Statism is creepy, so a little bit today becomes more tomorrow.
Power creep axiom: The bureaucrats and politicians who run The State will find creative ways to expand any power you give them.
Since politicians and bureaucrats think it’s okay to initiate force for “good goals,” they will naturally seek to magnify their power so as to accomplish even more “good.”
One way they will do this is by interpreting the “rules” in the broadest way possible. And sometimes they will simply ignore any rule they can’t reinterpret.
Politicians and bureaucrats will also seek to exploit crisis and failure. They will argue that the failure or crisis happened because they didn’t have enough power. Thus, a crisis caused by The State can easily result in politicians and bureaucrats gaining more power. This may then lead to an even larger crisis.
It’s crucial to understand that there’s no way to prevent this “power creep” from happening, once it’s started.
- Such problems can be controlled in the Voluntary Sector by consumers withdrawing their business. But that’s impossible with The State.
- Voters are likewise powerless. The best they can do is vote out existing office holders, but the underlying bad incentives remain.
Statism is creepy. And the only way to stop this creepy behavior is to NOT allow the first “reasonable” increment, because it will lead to all the rest.
By Perry Willis & Jim Babka
Isn’t it convenient that “the slippery slope” is supposed to be one of those logical fallacies to avoid? Rejecting the “slippery slope” out of hand sure ends up helping the bullies who use incrementalism to destroy liberty.
The voters can simply refuse to participate and when there are no votes the politicians are out of power. Any vote is a sanction of approval of politicians and their use of aggression.
I sure do wish that you were correct Jack, but the State makes and ignores its’ own rules. If only roughly 1/2 of the total eligible voters vote during an election that includes a so-called presidential candidate; then by definition the majority has always in recent decades chosen to not have a president. Voter turnout is even worse during more minor elections. If the majority really ruled as is claimed; then there would not be anyone in an elected office on this land mass. Oh, but they get around that fact by not allowing a selection of “none of the above” on the ballot, and by claiming voter apathy as the reason for it. I promise you and everyone else that I refuse to vote on principle! A moral person should not vote to have a lesser, slimy immoral politician to rule above him or her! And an unknown percentage of other people who are eligible to vote but refuse to do so share my abhorrence with me as well!
This is a good point, when we’re offered bad choices, we should have the option to ‘refuse to choose’. If I lived in a state where there will be only Trump, Hillary or Johnson on the Presidential tickets, I’d leave it blank. My husband and I consistently vote to kick all judges out, unless we are certain the judge is no statist.