In a free society, you make the choices about your life. In a politically dominated society, someone else makes the choices. And because people naturally resist letting others make important choices for them, political society is, of necessity, based upon coercion. From “The Libertarian Mind” by David Boaz
If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion. Friedrich August von Hayek
When an individual uses physical threat, financial threat, political force, trickery, salesmanship (offering a promise of value in exchange for cooperation) in order to cause other individuals to a particular action, can we call that leadership? We can say that leadership is the act of inspiring people toward some end or goal. In a free society, however, any coercive methods would not be an acceptable form of leadership. Would they?
Many think of someone who vocalizes ideas as a leader, of sorts. We, however, have heard the reference to a “silent leader”. We have heard of the reference “lead by example.” Interestingly a follower can also be a leader in that a respected person may demonstrate to others his desire to follow someone else’s instruction or idea, thus leading those others down the same path. Leadership can be passive (the followers may not even realize they are being led) and can be active (the person attempting to lead is explicit in articulating his desire for others to act).
I have used the reference of “leader” when referring to the president and members of congress. If one gains a source of power to control the behavior of other people, is that a form of leadership or is it just coercion? If that power comes from the vote of the people you control so that you can move “the people” toward a goal you believe is appropriate, is that reasonably characterized as leadership in a free society. What about those among “the people” that did not vote for you? Are they following you by choice or are they coerced? And if they are coerced and are forced to comply with threat of imprisonment, can the redistribution be the characterized as the result of leadership in a free society?
What if we were to say that our freedom has limitations such that we are free to chose to do whatever we want as long as we do not harm another or infringe upon the ability of another to pursue their own happiness? That is different than saying others have the right to take the fruit of your efforts in their quest for happiness and in the name of “fairness.” “Vote for me and put me in a position of power, and I will force others who have gained more than you in their pursuit of happiness, to give you their property, even at their objection.” Confiscation of property does not lead a person to, of their own free will, give to the cause of another. Whether armed with votes or armed with guns, confiscation of the property of another against their will is a coercive act and it is difficult to characterize that act as leading people to help others. We do have examples of people giving their property to the cause of others of their own free will in our society. Giving by free will and choice is a common and well documented practice among our country’s most wealthy individuals and yet we subscribe, at the price of our own voice (votes), to confiscation from “the wealthy” and allow ourselves to be wards of the confiscators.
The practice of securing power through promise of the confiscation and redistribution of property from one citizen to another in exchange for votes is not a form of inspirational leadership in a free society, it is a form of bribery. The fact that it is done on a large scale somehow causes us not to take notice. Imagine if you received a call from a candidate for president of the United States indicating that, if you vote for him, he will distribute enough money for you to make your car payment and that the funds will come from your neighbor who has a nicer car?
freedompresspectives 
A fine article from someone whom I respect as much an any person I know.
How, exactly, would the author govern this country this day? What changes would he make to the elements and form of government? Who, if anyone, would be ineligible to vote? Make a political contribution? Would those be limited? Would he rid us of the oppressive National Weather Service or the Coast Guard? Permit Apple to dam any river it could afford to dam or dump mercury in any river it wants to and leave it to the downstream owners to fight it out? Would antipollution laws be permited? Would he have a governmental agency to enforce an anti-dumping of mercury law? Would such a law be constitutional…or even theoretically correct under this approach to government?
LikeLike
I do not have all the answers. Maybe not any good ansers. The lack of an answer does not mean the question or concern is not important or valid. What I do believe is that our government officials are making unsustainable promises to citizens in exchange for votes and that government is simply too big. I believe that there is not perfect system and we should not have started to destroy a perfectly good one because it was not perfect. We have been throwing the babies out with the bath water because the tub is only part full. Instead we should realize struggle for our citizens and imperfection of systems is, to some degree good and natural and a necessary part of a society that will promote survival, strength and sustainability. Maybe you believe that none of the quick ideas listed below for consideration are worth considering but, I am willing to step back and consider drastic measures to change the route of the titanic in time. Think about these always with the principle and priority of liberty as our guide:
1. Institute term limits for the US legislature;
2. Repeal income tax entirely and institute a national sales tax; alternatively, if an income tax is to continue change income tax to a flat tax rate for every citizen whether they earn $1 or $ 1 billion and allow only those who pay tax at the same flat rate (or voluntarily more) on their income to vote. Eliminate absolutely all income-tax deductions. If there is no income tax and only a sales tax then there should be no restriction on voter eligibility other than citizenship.
3. Political contributions should be limited on a per person and per organization basis and each candidate to have a pre-set publically funded budget for advertising media with the size of the budget tied to the size of the voter base for each jurisdiction. No contributions from non US citizens allowed.
4. In 2013 11% of the total US citizen workforce (those employed or seeking employment) were federal, state or local government employees (roughly 22 million government employees at all levels as reported by US census bureau between 5 and 6 government employees per square mile, including wilderness areas). More than 1 in 10 people working were working for a government agency (and this does not include the jobs that are funded by tax dollars in the private sector). Limit the number of government employees per every non government employee so that the ratio is 20 to 1. Do we really need more than 1 government employee for every 20 citizens?
5. Go ahead and keep National Weather Service and Coast Guard I guess and keep basic and limited laws that prohibit actions that harm environment but do so while reducing federal government employment costs by, at least, 25%. Reduce the number of government agencies and number of laws just back to the number we had in 1960 (arbitrary date but do we really need more than that; there are an estimated 2,000 federal agencies right now) through consolidation and termination. There are so many local, state and federal laws that the average citizen is subject to there is no reliable count. These laws are, therefore followed accidentally as people follow basic decent rules of behavior. No one person can possibly keep track of other than a small fraction of the laws to which they are subject to prosecution. People do not violate these laws largely because of a limited number basic rules of decent human behavior. Stop the costly (cost to debate, vote, publish, administer and enforce) and insane generation of law after law after law after law after law and revert back to enforce basic rules of behavior. Limit the number of laws in any jurisdiction such that after that max number a new law must be matched with repeal of an existing law.
6. Totally restructure the education system. Institute a voucher system to allow consumers of education to shop and to bring open market competition to education and you will see a webinar format through technology used to bring the best rated teachers of standardized subjects to all students to reduce bricks and mortar and reduce wage costs in education.
7. Massive tort reform, especially in the areas of, class action damages, employment law and medical malpractice law.
8. Eliminate all federal welfare programs and transfer them to local jurisdiction and local discrimination so that localities can offer help to only those citizens that behave in the best interest of the local community as decided by each local community.
9. Institute a public works program as a condition to all public assistance of able bodied and mentally healthy individuals and as a means to reduce government service costs.
10. Measure income distribution and difference in income of classes of citizens on an after-tax (ALL TAXES) and after transfer payment and subsidy receipt basis.
11. Add a constitutional amendment stating that “caretaker of citizens” is not a proper role of government but is at the discretion of each individual citizen, one to another.
12. Add a constitutional amendment that confiscation of property by the government that is in the form of a disproportionate tax on income or in the form of tax on any property held (include wealth transfer taxes) is prohibited and that taxes are limited to transaction based taxes (like sales taxes and transportation taxes) and/or proportional rate income taxes to fund limited government of travel among and trade between citizens.
13. Add a constitutional amendment to limit government and clarify that the role of US government is not to insure fairness or to redistribute property or earnings toward an equal distribution as this would require denial of liberty (no where does the US constitution is there mention equality or fairness other than one limited use of the word equal as it relates to the representation under the law (I believe) but not as it relates to property or income.
14. Repeal all minimum wage laws entirely and allow pricing to be governed by supply and demand (this is a hidden form of income tax on business in America.)
15. Respect the separation of power and eliminate all and any attempts to legislate from the bench. NO LITMUS TEST FOR APPOINTMENTS.
16. Privatize social security with individual accounts.
17. Add a clarifying constitutional amendment that states that unequal results are expected in a free society and that such a condition is emblematic of freedom and that any policy or law aimed at redistribution is unconstitutional and interferes with the basic tenants of freedom.
18. Provide for domestic same-sex partnership consistent with that of married people under the law.
19. Allow people freedom socially to behave as they wish as long as it does not impose unreasonable restriction or harm on others not so inclined.
We need to have discussion about drastic change that limits the size and role of federal and state government and puts resources back in the hands of localities so people can solve their problems effectively and efficiently.
LikeLike