The 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

by Harry Browne

July 1, 2003

It's easy to think sometimes that a new government program, law, or regulation could cure a pressing social problem.

Whether it's a desire to end abortions, keep the wrong people out of the country, make your city drug-free, stop corporate frauds, crack down on criminals, or make health care more accessible and less expensive, you can imagine how the right new law could make everything okay.

But when you get that kind of thought, I hope you'll remember the seven principles that apply to all government programs — not just the ones you oppose.

The Principles

1. Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.

You expect that force to be used only against the guilty. But we can see how the Drug War, the foreign wars, asset forfeiture, the Patriot Act, and other government activities have used force just as often against the innocent — people who have not intruded on anyone else's person or property.

In fact, government force is used more often against the innocent than the guilty, because the guilty make it their business to understand the laws that apply to them and stay clear of them. Meanwhile, the innocent, thinking they've nothing to fear, suddenly find that they've innocently violated laws they never heard of.

2. Government is politics. Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue — to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.

Politicians don't weigh their votes on the basis of ideology or social good. They think in terms of political power.

3. You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.

Your ideal law will be written by politicians for political purposes, administered by bureaucrats for political purposes, and adjudicated by judges appointed for political purposes. So don't be surprised if the new law turns out to do exactly the opposite of what you thought you were supporting.

4. Every government program will be more expensive and more expansive than anything you had in mind when you proposed it. It will be applied in all sorts of ways you never dreamed of.

When Medicare was initially passed in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1992 to be $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1992 dollars. The actual cost in 1992 was $110 billion — nine times as much.

And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.

The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.

5. Power will always be misused. Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad.

As Michael Cloud has pointed out, "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." Give politicians power and it certainly will be abused eventually — if not by today's politicians, then by their successors.

As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

6. Government doesn't work. Because government is force, because government programs are designed to enrich the politically powerful, because you can't control government and make it do what's right, because every new government program soon wanders from its original purpose, and because politicians eventually misuse the power you give them, it is inevitable that no government program will deliver on the promises the politicians make for it.

For years, I've asked listeners during radio interviews to name a government program that has actually delivered on its promises, and no one has been able to do so.

If you think there's a successful government program, you probably don't know how much it actually costs, aren't aware of all its destructive side-effects, have no idea how easily and inexpensively such a thing could be done outside of government, and/or are basing your view of its success on political propaganda.

It doesn't matter whether a program is supposed to do something you want or something you don't want, whether the program is something you consider a proper function of government or something beyond its limits. It won't work. Government programs always wind up disappointing you.

7. Government must be subject to absolute limits. Because politicians have every incentive to expand government, and with it their power, there must be absolute limits on government.

The Constitution provides the obvious limits we must reimpose upon the federal government. Until the Constitution is enforced, we have no hope of containing the federal government.

The present system of unlimited power is like giving a drunken stranger a set of signed, blank checks on your bank account. You are reduced to relying on the honesty and integrity of people you don't even know — and they abuse that trust again and again.

Whether you think government should be bigger or smaller than the limits specified in the Constitution, the first step is to restore absolute limits, and then — if you like — work to change those limits to ones that would be more to your liking.

Questions

So the next time you're tempted to think that some government program is just what this country needs, ask yourself these questions:

Do I really want to use force to make this happen? Do I have any idea how many families may be destroyed by giving the government another tool to be enforced with fines and prison terms?


Do I really believe that George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Trent Lott will have my best interests at heart when they fashion this new program or law?


Why should I believe supporting this program will lead to exactly the solution I believe is right — when I have no way to control the outcome?


Do I really think the politicians won't expand the scope and cost of this program far beyond what they're talking about today?


Do I really want to give politicians this kind of power — knowing that some day the politicians and party I don't like will have it at their disposal?


Why in the world should I think this government program will work any better than any government program of the past?


How can I hope to bring about small, limited government when I'm suggesting a new government program that will take us further away from the Constitution?


Conclusion

If you really want to cure a pressing social problem, take steps outside the realm of government. If you don't see how you can convince people to help you succeed in a non-governmental endeavor, how can you expect to control politicians who care nothing for your desires?

And if you really want to make a noticeable difference, if you really want to improve life, do something for yourself or your family today. That's where you have real control, that's where you don't need to rely on politicians — or anyone else — and you can make sure the results are as you intend.



You can download Harry Browne's Why Government Doesn't Work at www.LibertyFree.com.
You can read more of his articles at www.HarryBrowne.org.
He is the Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC Foundation
He was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000.

I have a lot of respect for Harry Browne, and I am sympathetic with libertarians, but he paints a very broad stroke. He views the force of government as unilaterally bad, but one of the principles of government is that it holds a monopoly on violence, or at least it is viewed as the only justified entity to use force. The alternative are laws with no teeth, or the UN, if you will.

He asks for a government program that works, and I would point to the highway department. Sure, they screw up and cost too much, but I have yet to see a free market model that would provide roads with some modicum of consistency.

I agree with a lot of that. Must be the conspiracy theorist in me.

A government program that worked.

G.I. Bill following WWII expanded the middle class allowed for the economic boom we experienced rather than a depression during the step down of the military.

Social Security: Before SS the elderly had a very high poverty rate. Now the elderly have about the same poverty rate as the general population.

Rural electrification: The market would never have done this. Of course, the government programs is STILL in operation (i think) even though the job is done.

Basic science research (NSF, NIH, etc): companies only do research that has commercial application. By funding basic research the federal government expands our knowledge and gives a base from which companies can start their more targeted research. This helps the nation grow and stay on the cutting edge.

Federal interstate system (and similar programs): investments in basic infrastructure improve the economy

Public education: more a state gov. that federal. An educated population makes life better for all, and is a basic prerequisite for having the CHANCE to succeed and better one's self in life.

The question is not CAN government do good things, but rather HOW can we make sure they do the good things they can do, while still keeping the power the system has over our lives in check.

I think we need a third party, and that party should run as the "repeal" party. The goal would be the ELIMINATION of laws. Not cost reduction, not program reduction, but the striking of the laws from the books and NEVER creating new laws. If the libertarian party moved in this way, they could stick with core principles and still work in a pragmatic way with reps/dems to make people's lives better.

Bureaucracies always grow. Basic law of organizations. Everyone knows that. That is their leverage, imo.

But until the Libs start to be a bit more pragmatic, and less ideologically pure, they don't have a chance.

I think we need a third party, and that party should run as the "repeal" party. The goal would be the ELIMINATION of laws. Not cost reduction, not program reduction, but the striking of the laws from the books and NEVER creating new laws. If the libertarian party moved in this way, they could stick with core principles and still work in a pragmatic way with reps/dems to make people's lives better.

I've read about suggestions that all laws have an expiration, which requires a bit of effort and public debate to renew a law. It could transform the public debate from creating new laws to refining existing ones.

But until the Libs start to be a bit more pragmatic, and less ideologically pure, they don't have a chance.
The libs don't have a chance because they're essentially the same as repubs. More unites them than divides them: Both are capitalists, both are bourgeois parliamentarians. The libs are actually worse, in my view, because they are reformists, whose goal is to fix the problems with capitalism so everyone will be comfy living under it. They stupefy the population with reforms, and quash the normal human revolutionary urge to smash the oppressors.

At least the repubs are unfront in their "we don't give a sheet" mentality, which is much more helpful to the Revolution. Once they finish stripping away the safety net, eliminate all taxes on the rich, and eliminate Social Security and Medicare (through the clever ploy of bankrupting them) We the Commies will be in business.

Frankly the liberatarian "utopia" sounds a lot like what the US was like in about 1840. Do we really want to go back to that period??

I've read about suggestions that all laws have an expiration, which requires a bit of effort and public debate to renew a law. It could transform the public debate from creating new laws to refining existing ones.


For example any "stimulus" bill should probably have a sunset provision, since stimulus is only needed at certain times.

Other laws (like say, the voting rights act) probably should NOT have a sunset clause.

From an efficiency point of view, if every law must be debated every so often, soon the government would be doing ONLY that. Might be a good thing, but I think more targeted reviews would lead to better results.

I once read a book that posited an alternative history of the USA. The only difference was that instead of "consent of the people" the phrase was consent of ALL the people. Laws were only passed by 90% majorities. People could vote individually on laws, or they could give their vote as a proxy to someone they agreed with/trusted. These votes could constantly be shifted via computers. Interesting idea, and an interesting read, not that I can remember the book title or author or anything.

In this book, the usa never entered WWII. However, thousands of people WENT to Europe and fought. It was all about individual autonomy.

Another classic is the story "And Then There Were None", by Eric Frank Russell. The planet of the "ghands" had one basic right for its people, the right to say "I won't". No one could force others to do anything, because they could say "I won't" and sit down. (ghands=ghandi and passive resistance + libertarian individualism). An empire ship landed, and could not figure out how to deal with these people.

Pretty soon, the ship was emptying.

I think the ability to say "I won't" is fundamental to liberty. IF the people all decided that they would live by this rule, then force dissapears from government and CONSENT is the only source of collective action.

Collectivist cat, but collectivist by consent.

Dream world, I know. But I can dream right?

Frankly the liberatarian "utopia" sounds a lot like what the US was like in about 1840. Do we really want to go back to that period??

Whatever the shortcomings of 19th century America, people enjoyed a great deal more economic freedom and personal liberty than we do now. A complete retoration of the Bill of rights would be a good start.

Whatever the shortcomings of 19th century America, people enjoyed a great deal more economic freedom and personal liberty than we do now. A complete retoration of the Bill of rights would be a good start.

Personal liberty 1840? Is there something that we may be missing here? Oh yea, slavery. No womans suffrage. Wars of conquest. Impending crisis that would dissolve the union. Hello anybody out there.

I think I agree with many of the goals, but largely disagree with that monologue, at least the way he goes about it. He sounds more like a disgruntled anarchist, losing the libertarian focus and laboring on the bad. To me, I think libertarians should focus more on maximizing freedom, liberty, and then whatever acheives that goal should be supported, and whatever impedes is opposed (or minimized). Sure, government frequently gets in the way of freedom, when it's misused or over used. Government is not inherently evil, any more than other things that are necessary in proper amounts, but harmful when there is too much of it (water comes to mind -- necessary for life, but you don't want to drown).

Personal liberty 1840? Is there something that we may be missing here? Oh yea, slavery. No womans suffrage. Wars of conquest. Impending crisis that would dissolve the union. Hello anybody out there.

Libertarians are not extreme reactionaries, wanting to go back to the "good old days." Yes, they believe that many government programs have gone too far, and we may have lost sight of some of the founders' ideology, but moving forward can, at times, mean undoing some things that have gone too far, swinging the pendulum back a little. Personal liberty wasn't exactly maximized in 1840, except maybe if you were a rancher in Montana. As you note, there were slavery, plus Blue Laws, few practical civil rights, etc.

I think I agree with many of the goals, but largely disagree with that monologue, at least the way he goes about it. He sounds more like a disgruntled anarchist, losing the libertarian focus and laboring on the bad. To me, I think libertarians should focus more on maximizing freedom, liberty, and then whatever acheives that goal should be supported, and whatever impedes is opposed (or minimized). Sure, government frequently gets in the way of freedom, when it's misused or over used. Government is not inherently evil, any more than other things that are necessary in proper amounts, but harmful when there is too much of it (water comes to mind -- necessary for life, but you don't want to drown).
The main problem I have with Libertarianism is that it sounds great in theory, but in practice it would likely fall apart. Pure Democracy only works among an educated populace and with no government interference people and corporations will look out for their own self-interests rather than thinking of the common good.

Libertarians are about trying to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. How anyone could think that is a bad thing just shows the extreme amount of constitutional ignorance that permeates our society.

Libertarians are about trying to restore the federal government to its constitutional limits. How anyone could think that is a bad thing just shows the extreme amount of constitutional ignorance that permeates our society.
which freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights have been taken away and need to be "completely restored," as you say below? You're referring to the Ashcroft-Bush Alien and Sedition Acts, I presume?

which freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights have been taken away and need to be "completely restored," as you say below? You're referring to the Ashcroft-Bush Alien and Sedition Acts, I presume?

There have been serious attacks upon the 4th by the insane war on drugs and idiotic things like the "patriot act". Both the far left and far right in our government are working overtime to limit free speech that they don't agree with. The control freaks in the republican and democratic parties would love to smash the 2nd. The 10th is hardly worth mentioning anymore since the states are mere provinces controlled by the fed instead of visa versa as it was intended to be. The attacks on our liberties are so many time will not permit here to give a reasonable response.

There have been serious attacks upon the 4th by the insane war on drugs and idiotic things like the "patriot act". Both the far left and far right in our government are working overtime to limit free speech that they don't agree with. The control freaks in the republican and democratic parties would love to smash the 2nd. The 10th is hardly worth mentioning anymore since the states are mere provinces controlled by the fed instead of visa versa as it was intended to be. The attacks on our liberties are so many time will not permit here to give a reasonable response.
I like it. Carry on.

There have been serious attacks upon the 4th by the insane war on drugs and idiotic things like the "patriot act". Both the far left and far right in our government are working overtime to limit free speech that they don't agree with. The control freaks in the republican and democratic parties would love to smash the 2nd. The 10th is hardly worth mentioning anymore since the states are mere provinces controlled by the fed instead of visa versa as it was intended to be. The attacks on our liberties are so many time will not permit here to give a reasonable response.

The "commerce clause" and "general welfare" clause have been construed to allow the feds to do just about anything. Federalism, as you note, is all but dead. The states retain only the power the federal government allows them to have, instead of the other way around, as it was designed. Now, there may well have been much good that resulted, but that's another issue.

There's no doubt, however, that civil rights afforded criminal suspects are vastly broader now than ever before, and are constantly being expanded. Sure, there is a little ebb and flow on certain issues, but over all we bend over backwards to protect rights of the accused and suspected. To the extent Congress has voted to allow law enforcement some additional tools, particularly in light of national emergencies and new threats, all of those actions must pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

Whatever the shortcomings of 19th century America, people enjoyed a great deal more economic freedom and personal liberty than we do now. A complete retoration of the Bill of rights would be a good start.

Congratulations! You have just proved the theory that there is no limit to human stupidity. Clearly, you spend way too much time in darkened rooms in front of your seven-year-old computer turning a whiter shade of pale. Go outside once in a while and breathe, before your brain starts to rot from all that festering stagnation and cognitive dysfunction.

If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to run an ant's go-kart around the inside of a donut. Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths? A long period of non-posting would be most welcome on your part. As Robert Wilensky said: "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."

You have that certain nothing. Truly, you are about as interesting as watching a slug move slowly across a large rock. There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with a little Prozac and a polo mallet, or, better yet, suicide. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if you weren't an 'idiot savant' without the 'savant' part; if your weren't so fat that when God said "Let there be Light", he told you to move your fat ass out of the way, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that your Psychiatrist makes you lie face down. Who am I kidding? You would.

To sum up: you are about as smart as your rubber bow tie and two left shoes suggest, Bozo. Now, go curl back up in your corner, and continue chewing on your toenails.

I think you set a new record for length of a pure personal attack, with no substance whatsoever! Congrats. Well done.

...........

Congratulations! You have just proved the theory that there is no limit to human stupidity. Clearly, you spend way too much time in darkened rooms in front of your seven-year-old computer turning a whiter shade of pale. Go outside once in a while and breathe, before your brain starts to rot from all that festering stagnation and cognitive dysfunction.

If brains were gasoline, you wouldn't have enough to run an ant's go-kart around the inside of a donut. Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths? A long period of non-posting would be most welcome on your part. As Robert Wilensky said: "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."

You have that certain nothing. Truly, you are about as interesting as watching a slug move slowly across a large rock. There's nothing wrong with you that couldn't be cured with a little Prozac and a polo mallet, or, better yet, suicide. Maybe you wouldn't read like such a pathetic loser if you weren't an 'idiot savant' without the 'savant' part; if your weren't so fat that when God said "Let there be Light", he told you to move your fat ass out of the way, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that your Psychiatrist makes you lie face down. Who am I kidding? You would.

To sum up: you are about as smart as your rubber bow tie and two left shoes suggest, Bozo. Now, go curl back up in your corner, and continue chewing on your toenails.

Wow dude! Lot of pent up frustration there. I must of hit a sore spot with you but since all you can do is answer with meaningless drivel I guess I'll never know what it was. If you don't like my posts waterhead, don't read'em.

Harry Browne never said that there weren't successes within government programs - he just said that none has ever did what it set out to do (and only that - i.e. pork) without significant other costs and drawbacks. The Federal Highway System holds states hostage for road funding. The feds use highway funding as ransom for all sorts of stuff like complying with their No Child Left Behind, etc. The Federal Government has coopted states' rights.

What is wrong with keeping the government where it is supposed to be - under the Constitution and not stepping all over it?

Social Security is a huge scam on the American public. The government takes 15+% of our paycheck no matter what, doles that out to people, and has the nerve to "borrow" whatever is left for its overgrown beaurocracy - and ever more nerve to tell us there will be a shortage to the people like me who will have paid in the most, and so they will have to cut benefits. The government sees taxpayers as an endless resource for more and more money. It's the only way you can borrow money and never get deeper in debt.

Wow dude! Lot of pent up frustration there. I must of hit a sore spot with you but since all you can do is answer with meaningless drivel I guess I'll never know what it was. If you don't like my posts waterhead, don't read'em.
As Dave has said ENDLESSLY, and as others have noted, he is using a very funny price of software called Autoflame to create these nutso responses. It is HUMOR.

You can tell Dave didn't write them because they're MUCH less harsh than the genuine article from The Man himself.

As Dave has said ENDLESSLY, and as others have noted, he is using a very funny price of software called Autoflame to create these nutso responses. It is HUMOR.

You can tell Dave didn't write them because they're MUCH less harsh than the genuine article from The Man himself.

Please excuse my ignorance and knee-jerk reaction. I was unaware of his software.

To the extent Congress has voted to allow law enforcement some additional tools, particularly in light of national emergencies and new threats, all of those actions must pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.
This is perhaps the only 'flaw' in the Constitution that I can think of. Your statement is only true if the SC actually gets to hear the case. Otherwise unconstitutional laws can stay on the books indefinitely. I think the SC should be tasked with reviewing ALL new federal laws before they can be enacted. Mind you, I said federal laws. Challenges to state laws need to go through the usual process.

This is perhaps the only 'flaw' in the Constitution that I can think of. Your statement is only true if the SC actually gets to hear the case. Otherwise unconstitutional laws can stay on the books indefinitely. I think the SC should be tasked with reviewing ALL new federal laws before they can be enacted. Mind you, I said federal laws. Challenges to state laws need to go through the usual process.

The Supreme Court is not the only court to declare laws unconstitutional. A number of federal courts do this as well.

The Supreme Court is not the only court to declare laws unconstitutional. A number of federal courts do this as well.
I know that. I guess my point is that new federal laws can be enacted regardless of constitutionality -- without having to pass any kind of constitutional tests. I think this unnecessarily taxes the system at many levels and could easily be overcome by making it so that all new laws are reviewed by the SC prior to their being enacted. Altering the system in this way would also have a chilling effect on piggy-backed laws and would force law makers to actually DO their job of upholding and defending the Constitution like they are sworn to.

It wouldn't need to be the SC. That would probably be a bad thing by placing too much power in the judicial branches hands with nowhere to go for an appeal. A level or two down from the SC would suffice as an initial review point.

I know that. I guess my point is that new federal laws can be enacted regardless of constitutionality -- without having to pass any kind of constitutional tests. I think this unnecessarily taxes the system at many levels and could easily be overcome by making it so that all new laws are reviewed by the SC prior to their being enacted. Altering the system in this way would also have a chilling effect on piggy-backed laws and would force law makers to actually DO their job of upholding and defending the Constitution like they are sworn to.

It wouldn't need to be the SC. That would probably be a bad thing by placing too much power in the judicial branches hands with nowhere to go for an appeal. A level or two down from the SC would suffice as an initial review point.

Seems reasonable except that congress literally passes hundreds of thousands of pages of new laws every year - which would bring the judicial system to even more of a halt if it had to review each page.

Seems reasonable except that congress literally passes hundreds of thousands of pages of new laws every year - which would bring the judicial system to even more of a halt if it had to review each page.

That's the point. It should be slowed down. How many new federal laws truly need to be added to the books each year? I know the politicians need to justify their existence in some way or other but that's kinda ridiculous. You said it yourself, the governement sees the tax payers as an endless revenue stream. Most of these new laws are just thinly veiled ways of boosting that stream in one way or another.