On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for
a Second American Revolution
by
Hans-Hermann Hoppe
by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
DIGG THIS
This essay
was originally published in Reassessing
the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline
of Freedom, edited by John V. Denson, pp. 667696.
An MP3 audio file of this article, read by Dr. Floy Lilley, is
available for download.
In a recent
survey, people of different nationalities were asked how proud they
were to be American, German, French, etc., and whether or not they
believed that the world would be a better place if other countries
were just like their own. The countries ranking highest in terms
of national pride were the United States and Austria. As interesting
as it would be to consider the case of Austria, we shall concentrate
here on the United States and the question of whether and to what
extent the American claim can be justified.
In the following,
we will identify three main sources of American national pride,
the first two of which are justified sources of pride, while the
third actually represents a fateful error. Finally, we will look
at how this error might be repaired.
I
A Country of Pioneers
The first source
of national pride is the memory of America's not-so-distant colonial
past as a country of pioneers.
In fact, the
English settlers coming to North America were the last example of
the glorious achievements of what Adam Smith referred to as "a
system of natural liberty": the ability of men to create a
free and prosperous commonwealth from scratch. Contrary to the Hobbesian
account of human nature homo homini lupus est
the English settlers demonstrated not just the viability but also
the vibrancy and attractiveness of a stateless, anarchocapitalist
social order. They demonstrated how, in accordance with the views
of John Locke, private property originated naturally through a person's
original appropriation his purposeful use and transformation
of previously unused land (wilderness). Furthermore,
they demonstrated that, based on the recognition of private property,
division of labor, and contractual exchange, men were capable of
protecting themselves effectively against antisocial aggressors
first and foremost by means of self-defense (less crime existed
then than exists now), and as society grew increasingly prosperous
and complex, by means of specialization, i.e., by institutions and
agencies such as property registries, notaries, lawyers, judges,
courts, juries, sheriffs, mutual defense associations, and popular
militias.
Read
the rest of this article
June 30, 2008
Hans-Hermann
Hoppe [send him mail] is distinguished
fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute
and founder and president of the Property
and Freedom Society. His books include Democracy:
The God That Failed
and The
Myth of National Defense.
Visit his website.
Copyright
© 2008 by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Hans-Hermann
Hoppe Archives
|