Economics is interested in tyranny and autocracy because the nature of government intervention depends, at least in part, on the nature of the political system. Constitutional Politics and Economy Analyze alternative constitutional arrangements. Economists have the analytical tools to study the consequences of government intervention or nonintervention. Thus, recent economist “I tried to explainWhy America is vulnerable to dictators” (May 16, 2024).
On the one hand, it is true that the decentralization of the American government makes it harder for a dictator to violate the Constitution and take over the system. For the same reasons, it is very difficult, if at all possible, to manipulate the results of national elections. State and local governments (not to mention the people) are well armed, though not to the same extent as the federal government. Most police are employed by local and state governments. The federal government itself is a collection of diverse centers of power that may not all bend to the will of a dictator. economist “It’s hard to get an organization that employs 25,000 lawyers to carry out the orders of one person,” he said. 4,540 economists working at various levels of government Not everyone may be willing to ignore the methodology or falsify the numbers. Mussolini’s government I didn’t think economists would be so amenable.
An attempt by a federal dictator to take control of America could spark a civil war, but at least in the long run it might be less bad than the French tyranny that followed the 1789 Revolution and its sequels.
on the other hand, economist Examine how an elected dictator has been able to overcome the checks and balances of the American system. The American President has accumulated almost Tsarist powers. The President is arguably more powerful than his counterparts in many European presidential systems, including France; and, contrary to appearances, more powerful than a Prime Minister in a British parliamentary system. If the President himself declares a state of emergency, his powers are virtually unlimited. The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows the President (not that it’s necessarily better to include “she”) to deploy land or naval forces within the country if federal law is ignored. economist Note:
The Brennan Center, a think tank at New York University, has identified 135 statutory powers granted to a president when he declares a national emergency, including the power to freeze Americans’ bank accounts and shut down the internet under the Presidential Emergency Powers for Communications Act of 1942 (which, thankfully, is pretty hard to do in practice). In theory, Congress is supposed to review and potentially revoke a presidential declaration after six or 12 months. But in practice, Congress has been reluctant to scale back declarations. There are currently more than 40 emergencies in effect, some of which are more than a decade old.
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Franklin D. Roosevelt internment of Japanese Americans by executive order. The temptation is not gone. President Joe Biden could circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision on student loans by declaring an emergency. The Defense Products Act has been declared periodically by presidents, including Donald Trump during the COVID-19 pandemic. By declaring an emergency, whether real, feared, or fabricated (hitting the red nuclear button would be the ultimate justification), a would-be dictator could become a real dictator. Especially if the Supreme Court grants the president immunity from prosecution, a majority of Americans may support him until it is too late. Tyranny is hard to imagine without tyranny.
Freedom of the press will be a major obstacle. But some media may side with the dictator. The rest will be denounced as “enemies of the people” and their “fake news” will be subject to implicit threats and restrictions. What business can survive now without appeasing Leviathan? Courts will be attacked for going against the “will of the people.”
Perhaps that is too pessimistic. In the world, perhaps the United States, Individual freedom And we need to have some understanding of the meaning of the two words in this expression. Individual freedom is a threat to tyranny, whether of the right or the left. But a would-be tyrant is unlikely to sympathize with tyranny, injustice and servitude. They will claim to defend democracy, justice, freedom and sovereignty. He will hide behind the majority. The tyranny of the majority is, at best, a tyrant of the plurality.
Classical liberals and libertarians have been crying wolf for over a century, The disguised wolf continued to grow.This danger does not only threaten America.
