Getting Away With It
by Joseph Rowlands

It's always been known that it is easier to take what you want by force than it is to earn it. Production takes work. Theft is relatively easy. The problem for the would-be thief has always been that there are consequences. If they could just get away with it, it would be a much more attractive option. For many, that means anonymity. If you can steal without people knowing it was you, you can avoid the consequences.

Government is an even better solution. If you can steal from others through the government itself, you get to avoid the biggest consequences. If the organization responsible for preventing crime can be subverted into committing the crimes, there is nobody to fear. Of course when government does the stealing, they call it 'fairness' or 'redistribution of wealth'. But that doesn't change its nature.

Government is seen by many as a powerful tool. If you want to build a bridge, or a stadium, or give money to the poor, you just need to tap into the power of the government. Instead of looking for voluntary solutions or relying on persuasion, you can simply force it to happen. For the same reason that theft is attractive to the thief, the government is seen as a shortcut. Violence has always been seen as the easy way to get what you want, so it isn't surprising to see people lining up to ask the government to use force on their behalf. It has all of the benefits of outright theft, but you get to escape the consequences.

Not all of the consequences are avoided though. If you increase taxes and regulation too high, people will take their money elsewhere. Capital flight is a serious problem as people send their investment money to more profitable locations.

The response is typical. Government officials look for ways of preventing the consequences. They want to find a way to get away with it. So they try prevent tax rate imbalances by pressuring other governments to increase their tax rates. Or they'll try to crack down on so-called tax havens. The idea is that if they can make everywhere else less attractive, people won't flee. It assumes that the pie is a fixed size, and the only question is who gets how much of it. By balancing it out, they try to avoid that particular consequence.

It's not that easy though. People don't just decide where to invest. They decide how much to invest, and how carefully to invest. By destroying the ability to profit on investments, government remove the incentives to invest wisely and significantly. So as investment declines and the economy shrinks, they look for ever more intrusive ways of getting what they want.

Another kind of consequence for politicians is that they may lose votes if they support unpopular policies. Again, they look for ways of avoiding the consequences. They try to discourage political competition by preventing potential challengers from getting funding. They try to insulate their policies from the tyranny of elections by creating bureaucracies that are appointed and wield power indiscriminately. In Europe, they push for more centralization and control by unelected officials, and push a European Constitution without referendums.

The goal is always to find some way to use violence as a shortcut, but somehow escape the consequences. Violence is easy. You don't have to figure out how to accomplish your goals. You can just demand someone else do it for you. You don't have to worry about persuasion. You can just command. You don't have to acquire consent. You can just coerce obedience.

But along with that coercion, there is always the desire to somehow avoid the consequences of the actions. Whether that's through not getting punish for the act, or not losing your position of power, or not losing taxpayers, there is a constant effort to prevent the natural results. If it could be achieved, it would allow perpetual use of violence to get what you want without ever having to pay for it.

Discuss this Article (2 messages)