We all know the textbook description of government. Schools taught us from a young age about the benefits of government. Civics textbooks highlight the “best” presidents and describe how terrible life would be without government. A typical explanation goes something like this:

The term government describes the means by which a society organizes itself and allocates authority in order to accomplish collective goals and provide benefits that the society as a whole needs.

American Government 2e 
Glen Krutz, Sylvie Waskiewicz
https://openstax.org/books/american-government-2e/pages/1-1-what-is-government

This cartoon version of reality, however, leaves out the most important parts. Even though the quote comes from an American Government textbook, it could have easily come from anywhere, like Putin’s Russia, NAZI Germany, or even communist Cuba. This whitewashing of government is not accidental. It is a purposeful ruse to convince the masses that government works on their behalf.

Monopoly on Violence

The first and most obvious flaw with the textbook description is that society doesn’t organize itself. In fact, it is quite the opposite. If you actually tried to organize your own government, your national government would violently suppress your movement. It is no coincident that separatist groups are label “terrorist organizations”¹.

Regardless of where you live, your specific government has a legal monopoly of violence in that geographic region². Period! Anything that challenges its status is met with force. This is true whether your society wants their specific government or not. Citizens in Communist China have just as much say in picking their government as Americans, which is to say none.

It is all About Power

The next major flaw is the myth that governments works for the people. It is so important to realize this myth is universally persistent across time and types of government. All forms of government that have or will ever exist claim to speak for society as a whole. Further, they claim to act on behalf of society. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Every action that government does preserves its power and the power of the elites³. Anything that helps common people is either accidental or convenient side effects. Again, this is true whether the government is a representative republic or an absolute dictatorship.

A perfect an example of this is Obama Care. It claimed to help the little guy, but in reality it was written by insurance companies to guarantee more customers⁴. Since then, insurance prices skyrocketed, along with the profits for big health insurance companies. The fact that some poor people obtained insurance was strictly a convenient side effect. So you know if “Saint Obama” was all about power, every other administration must be that much worse.

Guns, Guns, Guns

So, the official definition is garbage. Fine. Then what is the hidden nature of government? In short, the military. Everything else is window dressing. The Constitution, Congress, the President, the Supreme Court: all of them are window dressing for the military. He who controls the military controls the nation. End of story. Like everything else, this is universally true across time and types of government.

In some regimes, this is transparently true. Putin and Saddam Hussein are two blatantly obvious examples. Most governments, however, try to conceal their nature by establishing civilian rulers. For the most part, civilian rulers are better at running government, so this model scales better than autocratic regimes.

But when civilian rulers fail, militaries will happily take control. There are countless examples in Latin American, but the most extreme was Chile in 1973. Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, embarked on the one-way path towards communism. This was unacceptable to Pinochet and the military⁵. Once Pinochet staged a coup, he remained in power, unchallenged for 17 years. And when he finally stepped down, he turned over control to civilian leadership with a constitution established by his military regime.

But isn’t the Military Good?

If the military secretly controls government, is that good or bad? The short answer is that it depends. As long as you don’t directly threaten the regime, most governments simply leave you alone. This is true regardless of the style of government. However, some styles of government, like communism, are easily threatened. In the Soviet Union, you were safe as long as you supported the regime, but Lord help you if you publicly advocated for something else.

Of course, this isn’t limited to communism. Even the US has a checkered record when it feels threatened. For an example, just look at how the protesters of Jan 6th are being treated⁶. Their crimes amounted to nothing more than trespassing and minor property damage. For any non-government building, their sentences would be nothing more than a slap on the wrist, like minor fines. But the Capital building is different. And not because the people inside were in any real danger.

The protester crossed a line that the military simply cannot allow. The proof that the military was threatened by Jan 6th, and Trump in general, is the fact that the National Guard surrounded Washington DC for over a month after the riot⁷. If any of those protesters actually understood the true nature of government, they would have never been there in the first place. Finally, BLM protested all across the nation. They were far better organized and wreaked extensive damages, but virtually nothing happened to these protesters.

Divided America

Just because there are negative side effects to military power, it does NOT mean the opposite is true⁸. America, for instance, has by far the strongest military on Earth. If America split apart or dissolved its military, it is foolish to believe that more freedom would be the result.

Europe is a perfect counter example. Prior to WWII, its military power was divided among its nation states. They constantly fought for supremacy of Europe, culminating in the worse two wars of all time. Now, however, NATO controls virtually all of Europe. Besides over reaching its bounds with Ukraine, Europe greatly benefited from a consolidation of military power, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union.

What about World Peace?

I have no doubt that a divided America would result in greater military violence and force, not less. Just like the issues between Ukraine and Russia, different regions would fight one another for strategically valuable resources and land. This is why I believe secession, at least within the US, is exceptionally foolish and should be avoided if at all possible. I believe America’s only hope to avoid a Breakup is a massive does of Federalism.

Finally, when the US isn’t busy invading other countries, our military is a great deterrent to would-be empires. I’ve never supported the invasion of Iraq or Syria, which were clearly foolish wars. However, American power defeated the NAZIs, the Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Empire. All three of these were terrible for occupied people and world peace. If the US military disappeared tomorrow, I believe more war would result, not less. It would look a lot like Europe prior to NATO.

Conclusion

The military defines a nation. It controls borders, keeps internal peace in times of emergencies, and defends from invaders. And when civilian governments go off the rails, the military is standing by to take control. The State’s legal monopoly on violence is the military. This is universally true across all forms of government and throughout history.

Further, it doesn’t exist to help the people. Instead, it exists to protect its own power and the power of the elites that control the government. And like any tool, this power can be used for good or for bad, but mostly for bad. Since so many other forms of government have been so much worse, we should learn to appreciate the American military order. It has many flaws and short comings, but dissolving it without a better replacement would be foolish. And I believe a divided America would result in a global power imbalance and ultimately more war.

Concordia

So where does that leave secession? Secession is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. However, I believe secession within the US is both impractical and undesirable. On the other hand, secession outside of the superpowers is a good thing. I fully support it and encourage it. The more, smaller nations there are the better.

I believe the ideal nation has less than 10 million people, is ethnically and culturally homogenous, and has a very small, limited government. I also believe in places like this (think Singapore or Switzerland), people have greater freedom and higher standards of living.

Concordia, There Must be a Better Way

In my book, Concordia, There Must be a Better Way, I write about a project to create such a nation. In the desert of Chile, a team of dedicated pioneers establishes a new nation. They create a government based upon contracts instead of arbitrary force to build the freest society known to man.

What would you do if you had the opportunity to start from scratch? How would you balance freedom, liberty, and justice, while assuring that investors are rewarded for taking a risk on your enterprise.

To found out what happens, buy the book now on Amazon. It is an exciting novel that challenges your assumptions and entertains you in the process.

Recommend Reading

Support my blog with the purchase of one of these excellent books. I get a tiny commission for each purchase, but only if you purchase using one the links below.

The Great Delusion

The Machiavellians

The Pinochet File