Letter to a Friend by Charley Hardman

You have accurately recognized and labeled me as anti-government – even "radically" so. However, you have also done something that I wouldn't expect from a friend, and that is to call me and my political beliefs negative. Because you are my friend, I hope you will take the time to hear me on this; I want there to be no misunderstanding of something so important by someone who is important to me.

Yes, I am anti-government. I do not take such a position, as some may conclude, in order to be negative or irascible. Rather, my beliefs are centered on the most positive of principles, with the foundation being simply, "Do no harm."

For years I have noticed a sad trend of governments: Everything they set out to do in the name of helping people ends up harming others, and often harms the target of the "help" as well. No matter what disaster befalls our fellow humans at the hands of government, popular support for the mayhem rarely wavers. This is sad. Though government may complain that it must be involved in our affairs ("If something is not done about this, we will have to take action"), the truth is obvious: It could not be more enthusiastic about intervening. It does not give a flying damn about us, except as we are fuel for its fire. It could kill us both without batting an eye. Never forget that.

This pretense by government, and the mini/maxi rulers it employs, is just that. They are cloaked in hesitancy while dreamily waving their hands to us like vampires. "Come to me, my child. Come to me." The government clerk who asks if you've filed the correct forms, who seems as though she could not loathe you more were you a disease-infested rat – she is cooing to you, "Come, my little one. Come." She is in a position of power by virtue of the system in which she is a cog. Such domination over others is a siren song which can be resisted by only the truest of hearts.

Name almost any government program, and it can quickly be shown that it does more harm than good. Often, it does only harm. But how can this be? How would society allow something like that to continue for years? We can change it by voting, can we not?

What is government? How does it operate? In a word, government is force, and it operates by what it is. It is force which has been dressed up and morphed into a religion of sorts, but it remains pure force. You have often heard me use the words aggression and coercion – sadly, probably to the point where they mean nothing, or where they annoy. That's regrettable.

The foundation of my opposition to government is love for humanity. No, I don't mean the "let's all hold hands" Kum By Ya love of humanity; I mean love for the hope that each person be given the chance to live his life as he sees fit. A typical reaction to that statement is, "Well, if everybody just did as he saw fit, we would have chaos!" That's not a logical reaction to a precisely worded statement. For each man to live as he sees fit, each man must limit such freedom when it would intrude on another's identical freedom. He must not use or threaten force against a peaceful man. As with all love, my love for humanity is purely selfish. That reality is nothing to be ashamed of, for I can rely on other intelligent souls to be similarly selfish, thus ensuring tranquility.

Tranquility is not what one thinks of when regarding government, yet there is a comfort in government for many which keeps it alive. Many people are resigned to associating any kind of structure with order; structure to them means lack of chaos. This need for structure regardless of result could not be more disastrous, for what government brings us is not order; government brings merely segmented chaos with an ethos of pure violence. The solution is learning to recognize and reject that violence no matter how many layers of pretense, obfuscation, good intentions, or baby kissing and hand shaking may lie atop.

Do you need a master? I do not. What sort of human needs masters? That is a scary question to consider with a refreshed mind.

"Oh," you say, "government certainly has problems, but it has a positive result overall."

Let's examine just one government program, chosen for its seemingly strong necessity, which is roundly lauded as an "essential service" contributing to "the common good" – food and shelter for kids. The latest government marvel for providing money to children is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The program is destructive, unnecessary, and mean-spirited. And right about now you might be starting to think again that I am a negative man. You would be wrong. I am merely seeing through layers of deception and recognizing processes which attempt to swim upstream against human nature. Such processes will always fail. And it is the devious nature of government to couch its destruction as help, so that those who oppose government for sound reasons will look hateful. That scheme has, I'm afraid, worked against you and me.

Government programs such as TANF are, foremost, based on force. In the name of helping some, others are threatened with violence if they do not give up their property. Before moving forward to the many other problems with TANF, let's examine my assertion that it's based on force, because that statement often provokes disgusted, contrary sighs from those who hear it. It is, however, undeniable.

Let's say that I refuse to participate in the supply side of TANF – in other words, that I refuse to pay taxes. Well, you say, then I would simply receive a letter requesting that I pay "my taxes." That is hardly violence. Okay, I've received that letter, and I still refuse to participate in the supply side of TANF. Let's just go down the chain of events: Government will not ignore my non-participation. It starts with a letter, then more letters, eventually threatening my credit rating and my ability to keep my property. In time, government representatives with guns will visit my home to take my property. If I resist such an intrusion, they will attempt to "arrest" me (a polite word for government-sanctioned kidnapping "by the people"). If I attempt to meet such force with force, stronger forces will finally be brought down on me, resulting in my death.

You can try to run away from that nasty conclusion all you want, but that is the way things are. Government is force. In the name of helping "needy" families, government has announced, systematically, my necessary destruction should I attempt to remain a free man. In the tradition of hapless souls through the ages, I ask, "Why me?" The answer comes back, "for the common good." But we must look past that bogus answer, to the facts.

One can't accurately examine any government program without invoking, intentionally or not, truths noted by Frédéric Bastiat. Of his many clear works on the subject, That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen perhaps cries out the loudest for examination. Let's take a look at TANF through a Bastiat glass.

What is seen about TANF is principally the very name of the program, with the stated intent following a close second. "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" sounds like such a simple pill to swallow for one's fellow man, yet it is an abomination from start to finish. Here are some things that are either partially hidden or completely unseen by the good intentions crowd:

As discussed, the program is financed by confiscation under threat of violent force – murderous if need be – hardly the best foundation for a supposedly humanitarian undertaking.
Humans, like electricity, naturally find the easiest path to a goal. If the peripheral destruction of others can be obscured in the process, such a path becomes more palatable; the existence of programs such as TANF encourages more of what they attempt to solve. If the program is there, humans will find and use it. This is especially easy when government often employs your confiscated wealth to fund advertisements that your confiscated funds are available to others. Disturbing questions: Why advertise? Who is advertising? Cui Bono. This should not be missed.
Following basic economic law (though it is really economic law which follows humans), many people who are slightly above the cutoff criteria for the TANF program will modify their lifestyles (e.g., be less productive) so as to "qualify" for the program. Again, the program's existence has created demand for the program, but in this case it has converted people who were defined as not needing the program to people now defined as needing it. What they really need is to modify their circumstances themselves. Such is life.
Psychologically, swooping in to "help" people with such ready programs contributes to their neediness, just when encouragement in the other direction is what will usually solve the problem. I have not remained a self-sufficient man by having my needs met for me while I lie there like a slug (give me a break for my baby years though). Would you prefer that I am productive or destructive? Why would that preference change for others?
At the heart of the cui bono issue, there is no incentive for those who make a living from the administering of such programs as TANF to discourage customers. There is disincentive.

I'm going to stop the list there, though there's plenty more. Let's jump to the main ingredient of government trickery, also well noted by Bastiat in another piece – the assumption that those who would encourage actions outside of government are negative:

That misunderstanding is the great deceit of government. It was also touched on by Adam Smith:

In the confounding of this love for humanity lies the utter hate of those who would attempt to be your masters. The unstated but essential premise of busybody, self-proclaimed humanitarians is that humans are naturally hateful, uncaring, and unjust – therefore requiring compensation by, wonder of wonders, humans (but the good kind now)! Of course the logical conclusion – that they consider themselves better than you – is never hoisted high enough to be seen from the trenches. Yet it is this hate which drives everything they do in the name of others. It is their inherent moral superiority that allows them to call "social justice" the thing which places them and their wishes for your life in command over you. For the children. For the downtrodden.

I do not need a master. And what a low maneuver it is to suggest that I do. I do not need to be forced to help others. Force will only discourage me. There is nothing but the purest negativity and hate in the insistence that another human may not live his peaceful, non-aggressive life as he sees fit.

So what is to be done about it? How can we survive without government? The answer lies before you, as obvious as your trust that the sun will appear tomorrow morning: Leave humans alone, and solutions will be devised. Refrain from using the force of government to attempt to solve problems, and free (voluntary, or "private") solutions will abound. They must.

Free solutions allow the best of humans to reach out to others. Persuasion, rather than force, is applied in the name of help. And it works.
Free solutions can be dissolved easily – often against the wishes of the solution providers. That is a necessary and beautiful aspect of local action (though it can work for large-scale efforts as well, as long as they remain voluntary); the bad attempts fail. If you want to look at it as a glass-half-full type, there is great incentive for non-coercive solution providers to maintain your support by doing what they claim to do. Not so with government. Government's incentive is to degrade situations and then state that it is now needed more than ever. Laugh all you want, but that process is repeated constantly. Things are not getting better under government, though government grows exponentially. There's your first clue.
Free solutions can be small or large. If confined to a local area, the results of voluntary funding can be more easily examined. This scrutiny enhances the results of the program, in line with basic economics. No more trying to swim upstream. No more long-term contributing to the problem in the name of fixing it. By limiting the obscuration of the interface between helpers and the helped, market forces can actually be allowed, finally, to help. Making the load on others as apparent as possible encourages the lifting of the load. Humans will find a way. And hey, if it's bureaucracy you cherish, you are free to create or support one – with your money!
Freedom also has "that which is not seen." Think of the positive vibe which flows from voluntary society. Can't do it? Try thinking of Christmas gifts being administered by government via threat of force, then compare that to a voluntary Christmas.
Rather than electing some quack who agrees with you on only 65% of issues, your opinion can be directed 100% as you see fit. If it's democracy you crave, you will find no purer form.

But people can't be relied upon to give to others voluntarily, can they? They can. That is a fact.

If you are still there, my friend, thank you. I've only gone through one government program, but it's one of the tougher to crack for those accustomed to assuming that government is necessary. The point is not one of memorizing facts and statistics to argue down one thing or another. The point, as I have attempted to make from the beginning, is one of positive trust in oneself and others, based on a single principle: People must be free. I may tout my superiority over another all day long, but I may not dominate him, even with the approval of the masses.

If you still think that's negative, I'll try another tack. This disagreement between us should not remain.