way, complete with helicopter flights over the ocean where dissidents are pushed out of aircraft after their stomachs are slit open so they won't float back to the surface where they could be found. Now, what do we call a minority imposing a government upon people at gunpoint? You might call it tyranny, I suppose, or fascism. You think? And lest you think I'm being a bit hyperbolic, Libertarians have a long history of applauding fascists like Pinochet who impose limited government at gunpoint.

How many thousands would have to be killed to impose Libertopia upon America? Libertarians never seem to answer that question. Apparently they believe the magical Liberty Pony will deliver Libertopia upon a population where the majority don't want it, and magical unicorns will shit sparkle rainbows that convert everybody to the Libertopian religion. But that's not this reality, where the majority simply aren't buying the limited government sparkle pony -- just look at the approval ratings for Social Security and Medicare, the epitomy of Big Government programs, both of which are astonishingly popular (roughly the same 16% that David Nolan mentions above are the only ones who want Social Security and Medicare eliminated, if you do the surveys). In short, the notion of Libertarians winning a majority in a democracy are zero... which, of course, is why the Libertarian Cato Institute recently hosted a debate stating that Libertarianism is incompatible with democracy and has appointed one of Pinochet's ministers to a major position in their organization. Because in the end, Libertarianism simply isn't compatible with democracy, because in a democracy the people, not a small elite, decide the limits of government -- and the people have, by and large, decided they want a government decidedly NOT limited.

-- Badtux the Democratic Penguin