He who would be King
Abraham Lincoln is attributed with saying, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” While those words were likely said originally of Lincoln, as opposed to by him, the sentiment is no less true.
The most efficient form of government is one headed by a competent and benevolent dictator, or what Plato called a “Philosopher King.” In times of strife, want, and uncertainty, peoples have often looked to an authoritarian leader to cut through the inefficiencies of a pluralistic society or to streamline the actions of a burgeoning bureaucratic state. In supporting an authoritarian leader, the hope is that one is included among the parties, which find favor with the king. After all, dominion and domination over “others” are included among the coveted spoils of “war.”
However, no one, who would strive to be king, is competent to unilaterally rule a nation of 315 million persons. There is no Cincinnatus to be found among the hordes of political minions. There also are none among them, who are worthy of being compared to Lincoln or Washington. The political classes covet vicarious power as well as the position, prestige, and profits, which can be derived therefrom. Even initially benevolent kings (or their successors) invariably become tyrants thus proving the adage, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Our federal government was intentionally fettered by the Founding Fathers, and I rarely have had cause to question the wisdom of that act. The government, to which they gave birth, was afforded limited and specifically enumerated powers under the Constitution, and those powers were further constrained and restricted by the Bill of Rights. Rather that providing a blueprint for an industrially efficient state, the Constitution, as amended, necessarily defers to individual liberties and personal freedoms. Rather than defining the people as subjects, it recognizes the people as the only legitimate source of government power and acknowledges the protection of liberties and the advancement of freedoms as the primary roles of the state.
As stated in “Civil Disobedience” by Thoreau, “That government is best which governs least.” An industrially “efficient” state will inevitably be a tyrannical state. Eventually, everyone falls out of favor and faces the wrath of a tyrant. It is irrelevant where the resulting tyranny comes at the hands of a single deranged despot or at the behest of a self-serving electoral majority.
When derived through coerced conformity and forced subjugation, efficiency is antithetical to liberty. Men have valiantly died in pursuit of liberty. The benefits of resulting “efficiencies” are often usurped by those, who do not share in the efforts or sacrifices. There are in effect “rules for thee but not for me.” The idea of enjoying the largess of government (or the collective) without commensurate contribution or sacrifice is a concept capable of bankrupting any nation or damning any people.
We can either beg to be contented by the state or be allowed to pursue happiness on our own terms. Want and disappointment are possible in either case. The ultimate question becomes, “On whom do you place the burden and confidence for securing your own happiness?” Many persons question their own abilities or shirk in response to the burdens of defining and securing their own happiness. Those same persons are often deluded by the insincere promises of he who would be king.
