Lost Rights : The Destruction of American Liberty

Rating:
Summary: A Problematic Book
Review: This book provides countless examples of people and businesses damaged or threatened by governmental excess, corruption and abuse of power. The examples are often egregious and frightening. Some are familiar, like the kinds of things seen on 60 Minutes. Others are eye-opening. There is enough documentation and familiarity to trust the book's general thrust.

Some of the rhetorical tactics used in the book are questionable. For example, the author will write a paragraph dealing with excessive govermental laws and regulations, and the paragraph will include not just laws that are on the books, but bills that have been considered and rejected. I find this tactic unnecessarily inflammatory, given the amount of actual material that the author claims to exist. Why talk about unfair and coercive laws that don't even exist if there are so many that already do?

The book does not provide balance. The central idea can be found in the following quote:

"The larger government becomes, the more coercive it will be -- almost regardless of the intentions of those who advocate a larger government."

This statement may be true, and numerous examples from the book certainly bolster it. But there are other sides to the argument as well. Since the author doesn't present them, he hasn't refuted them. And since he hasn't refuted them, has he really proven his case? Bovard never presents the other side --that government can actually help and protect people.

It's easy to argue against abusive forfeiture laws and tyrannical law enforcement agencies -- they leave plenty of innocent victims in their wake. But if you're such a believer in non-government, why not talk about Social Security, Medicare or popular government programs that have helped and continue to help many people? The book sets up easy targets and knocks them down, but it shies away from the hard questions.

The book does not provide analysis of the complex world we live in. It presents "power" as a kind of seesaw that totters up or down. On one side sits the government, and on the other, "the people". Any loss of weight or power on one side creates a corresponding gain on the other.

Reality is much more complex. For example, take the legal battle between the US Government and Microsoft. The Government exercised its power against Microsoft through investigations and lawsuits, thus weakening the company and preventing it from conducting business as it chose.

According to Bovard, this would constitute a loss of liberty from "the people" to "the Government." But since Microsoft was arguably excercising its market power to enrich itself at the expense of "the people" (less choice, less innovation, higher prices), the net loss of power from Microsoft to the Government was arguably a gain for "the people".

As another example, take the decision by the FCC to "deregulate" media ownership, thus allowing concentrated ownership of media outlets. According to polls, public opinion, public comment and public hearings, "the people" did not want media ownership deregulated. The Government's
divestment of power to regulate in this area will result in tremendous concentration of media ownership in a few private hands, and arguably, corresponding losses of choice, innovation, accountability and diversity in media. All in all, a net loss for "the people." The book simply does not ever even consider the protection for "the people" that comes from government laws, regulations and enforcement.

Because the book lacks any in-depth analysis of the role of government in society, it ultimately lacks intellectual legitimacy. If all governmental power is power removed from the people, and if this is necessarily "coercive", and if bigger government is necessarily worse and more coercive, then the logical extension of this argument, taken to Bovard's rational conclusion, is that we should have no government at all. None. Period. End of sentence. Why give coercive power over yourself to another?

Some communities in some parts of the world work this way. If someone hurts you, steals from you, kills your friend or relative, it is your responsibilty to remedy the situation. There is no rule of law as we know it.

But Bovard never advocates this result. He clearly likes and wants some amount of government. He wants a police force to punish murderers and other criminals, and he wants an army to defend his country. He wants intellectual property laws that enable him to collect royalties on his books. He wants government systems to adjudicate those laws, and he wants government remedies to punish people who might steal from him. He wants a tax system coercive enough to ensure that he gets all of these things at public expense.

In other words, he wants the amount of government that he wants. Okay, but so does everyone else, from George W. Bush to Ted Kennedy. What makes Bovard's vision of the "right" amount of Government any more valid then yours, mine or Timothy McVeigh's? Bovard launches one anti-government broadside after another, but he never considers the types of difficult questions necessary for an honset debate.

The book also lacks historical perspective. Okay, there is some historical information about where zoning laws came from, and there's a little social commentary about forfeiture laws and environmental protection regulations. But precious little. For the most part, onerous, nonsensical and tyrannical laws are treated as if they dropped from the sky and appeared wholly formed in our nation's legal and political system.

But as every 6th grader knows, that's not where laws come from. They come from legislators and other government officals who are often enough responding to the will of "the people". F0r every ridiculous or tyrannical law that Bovard mentions, there was some set of democratically-elected legislators who supported and passed it and some majority of citizens who elected them.

In other words, at some point, we, the people, have to stop blaming "government" for creating unwanted laws, and we have to take some responsibility for how and why we are allowing and supporting it. Bovard doesn't see any individual responsibilty on the part of the people. He writes as if "government" were an occupying force that dropped out of the sky one day and simply took over.

Given that the book lacks honest debate and critical analysis, it also lacks solutions. Bovard presents a lot of evidence that we have too much government in our lives. But he never articulates what to do about it. Because there is no analysis, there is no criteria on which to decide which laws are good, which are bad, and why. The book may be a "wake up call", but if you wake up and accomplish nothing, is that any more productive than remaining asleep?

Rating:
Summary: Frightening
Review: This book will terrify you, shock you, make you nauseous and give you nightmares. If it doesn't, you're either a government employee or brain dead. But I repeat myself...

This book WILL change your life.