According to many defenders that I've spoken with, we must have Government for the provision of 'public' goods. Of course, these folk tend to ignore or discount the public bads that governments produce, such as institutionalized theft to pay for wars, oppression, regulatory capture, and tragedies of the commons in traffic, street trash, environmental resources, etc.
Even many libertarians rise to defend the right of Government to provision a mafia of armed personnel to protect us from each other. You can easily identify these gang members by their blue uniforms. I believe that their widespread influence, stifles heroic acts of civil disobedience, leading to a woeful under-supply of individuals with the courage and willingness to stand for a better world.
These individuals often bear very high personal costs for their "crimes." For example, Gandi resided in prison many years over many instances of peaceful noncooperation. In every step of his attempts to free India from British rule, Gandi fell victim to state violence. He fought for the autonomy of his countrymen, and paid with his life. He valued India's sovereignty so passionately, that he allowed the cause to consume his life.
Seldom does a civil disobedient reap the rewards of their efforts. The tax protester, Erwin Schiff sits today rotting in a cell for refusing to fund his oppressors. So afraid are the people of having encounters with the polizei, that they do not join the resistance. The protester then stands alone.
Government policies tend to isolate us from each other, and make us systematically dependent on government aid. Schools indoctrinate us to believe that the blue shirts always act reasonably, in spite of
clear evidence to the contrary. The media tries daily to convince us that we cannot be trusted with the means of defending ourselves. No wonder so many shy away from the protestor instead of lending support.
Not to mention that the typical disobedients find themselves facing imprisonment, possibly death, as the media stirs up an outrage. They face certain mistreatment in everyday life when recognized as "that guy", including ridicule, opprobrium, and social isolation.
For many individual that would like to take a grasp for more autonomy, this cost outweighs the benefits. They choose instead to suffer continued systematic mistreatment, because, well, they've been able to endure up till now, what's one more day? Compared to the costs and risks of fleeing for freedom, most can suffer an extra day as a slave.
The civil disobedient produces a public good. They cannot control who receives the benefits of a change in government policy. But, thanks to the armed hitmen that government uses to enforce the ridiculuous legislation drafted by crony businessmen and enacted by clueless politicians, we wait for individuals as dedicated as Gandi for the world to become an incrementally better place.
But
must we wait for the dedicated individual to lead a path to freedom? The civil disobedient that stands up against government oppression makes a better world for us all. Do we really want a system that requires such individuals to have a radically higher valuation of their freedom vs. continued oppression? Must we wait until one of us simply
won't take it anymore?
Let's reduce the size of government and disband the thugs in blue uniforms! We can govern ourselves, and the more obvious limited bailiwick of private police will engender an increase of the public good known as civil disobedience.
I dedicate this post to recent disobedients:
Ed Snowden - who revealed a massive NSA spying program, and who lives in exile and can never return to his home.
Chelsea Manning - who revealed video of U.S. government atrocities carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who rots in prison.
Aaron Swartz - who committed suicide after being labeled a felon for intent to violate copyright on scientific research.
