I recently sent out a blitz (providing information on the Microsoft anti-trust issue) to most of the freshman class. Unfortunately, I did not know about the "suppress recipient list" option, nor did I know it would be needed. As a result, nearly every freshman received a mailing list of the entire class. A few freshmen decided it would be fun to "respond to all recipients" and start a blitzwar -- and then blame it on me, as if I had orchestrated the whole thing! Then more innocent students, receiving mounds of unsolicited e-mail, responded to everyone with the typical "take me off the list" message, further adding to the chaos.
I waited until the hostility had died down a bit and then sent out a blitz to explain, apologize and assume responsibility for my role in the whole affair. What was my role? I didn't tell the mad blitzers to annoy the rest of the campus, nor did I tell them how. I simply -- and unwittingly -- provided them with the means to do it. No blitzwar could have erupted if those few who instigated it did not choose to continue blitzing everyone. The fact is, they did.
The scary part is that they were Dartmouth students. They were, and still are, the students of a school famous for its commitment to honor codes and responsibility. If teachers can leave a room and expect students not to cheat, if students can leave their doors open and expect nothing to be stolen, then shouldn't I be able to give students a mass blitz list and expect them not to abuse it?
"Of course not!" is one's gut reaction. And rightly so, but why not? Why can't I put over 1,000 students in a position to abuse power and be guaranteed that not one of them will actually abuse it? For the same reason that all 1,000 students -- no matter how bright or decent -- cannot be guaranteed to act responsibly every minute, in every aspect of their lives. The reason? Free will. The freedom to think -- or evade thought. The freedom to make rational decisions, or go by "feeling" and subjective whim. Even the most intelligent must make this choice, and they will not be exempted from mistakes if they choose poorly. The only question is whether -- and to what extent -- others will be made to suffer for those mistakes.
Believe it or not, the suffering and chaos of the blitzwar were the results of power and whim at a relatively tame level. To illustrate this, let's imagine that we are no longer dealing with 1,000 Ivy League students who have the power to irritate classmates for a few hours. Let's substitute the students with a few million bureaucrats (appointed through a system of patronage and nepotism that would make the admissions process look objective by comparison). And let's give each of these bureaucrats the power to, in his own way, make the life of each and every American a living hell. To ensure that each can perform this "service to his country" without worrying about finding an honest job, let us also pay him a salary -- to be provided by his victims.
Do you think I'm imagining things? You won't think so when you hear of the Gestapo ("IRS") horror stories or as you watch helplessly while the welfare state seizes your property and gives it to some loafer who "needs it" more than you. You won't think so when you witness thousands dying of disease, waiting in vain for their cure to receive "FDA approval." Or when you notice a great man being devoured by the anti-trust division, because he produces a superior product -- while drunkards and bums are being paid by the welfare division, because they cannot produce. Or when you are told that the "love of learning" has been replaced by the "joy of serving" in your schools, and your child's politically correct biology textbook recommends the extermination of mankind as the solution to global warming and endangered species. Or when the selective service becomes "less selective," and you find yourself a walking target in the latest "humanitarian peacekeeping effort." And how about when you are denied a job because your race, ethnicity or sex is already "over-represented," while another group has not yet "gotten a chance"? Or when your elected leader goes on TV and pleads that you "sacrifice" your own interests for the "common good," while he sacrifices America for the sake of sacrifice? What will you think then?
When you see all this, you are seeing a nightmare -- the one you'll be living in after you graduate.
"But it doesn't have to be that way!" shriek the statist scum, "we just need more honest and responsible people to wield these powers." The power to violate property rights through taxation, to redistribute wealth, to ban cures, to ruin successful men, to mandate community serfdom, to draft young men into war, to institute racism as a hiring practice, to use you as a sacrificial goat for the latest social program -- would you entrust this kind of power to anyone? If you would, you deserve it. I, for one, would not. If power can be abused, it is always a safe assumption that it will be. The most "enlightened" of dictators is still a dictator.
So how does one prevent the abuse of power by men? Simple: don't give it to them. Or, as the Founding Fathers phrased it: "a government of laws, not men." Government must consist of clearly defined laws, not the subjective whims of bureaucrats. These laws must be defined according to an objective standard. What should this standard be? An individual's inalienable right to his life, liberty, property and the pursuit of his happiness. What power is left to government? Its only legitimate one: the power to protect individual rights, by using force only in retaliation, and only against those who initiate its use.
We had this kind of government centuries ago -- but no longer. Where did the government's new powers come from? The same source of all government powers: "consent of the governed." Sanction of victims. I mentioned earlier that I unknowingly provided others with the power to annoy my classmates. An honest mistake can be forgiven. What is unforgivable is when voters knowingly provide others with the power to enslave them. Of course, the voters didn't originate that idea -- they got it from their cultural leaders and intellectuals -- who got it from their universities.
If you are a student, you may very well run into advocates of government controls. When confronted with the ultimate results of what they propose, they will undoubtedly wail, "But how could we know?" Given the bloody evidence of the Soviet Union, Red China and Nazi Germany -- the three finest models of government control -- the only answer is, "How could you not know?"
