Note: this is the second in a series of short commentaries highlighting the perils of minarchy, that seemingly necessary governmental evil that even at its most basic and minimal level becomes ever expanding and routinely fails to live up to the lofty ideals of representative government, always to the peril of individual liberty.
Every now and again, a politician goes off script, confirming to all what they desire most: power and control. In these moments, the fable of democracy crumbles. Alas, many, on account of work and family obligations or out of sheer ignorance, miss the notification and the trust-in-government fairytale lives on.
A little over a year ago, I wrote a detailed article on what was then called the Denver Green Roof Initiative and offered an economic rebuttal to the implementation of the legislation. What started off as a Green Roof Initiative, was rebranded into a “cool roof” mandate via committee action and has now become the full blown Denver Green Buildings Ordinance, which includes requirements far beyond anything the average voter assumed would be in the legislation when it was initially voted on. Gentle reminder for those in the back, legislation never contracts, it only expands. Mind you, this was a piece of legislation where 5% of voters signed a petition that allowed 20% of voters to forcibly implement green building criteria for various building types. This legislation exhibits the primacy of politics over economics, it matters not the cost, only the intent.
As is often the case, written into the text of the legislation is the requirement for the creation of a task force to evaluate and fine tune the legislation prior to it’s full implementation. In theory, this means that government bureaucrats, industry professionals, the legislation’s authors and the concerned public meet over the course of a defined period of time to work through the details and ensure it contains equitable implementation criteria and that any requirements do not breach any existing laws or regulations. Many tacitly approve of this process as ”just the way things are done,” but all of this occurs outside any real input from the people who will be affected the most (i.e. the ones who literally pay for it, consumers or possibly renters). Yes, of course, there are open comment periods and anyone can attend and voice their concern, but mere fractions of the city’s population actually attend these meetings. What this process really amounts to is, leave it to the experts, we’ll figure it out now. This is the representative democracy we all learned about in school? Where “everyone” (AKA 20% of voters) pulled a lever and now the will of “all” of the people will commence?
The ad-hoc and arbitrary value judgement of the majority are no better than those of one person. - Murray Rothbard Click To TweetThis process is perhaps summed up best by Tom Woods, speaking at a Mises U Lecture in 2018 when he stated, in reference to vaunted pragmatic democratic processes, “As long as we have the state, we may as well be realistic, take the reigns of the state and make sure that we turn its powers in favor of the interests of the people. If we just get the good people in power, then the people’s interest will be served.” Woods continues on, defining the state as, “…a divine vehicle, through which the destiny of the people unfolds. Who defines the public good? We need to subordinate your individual interests, to the public good, which we will define.” I’m assuming the reader is picking up on the sarcasm there, but this quite succinctly summarizes the standard lines that one receives from the statist types. The concept can be boiled down to the necessity of the state to use Power for the good of the People.
Local media has painted this process as a rosy, happy-go-lucky scenario where one man has used the democratic process to change the world, as described in this Denverite article, “It was a romantic’s tale of democracy in action: Rietheimer [the original initiative’s organizer] used the power of the people to change his world, because the people in power would not.” See kids, you can do it! You can make people do whatever you want when you have the power of the state behind you! Private property? Who cares!
But let’s return to the top of the article, where I mentioned a politician going off script. This is stunning, but it is presented as no big deal. This is just the reality of government, dear citizen! Here is the direct quote, again from the Denverite article, (emphasis added):
President Jolon Clark, who sat on the [Green Roof] task force, said the law’s evolution was par for the course. “There is this current of people who say, ‘When the voters speak, they speak unilaterally and it’s on stone tablets and you can’t change it,’” Clark said. “And that is not the case. Built into our charter is a mechanism by which we can change and even repeal what the voters have put on there for good reason. Brandon had the intent but not the language, so there’s always the question of unintended consequences.”
There it is, the minarchists’ revenge. Even if one believes in representative democracy, the politicians will alter, change, modify anything for any reason whatsoever, whenever they see fit! This is perhaps best summed up by Murray Rothbard, when he stated in the Libertarian Forum, “What bureaucrats and power elites always want is for the opposition to shut up and go away, to obey orders, to accept their assigned tasks.” (v. 2, p. 970) This is certainly where we are right now. It has been decided, you must conform.
