capitalism

212 Government
should have been surprised by his antigovernment crusade
given what he had written in his 1960 best-selling manifesto,
The Conscience of a Conservative. The turn to freedom
in America will come, he maintained, when the people
put in public office those who pledge to enforce the
Constitution, restore the Republic, and proclaim: “My aim
is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.”
Goldwater’s radical message in the 1964 campaign was
not well received: He defeated his opponent in only six
states, and he received only 38.5% of the popular vote. But
his uncompromising stand for freedom at home and abroad
laid the foundations of a political counterrevolution that led
to Ronald Reagan’s presidential victory in 1980 and Newt
Gingrich’s historic Contract with America in 1994. Barry
Goldwater was, in fact, the most consequential loser in
presidential politics.
He was an unlikely revolutionary: the grandson of a
Jewish itinerant salesman who became a millionaire; a college
dropout; a master mechanic and ham radio operator; a
gifted photographer whose sensitive portraits of Native
Americans have hung in galleries around the world; an
intrepid pilot who flew more than 170 different planes in
his lifetime, including the U-2. Goldwater was a fiercely
independent Westerner who opposed Big Government, Big
Business, Big Labor, and Big Media. He called himself a
Jeffersonian republican with a small “r.” He had deepseated
reservations about the Religious Right and its prolife,
antigay positions.
His presidential candidacy marked the beginning of a
shift in modern American politics from liberalism to a more
conservative economic philosophy that continues to this day.
See also Conservatism; Fusionism; Taft, Robert A.
Further Readings
Goldwater, Barry M. The Conscience of a Conservative. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Middendorf, J. William. A Glorious Disaster: Barry Goldwater’s
Presidential Campaign and the Origins of the Conservative
Movement. New York: Basic Books, 2006.
GOVERNMENT
A group of people is said to be subject to “government” if
there is among them a subset of people, acting in concert,
who are purportedly authorized to impose requirements on
the whole group using force if necessary. We must distinguish
governments from (a) voluntary associations such as
clubs and businesses, and (b) larger communities that share
LE
common traditions and values. Subjection to political
authority stems solely from being born in a specific area;
only occasionally are the subjects of a particular government
immigrants. Nor need the subjects share common
goals and interests. Those who exercise political power rule
by force if necessary; the will of the rulers is expressed
mainly in laws—general directives to all, more or less
effectively enforced by the rulers.
This definition already suggests what libertarian concerns
about government are likely to be. What, if anything,
would justify government? What, if anything, could it legitimately
be empowered to do? What are the best workable
methods for selecting those individuals who are to wield
governmental power? Historically, governments have typically
had their origins in an imposition by force, which is
just what libertarians object to. Even if governmental
power were originally acquired peaceably, libertarians have
raised questions about its legitimacy.
For present purposes, we may distinguish three general
theories of government.
The first, cynical, view holds that governments act in
their own interests, and the rulers tend to use their powers
to line their own pockets and maximize their power over
others. The other two views agree in opposing this description
and hold that those who hold government positions
must devote themselves to the well-being of the subjects,
not themselves. However, they diverge in a crucial way.
The second view, which might be described as the conservative
or Platonist version, holds that rulers should promote
what is really good for people, and that this good can
be known to government officials. Government, in short,
should make people virtuous (Aristotle), should “fulfill
their potential” (a host of thinkers, notably Marx), or perhaps
“make people equal” (contemporary liberals in the
now-familiar nonlibertarian sense of the term).
Finally, the third, liberal, view holds that people should
be permitted to define their own good, and that the function
of government is to enable each of us to pursue our own
good in our own way.
Can political philosophy choose among these?
Philosophy ideally should provide us with the answer to
why government is or would be good for us. This view virtually
rules out the first two. Rational people act on their
own values, not anybody else’s. If the Platonist thinks his
view of government is correct, he must convince others that
it is; if successful, then his also will be their view, and liberalism
will embrace it. But if he fails, it would be irrational
to hold that people will act on it. We do not act rationally
on premises we think to be false.
Because people have their own interests and, for the
most part, run their own lives, if government is to be justified,
it must be shown that people are likely to confront
insurmountable obstacles to their choices unless they surrender
some of the freedom of action. In the case of voluntary