I
Worked for the Government Today Without Pay
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
Recently by Robert Higgs:
Most Investors,
Economists, and Policy Makers Are Blind to the Mountain of Malinvestments
According to
the entry for me at Wikipedia,
which I hope is reliable, I am a libertarian anarchist. Why would
any person who fits that description work for the government at
all, not to speak of working without pay? Well, my story is straightforward.
Some time ago
I received in the mail from the U.S. Census Bureau a form to be
filled out, to wit, the 2007 Survey of Business Owners and Self-Employed
Persons questionnaire. I naturally threw it in the trash.
A few weeks
later, I received another questionnaire whose cover letter read
in part as follows:
We have
not received your response to the 2007 Survey of Business Owners
and Self-Employed Persons (SBO) questionnaire, Form SBO-1, which
was mailed to you several weeks ago. These data are essential
to business and government decision-making. We need information
about your business to provide reliable data for your industry
and geographic area.
We remind
you again that your response to this survey is mandatory under
Title 13 of the United States Code. Applicable provisions of the
law are shown on the back of this letter.
I hastened
to read the back of the letter, where I found the following:
Mandatory
Provisions of Law Pertaining to Economic Censuses Section
224 as amended by Section 3571 of Title 18 United States Code.
Whoever,
being the owner, official, agent, person in charge, or assistant
to the person in charge, of any company, business, institution,
establishment, religious body, or organization of any nature whatsoever,
neglects or refuses, when requested by the Secretary or other
authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or
bureau or agency thereof, to answer completely and correctly to
the best of his knowledge all questions relating to his company,
business, institution, establishment, religious body, or other
organization, or to records or statistics in his official custody,
contained on any census or other schedule, or questionnaire prepared
and submitted to him under the authority of this title, shall
be fined not more than $5,000; and if he willfully gives a false
answer to any such questions, he shall be fined not more than
$10,000.
I thought about
throwing the second form in the trash, as I had thrown the first
one. Then I thought about telling the U.S. Bureau of the Census
to go to hell. Then I thought about the large, threatened fines,
and I filled out the form. I spent about 15 minutes doing so. My
rate of pay for having done so works out to exactly zero dollars
per hour, which is somewhat less than I usually charge for my services.
Well, big deal,
you may be thinking. But I invite you to pause and consider afresh
what this little episode in my life illustrates.
First, so far
as I can tell from reading the U.S. Constitution, the government
has no Constitutional authority to demand that I answer these questions
about my business. Perhaps, if I am mistaken, someone can direct
me to the relevant clause of the document.
Second, the
governments stated rationale for collecting the information
is lame. No great purpose is to be served. On a FAQ sheet included
with the questionnaire, one finds a section headed Why does
the government take this survey? But this sections text
merely states that the Census Bureau is required by law to take
the survey every five years and describes the variables that are
surveyed and the way in which these data will be combined with other
data the government collects. The section does not give a substantive
reason for collecting the data in the first place, seemingly assuming
that if a certain kind of information might be of interest to the
government or someone else, that interest suffices to justify the
informations forced collection at the expense of those who
possess the information.
Another section
of the FAQ sheet tells us Who uses the survey data.
Users are said to include the Small Business Administration, local
government commissions, government agencies at all levels, a
national women-owned business trade association not identified
by name, consultants and researchers, and individual businesses.
In truth, however, information about my business is in all cases,
literally as well as figuratively, none of their business. If these
people want information about my business, why cant they make
me an offer for it? After all, its my property.
Well, as Al
Capone is supposed to have said, you can get a lot more done with
a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone. And everything
the government gets done including its extraction from me
of information about my business it gets done by threatening
people with violence.
Oh, Higgs,
you might be saying, youre just overwrought and hyperventilating.
But am I really? Suppose that I had very strong feelings about the
privacy of my personal affairs, so I simply refused to provide the
information requested. Eventually, subject to the vagaries of the
governments escalating enforcement actions, I might be issued
a summons, which of course, I, having the strong feelings that I
have about the matter, would ignore. Hence, in due course, police
officers would be sent to arrest me for having ignored the summons.
And I, having the strong feelings that I have about the matter,
would naturally resist the arrest. Whereupon the police officers
might shoot me dead if they felt inclined to do so, rather than
simply beating me savagely and hauling my broken body off to jail.
And for what
would the police have battered or killed me in this case? Precisely
for having refused to fill out a bullshit form to provide information
about my business that no one had a just right to demand of me in
the first place. Obviously theres no real justice at work
here, but wheres the logic in the use of such brutally disproportionate
sanctions in response to such a petty act of noncompliance?
The logic
the same logic that leads the government to attach similar criminal
sanctions to an indefinitely great number of petty infractions of
its idiotic rules is that the government wants you and me
to obey its dictates slavishly regardless of their importance. It
seeks not simple compliance where compliance might be required to
accomplish an important public purpose. Instead it seeks immediate,
unquestioning, universal compliance including compliance
with dictates so trivial that they ought never to have been the
subject of government action in the first place in order
to put us in our place.
And
that place is with our faces constantly under the governments
boot.
We live in
a police state, a tyranny of genuinely grotesque dimensions, but
because it has developed gradually over more than a century, we
have gradually grown accustomed to its outrages and to its moronic
and insulting requirements, each accompanied by criminal sanctions
that amount to death threats, should we continue to resist. It is
not a pleasant feeling to live immersed in a sea of death threats,
surrounded by a variety of armed government thugs prepared to dish
out beatings, tasings, and death whenever anyone, for whatever reason,
resists the governments orders. That we Americans have resigned
ourselves to living in such an environment and, in many cases, continue
to refer to this police state as a free country speaks volumes about
our ability to follow Winston Smiths example, in George Orwells
Nineteen
Eighty-Four, of loving Big Brother.
This first
appeared in The Beacon.
August
4, 2009
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. He
is also a columnist for LewRockwell.com. His
most recent book is Neither
Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government.
He is also the author of Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy, Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society.
Copyright
© 2009 Robert Higgs
The
Best of Robert Higgs
|