Anarchy Is the Solution to the Evil Idiocy of the State, Part II
L: The state’s requirements for self-preservation are why people so often say that the state is a “necessary evil.” It must violate some rights to exist, but people think that the state’s protection and support of civil society, which is a great value, is worth the violation.
Doug: I find the concept of a necessary evil rather repugnant. It’s largely sophistry, usually trotted out to justify some type of criminality. Can anything that’s evil really be necessary? And can anything that’s necessary really be evil?
Entirely apart from that, people say the state is necessary because that’s all they’ve ever known. But it’s not, in fact, part of the cosmic firmament. There have been times and places in history when central authority was so distant, or negligent, that the people did function — and prosper — in what was essentially a functioning anarchy.
David Friedman draws attention to medieval Iceland as one example of this. I recommend his book The Machinery of Freedom for lots of great discussion on how society would work without the dead hand of the state suppressing it.
L: And the reality is that there are all sorts of private institutions that provide regulatory and governance systems, from private cities like Disneyworld, to Underwriter’s Laboratories that puts “UL” seals on electronics they deem safe, to churches, some of which govern their members’ most intimate life functions — all through voluntary subscription.
The Mormon Church, for example, exerts a very significant amount of regulation of the private behavior of its members. I’m not a Mormon, of course, but I’ve lived in predominantly Mormon communities, and I have to say they tended to be cleaner, nicer, safer, etc. I’d say the Mormon religion exerts more control over its adherents than any state’s laws have ever exerted over citizens — but those regulated like it. They believe they benefit from it, and most important of all, they are physically free to leave any time they want.
Not so for the state. This is why I’ve said in the past that the state is not a necessary evil but merely necessarily evil.
Doug: Good example. The Amish and Mennonites provide other examples, although religious communities are entirely too uptight to suit my taste. And UL is a good one too, because people worry that businesses would all turn rapacious if the state weren’t there to regulate them. But electronics producers are not required to get UL seals on their products. They go to the extra expense of meeting UL standards because they know they’ll make more money if their products have the UL seal of approval on them.
L: Best Western hotels are the same way. Best Western doesn’t own the hotels; it’s largely a private regulatory agency that inspects hotels and gives those that make the grade the right to put a Best Western sign out front, which is worth a lot to a small mom-and-pop joint.
Doug: There are lots of private regulatory services. Insurance companies also exert a lot of influence on the insured, who have to go by certain rules to stay insured. And, of course, there’s a huge private security industry used by those who want to protect their assets, rather than call 911 after they’ve been robbed, etc. All by subscription.
You don’t need government for anything; if something is needed and wanted, an entrepreneur will provide it for a profit. And do so far better and cheaper than anything a government could possibly hope to.
The economic arguments for a free-market anarchy are overwhelming. I’m of the opinion we’d already be living with the technology of Star Trek if it wasn’t for the state slowing things down. But that isn’t the reason I’m an anarchist. The real argument is moral and ethical.
L: You know, I keep sending “unsubscribe USA.gov” messages to Washington, but I never get a response.
Doug: Good luck. To them, you’re cattle. They care only so much as you and all the others don’t stampede. Other than that, you exist for their benefit and have as much say in the matter as a steer.
L: Maybe that’s true for most people, but I can still vote with my feet. I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again. And so have you. Which is why I was looking at property in your neck of the woods in Argentina.
Doug: It makes a lot of sense to be in a place where they have to treat you as a guest, to be courted, rather than an asset to be exploited. Of course, all governments are dangerous, destructive, and annoying. But the ones that are incompetent and disrespected are easiest to deal with…
Anyway, love to have you as a neighbor.
This brings up another problem with the nation-state — it forces obligations upon you. I’m a big believer in being neighborly, but when the state tries to force you into a relationship with other people, it only breeds resentment. I like communities that are self-selecting, where you can assume neighbors share some basic premises about the way the world works.
L: I loved the Estancia. Those mountains would probably convince me if you and your friends didn’t. But anyway, there are a million directions we could take this conversation, a million objections I could raise for you to answer, but I’d like to move from theory to practice. Even to those who agree with you, at least in spirit, this all sounds very theoretical — of no practical consequence since the whole planet, as you’ve observed, is covered with nation-states.
I’ve been your friend for the better part of 20 years, and I’ve worked with you closely for most of the last six of those. I know this is not all theory for you. You live your philosophy. I’ve seen you get up in front of a large lecture hall with hundreds of people and tell them that the whole of the law should be: “Do what thou wilt — but be prepared to accept the consequences.” They laugh or roll their eyes, depending on their beliefs, but I doubt many realize that you are not only completely serious, but that that is exactly how you live your life.
You’re not shy, but you’re not a braggart either, so I’ll go ahead and say that I have watched you match deeds to words. You routinely go in “Out” doors, you light up under “No Smoking” signs, you walk through metal detectors with your belt on, you get back on polo ponies regardless of what your doctors tell you, you leave your electronics on when all the other sheep on the airplane turn theirs off… I could go on and on.
The beauty of it is that most of the time, nothing happens. You did exactly as you pleased, hurt no one, and enjoyed life on your own terms. On the occasions when some busybody does confront you, you usually respond calmly and say, “Oh. Well, what should we do about it?” The worst that happens when you are confronted is usually that you end up where all the submissive people put themselves to start with. Sometimes you even fight back. I’ve watched you make fools of airport security guards or take your business to another hotel.
The important thing is that you start out doing what you want, not what the busybodies want. You may end up penned in with the sheep sometimes, but not as often as most people would think. And you start out doing things your own way. I admire the heck out of that.
Doug: Well… You’re Don Lobo, a well-known anarchist in your own right — well known for not cooperating with the state. But, like you, I’m very easy going, and always try to observe others’ rights to the fullest.
While it’s true the most basic law is “Do as thou wilt — but be prepared to accept the consequences,” you can extrapolate that out, as a practical matter, to two others. One, do all you say you’re going to do. And two, don’t aggress against other people or their property. Everybody understands those laws, and you don’t need a corrupt, and corrupting, government to elaborate on them any further, as far as I’m concerned.
The people I like to hang out with, like you, observe those things. Besides that, I find you’re quite good at keeping your cool while questioning minions of the state… maybe you do it just to see if there’s actually a real human in that uniform they wear.
L: Okay, okay, but I don’t want to comment in print on all the things I’ve done. The point here is not to flatter you, or myself, but to point out to people that submission is a choice, not a foregone conclusion. Freedom is something you never get by waiting for permission but by exercising it as vigorously as your creativity and energy allow. By pushing back against the barriers — like when you told the Inn at Aspen where to shove the city’s “No smoking in the bar” rule, and that you’d accept the responsibility if the mayor walked in.
In the most general terms, I think it’s a mistake to think of freedom as a noun, rather than as a verb. And your actions show the world the consequences of doing freedom, rather than waiting to be given freedom.
Doug: Well, that’s true. And, not to pat myself on the back, it’s worth noting that there have been times when I’ve had my setbacks and even a substantial negative net worth — but it was my problem and nobody else’s. So not having any money is no excuse for not taking charge of your own life and living it the way you want to. I wasn’t given freedom by my parents or the government.
L: Hear, hear! So… Investment implications?
Doug: Attitude is everything, and that matters. If you let yourself be treated like cattle or herded like sheep, you won’t invest so as to maximize your freedom. There’s a lot we could say about this, but we’ve gone on long enough. The place to start is with diversifying your assets across political jurisdictions, making it harder for each would-be Big Brother to corral you. This is a rule almost everyone forgets — but it’s the most important single thing in today’s world.
I would like to recommend a book here. Along with Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, I’d say it’s the most important I’ve ever read, and had the most practical effect on my thinking: The Market for Liberty by Tannehill. It describes, clearly and precisely, how a society without government would likely work. Best of all, it’s now a free download from the Mises Institute’s web site. If you understand the basics, you’ll feel much less obligated to support the destructive institution of government — because you’ll know it’s unnecessary.
L: As we covered in our conversations on currency controls and living abroad – and Argentina, of course. What else?
Doug: Don’t feel guilty about finding the lowest-tax jurisdictions for reporting your income, owning property, etc. Shopping with your feet is not only your human right, it’s a positive good for the whole world; the more everyone shops for the least onerous governments, the more governments will have to compete for being less onerous, and the better off we’ll all be.
L: And the easier it will be for people to exercise their freedom as you do. What about trends?
Doug: Just the ones we’ve already covered — but now the need to take action is getting more urgent. I see that the new employment bill Obama just signed has new currency controls buried in its guts. It doesn’t necessarily prohibit anything new. But it has new reporting requirements and penalties. It’s an overture to what’s coming. As Mencken said, nobody’s life or property is safe while Congress is in session.
L: I figured you were right about this being in the cards, but I have to admit it’s started sooner than I thought it would.
Doug: Sometimes I hate it when I’m right. And I still think things will get worse than even I think they will. Remember my mantra: Liquidate, Consolidate, Create, Speculate.
L: No specific investments?
Doug: Nothing looks particularly good to me right now, except gold. If you don’t have a serious position in gold, you should build one post-haste — with as much as possible outside of the U.S.
Regards,
Doug Casey and Louis James
Whiskey & Gunpowder
April 19, 2010
ShareThis
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Simon. Ron Simon said: Anarchy Is the Solution to the Evil Idiocy of the State, Part II: L: The state’s requirements for self-preservatio… http://bit.ly/bY52aj [...]
Disneyworld is a government with the power of exile, if not of incarceration…
I strongly favor Doug’s concept of Anarchy. My view of the problem, there, is that it requires a very high degree of an innate sense of responsibility. That goes against the history of human behavior.
What I find interesting about Mr. Casy’s article is that he espouses doing what he wants when he wants. This is all fine and dandy, but in an anarchist society you would live so that you would not offend anyone. So instead of subjecting all those around you to your tobbacco smoke a person would voluntarily walk outside the resturant or bar to smoke. A true anarchist society would be hyper polite rather than everyone doing what ever they felt like at any given moment. Before anyone would do anything the individual would have to think “will this negatively effect other individuals”. The individual would think of others first before themself at all times. With increased freedom does come increased responsibility not only to yourself but also to others.
Oldmanriver, it seems to me you’re pushing it just a bit. People in general have a tolerance level for quirks, foibles and db level. it’s not difficult to wander around on a daily basis and not be egregiously disturbing. I’ve been wandering around doing pretty much what I’ve always wanted for almost seventy-six years without fear of lawsuits or knuckle sandwiches.
[...] Courtesy, Whiskey & Gunpowder [...]
Desertrat:
Sorry, but I have to back up Oldmanriver on this one. A stable Anarchy as described by Mr. Casey would require a level of social consiousness that would make pure Communists prostrate themselves and chant “we’re not worthy”. Mankind has not eveloved to that level yet. I’m not sure he should, but that’s another theme.
Just ask Miss Linda about the “tolerance level for quirks, foibles and db level” that she’s recently experienced within her own little domain, as my sister has too. Or, go back and re-read all those posts for “Rascal Rebel Rancheros”.
What Oldmanriver is talking about is exactly what God meant when he said “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. He wouldn’t give us such a high standard to live up to if we weren’t capable of attaining it, but we’ve aren’t anywhere near there yet.
IEvery time I hear someone yammering about their rights, I wish someone else would write a book about the responsibilities inherent in liberty and rights. I don’t feel qualified to write it. Oldmanriver, how ’bout you?
Doug…excellent philosophy, thank you. One of the true joys of W&G is that both the writers and the readers frame our points civilly, rationally, and intellectually. Well, almost all the time.
Val…that’s quite a challenge, and we’re probably doing more good right here. If I had to put it in one sentence I could start with “Primum non nocere,” “First, do no harm,” but would extend it to end “to anyone else.” Take all the chances you want to but do not initiate the use of force. Of course, that puts us in the position of always giving others the ability to take the first shot, and that isn’t safe or wise, either. I’m basically a “live and let live type.” Which reminds me…everybody go stock up on incandescent light bulbs.
Hi, Linda!
You’re right, and the greatest part of the challenge is in the definition of “harm”. It would be necessary to include “be prepared to take responsibility”. Too few people are mindful of or even care about the consequences of their actions on others.
BTW: I did see your invite and I’m not ignoring it. Far from it. I am immensely flattered and immediately hopped over to TTR to check it out. First thing I read was that wonderful piece by James the Wander. I was then immensely intimidated.
Val was referring to a mess caused by one of three tenants of our tiny three-lot trailer facility when the Leftie in the bunch began harassing another by frequent complaints to governmental authorities. Finally she came up with one that caused a Health Department Inspector to show up on MY doorstep as the owner of the property. If any of those involved had simply told ME of the problem with a septic tank I would have solved it immediately without the government breathing down my neck. Justice was served, though. The best solution once I had time constraints to deal with was to give notice to the trouble maker so that we can trace all sorts of lines by digging up the area she was in…and the Inspector will settle for having the unit with the problem hooked up to the now free septic system. Yes, Sheila had a “right” to complain about Kristi’s dog, her child’s swimming pool, the top to the septic tank being cracked, and finally a blocked drain, but now she knows that actions have consequences. The rest of the story is over on the Texas Ring.
Every game I’ve ever played had rules. Every human( or sentient being for that matter) interaction I’ve engaged in has had its economic/political/spiritual implications. I really can’t conceive the possibility of a life without rules. They seem to arise with thought and experience. Rules are essential. They should be good and fair and subject to orderly change to enable ongoing, interesting action leading to worthwhile outcomes.
Anarchism is a paradox or oxymoron in that society without rules no longer can be defined as as a viable society.
Val,
Thanks for the compliment, although I’m not sure that I would be qualified to write something like that either. Linda’s right though, it would be a very simple concept and that concept would have to be the priority in a society without law or government. Actually I have some experience with this. Where I work the company wanted a culture similar to this. It is called High Performance Work Place. There are several large companies that operate in this fashion. At my plant we basically had one rule “do what is in the best interest of the company at all times”. All absences were paid, if you wanted to leave you could. Each employee was expected to manage themselves. Unfortunately my plant was shut down due to the economic situation just as things were starting to smooth out. We made some mistakes in implementing this culture (we were a brand new plant, new construction, new staff, and new company) and the learning curve is very steep. There was no time clock, no attendance policies other than you are expected to be on time and ready to work when you are scheduled. Everyone was basically treated as a salaried employee. This doesn’t mean that there was not any accountability. Its quite the opposite, everyone was accountable for their actions. The discipline policy was that if there is a problem then you are brought in for a counseling session with me and you would have to come up with a plan to fix whatever the problem was. If you do not stick to your own plan then you are given a day or two (paid) to think about if you wanted to stay employed with us or not. Employees basically fire themselves. The problems were immense. It was small things that led to the biggest problems. This is why I disagree with Desertrat, it was the little quirks and what not that caused all the problems. Some people do not function very well in social situations. They either dont have the skills or the personality to do so. The best thing to do is fire those people immediately. They never come around. Unfortunately they also tend to be the most skilled people (not always though). Those same types of people would cause a lot of problems in an anarchist society. In this culture people have to be willing to go talk to someone and say hey, this thing you are doing bothers me how can we work something out. People have to be able to say this without a lot of emotion and the person getting the constructive criticism has to be able to take it without becoming offended. That was a huge problem. No one wants to speak up. People tend to gossip and talk behind other’s backs without going to the person face to face. People tend to take offense when they are criticized. A lot of it is human nature and in order for a culture like this to work you need people with a certain type of personality. Our hiring process was very stringent and very different from anything most people have seen. Even with all that we still had problems. As Val said it certainly is a very good goal to work towards but human beings as a species are simply not developed enough for this to work on a grand scale.
http://download.microsoft.com/.....finied.pdf
Here is a link which does a better job describing a high performance work place much better than what I did.
Oldmanriver, you remind me of an idea that’s been simmering in the back of my head for about a year now, and if Ms. Linda’s still watching, I’d love to get your feedback on this this too. Do you put any in stock in the idea of personality types, al la Meyers Briggs or the Keirsey Personality Sorter? What would you think of government not based on geography or corporations, but on personality types? Just thinking “outside the box” here. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of complications, of course, but would they be insurmountable. Wouldn’t this be the surest way to give everyone the system of government to which they are best suited and most comfortable?
Like our friend, James the Wanderer, I’m interested in what works. And clearly, one-size-fits-all government does not work.
Laughter…Val, dear, James the Wanderer began commenting on W&G and became a real favorite. I asked him to write an article, and he did a great job. We hope to hear more from him! What’s cute is that’s how I got my position, here: commenting to Gary until he asked me to submit my first article about 14 months ago. To repeat, have a go at it. The worst Mike or I could say is “too long/ too short/ off target/send this to CNN!” We have such great readers commenting, and leaving responses is very important. There are several of you I think could do actual articles, but the lively conversations we get going are valuable to all of us. Keep up the good work even if you don’t expand, please. Regards, Linda
Great reply, Bill, with one stipulation. We aren’t a pack of bomb-throwers, the vision most of us have of an “anarchist.” Semantics are frequently tricky. We certainly believe that rules everyone obeys are necessary. The difference is, we don’t think many are needed. Don’t steal, do murder, destroy property that isn’t yours (or yours if we’re talking arson for the insurance), or lie to get someone else in trouble. If you broke it, you bought it. Take all the chances you want to, but accept that actions have consequences. That pretty much covers it. Other than that, live and let live. We grow stronger through handling our own problems and taking responsibility for our decisions. Have you ever asked your pharmacist, “Is the warning on this label serious or is it to protect from the one in a million chance?” Mine always laughs and replies, “The one in a million chance.” “Child proof” caps on medicine bottles lead to MORE deaths because older people had so much difficulty opening them they left the tops off. The answer is a society where children are supervised properly, not government interference. Chuckle…to this day, the sound of a radio, TV, or voices wakes me instantly. It has been twenty years since I had small children, but my mother’s instinct won’t stop saying, “Somebody is out of bed and can’t be left alone!”
Interesting post, Eric, and an idea with a lot of promise. There ARE definite and very different personality and learning patterns. I’m a classic lone wolf, the one Ranger you send when there is only one riot. Give me a project, goals, resources available to me, time constraints and leave me alone. Don’t demand I attend meetings on other projects or schmooze around the water cooler. If I need information I know who to go to. This wouldn’t work on an assembly line, obviously. The fewer the distractions, the more I can get done. I usually write in the small hours of the morning, happy in a caftan, with a glass of wine, an ashtray, and several large dogs clustered around me. I love what I do and how and where I do it. I wouldn’t be nearly as effective if stuffed in a Kasper suit and an office with telephones and people wandering in. Which only means that I’m odd and know how to use my skills to best advantage. It might be very interesting to ask employees what sort of distractions could be eliminated and what would increase job satisfaction, and to work out protocols to deal with personality clashes…
Hear, hear, Ms. Linda! And also in response to Bill I would add that “rules” come in different forms. There are rules which are written into law and enforced by threats to life, liberty and property. And, there are rules which are unwritten but understood – morals, mores, taboos, etc. – which may be broken at risk of censure or banishment by one’s community. The latter would certainly exist in an anarchic society, so it would not be completely devoid of rules.
But, it will never come to pass anyway, because there is such a huge segment of society that never seems to outgrow being “out of bed and can’t be left alone”. So, those of us who have grown up have to keep fighting off the Mommy Hilaries and Gramma Nancy’s who just can’t resist taking their mother’s instinct to the federal level
Thanks for handing me that analogy, Linda. I hope you don’t mind that I used it that way. And, I’ll give your suggestion some thought. Over the weekend I had so many ideas swirling around in my head, I couldn’t get them to coalesce into a coherent theme. My muse is so erratic and airheaded, I think I must have gotten one of the original nine daughters and now she’s old and senile.
Oh, and I’ll be sure to thank Gary for inspiring your start here. He is a darling, isn’t he? I’ve enjoyed all of your articles on W&G, and now I have another source!
“if something is needed and wanted, an entrepreneur will provide it for a profit. And do so far better and cheaper than anything a government could possibly hope to.”
Saying it doesn’t make it so. There are a lot of things a democratic government can do that businesses and entrepreneurs cannot – administer the rule of law and justice by the people for one. Provide a compassionate level of health care is another. Government agencies (when properly funded <= that's the key) can better regulate companies so they can better serve the market, the people, and mankind as a whole. The failures of the fed should stand as a stark indicator as to what corporate self regulation can look like in any industry… the government turned over their regulating power to the banks themselves and now we're stuck with the consequences.
If companies were allowed to simply run amok, everything would be owned by only several companies… then where would we be? Where do human rights fit into the profit margins of a conglomerate when there is no watchdog? Should stockholders and CEOs be free set the value of free speech in your town? or the value of your right to own a gun? or the value of your life itself? It's probably cheapest to just lock everyone up in large prison farms so they can work right where they live, and they can buy the world's best health care right on sight and enjoy the best in military security with the company's private army. Voting? Too expensive and very inefficient!
Does everything really simply boil down to profit and doing things for money? Is this all about providing services at the cheapest possible price? The constant drumbeat of gold peddling on this website is getting tiring.
Val,
I think personality tests do have some validity. I know that in managing people, its best to take a customized approach. Different people are motivated by different things. Some people are always after money, some people are wanting praise of some sort and some people just want a pat on the back every now and then. It helps to really know the person you are dealing with though. I am familiar with Briggs-Meyer and have taken it several times. I will say though that depending on my mood I have scored differently. Seems like I waver between introversion and extroversion. A government based on that would be an interesting proposition. I believe that genetics plays a huge role in personality. While everyone is indeed an individual and not all conform to perceived stereotypes, people from the same ethnic background tend to behave and act the same. I remember traveling from Italy to Switzerland and Germany I was struck by how different the people were in Latin based societies compared to Germanic. You can see it in how they drive. Italy seemed to be a free for all. Cross a border not more than an hour away and order reigned supreme. I am half Scotch and I cannot tell you how many family reunions deteriorate into shouting matches over politics or some other discussion. Half of my uncles were diehard union men the other half are conservative Republicans. Neither side would give an inch. You can see this in the history of Scotland. When they weren’t fighting the English, the Scots were fighting each other. There is nothing a Scot loves more than a good fight. I talked about this with an army recruiter he said that recruiting in Appalachia and the South is like shooting fish in a barrel. These are places that Scots-Irish predominate. Why is it that places where a lot of Scandinavian people settle tend to be much more receptive to working together for the common good? Maybe coming from an area of cold weather where everyone realizes it’s a lot easier to get through the long cold dark winter if everyone works together. I don’t know the exact cause but I do notice the differences. These factors definitely make it more difficult when a government tries to treat everyone the same way and you have a multitude of people from different backgrounds. So maybe the answer is a more customized government depending your personality. It is very interesting to think about. I’m not sure how one would go about accomplishing that though. How would you do that?
Mr. Nicholson, you have given me an excellent idea for an article. It would have to be one, because my response to your post would be way too long for this forum. So, for now suffice it to say that your own words, “Saying it doesn’t make it so” can be applied to much of what you said.
I have to some what agree with Mr. Nicholson. I really have no interest in company run for profit cities etc etc. I think that has already been tried before and didnt work out very well. Here is a link for the history of Pullman, Illinois. It is a very interesting read. It provides proof of what happens when you allow someone to take care of you as well what happens when someone decides they can take better care of you than what you can.
http://www.chicagohs.org/history/pullman.html
Ugh! Yes, that was an interesting read. I wonder if that’s where Rand got her inspiration for “Starnesville”. I don’t think what Mr. Casey is describing bears any resemblance to Pullman, though. For one thing, free markets would have to be part of the equation, and Pullman was certainly not a free market situation.
Although I would never want to sign on to work for someone like Pullman knowing what his conditions were, I can’t help but notice that eventually his employees developed a typical entitlement attitude. True, he should have adjusted the rents and other fees when he had to cut their salaries. But as to rest, after all, he purchased the land, he build the company, he owned it all. Therefore, it was his basic human right to set the conditions. If they didn’t like the conditions, they didn’t have to live there or work for him. They chose to accept his conditions when they accepted employment with his company… and then they complained about the conditions.
The one point Mr. Nicholson mentions about the ability of democratic governments to administer the rule of law and justice I think could be reasonably debated either way. The rest of of his examples, though, and the manner in which he words them lead me to wonder whether he actually believes what he’s saying, or playing devil’s advocate just to see what kind of responses he can provoke? ;- )
Oldmanriver, you’re right. You kind of forced me to think about my proposition of government based on personality types, and the more I thought about the possible complications, the more all roads led right back to the same place, which is to say pretty much where we are now. The truth is, the Founding Fathers probably had the best idea ever for optimizing government. Unfortunately, the human condition is such that even if we managed to get back to the basics of the Constitution, eventually someone would find a way to twist and pervert it again.
I have to some what agree with Mr. Nicholson. I really have no interest in company run for profit cities etc etc. I think that has already been tried before and didnt work out very well. Here is a link for the history of Pullman, Illinois. It is a very interesting read. It provides proof of what happens when you allow someone to take care of you as well what happens when someone decides they can take better care of you than what you can.
http://www.chicagohs.org/history/pullman.html
Ugh! Yes, that was an interesting read. I wonder if that’s where Rand got her inspiration for “Starnesville”. I don’t think what Mr. Casey is describing bears any resemblance to Pullman, though. For one thing, free markets would have to be part of the equation, and Pullman was certainly not a free market situation.
Although I would never want to sign on to work for someone like Pullman knowing what his conditions were, I can’t help but notice that eventually his employees developed a typical entitlement attitude. True, he should have adjusted the rents and other fees when he had to cut their salaries. But as to rest, after all, he purchased the land, he build the company, he owned it all. Therefore, it was his basic human right to set the conditions. If they didn’t like the conditions, they didn’t have to live there or work for him. They chose to accept his conditions when they accepted employment with his company… and then they complained about the conditions.
The one point Mr. Nicholson mentions about the ability of democratic governments to administer the rule of law and justice I think could be reasonably debated either way. The rest of of his examples, though, and the manner in which he words them lead me to wonder whether he actually believes what he’s saying, or playing devil’s advocate just to see what kind of responses he can provoke? ;- )
Great reply, Bill, with one stipulation. We aren’t a pack of bomb-throwers, the vision most of us have of an “anarchist.” Semantics are frequently tricky. We certainly believe that rules everyone obeys are necessary. The difference is, we don’t think many are needed. Don’t steal, do murder, destroy property that isn’t yours (or yours if we’re talking arson for the insurance), or lie to get someone else in trouble. If you broke it, you bought it. Take all the chances you want to, but accept that actions have consequences. That pretty much covers it. Other than that, live and let live. We grow stronger through handling our own problems and taking responsibility for our decisions. Have you ever asked your pharmacist, “Is the warning on this label serious or is it to protect from the one in a million chance?” Mine always laughs and replies, “The one in a million chance.” “Child proof” caps on medicine bottles lead to MORE deaths because older people had so much difficulty opening them they left the tops off. The answer is a society where children are supervised properly, not government interference. Chuckle…to this day, the sound of a radio, TV, or voices wakes me instantly. It has been twenty years since I had small children, but my mother’s instinct won’t stop saying, “Somebody is out of bed and can’t be left alone!”
Great reply, Bill, with one stipulation. We aren’t a pack of bomb-throwers, the vision most of us have of an “anarchist.” Semantics are frequently tricky. We certainly believe that rules everyone obeys are necessary. The difference is, we don’t think many are needed. Don’t steal, do murder, destroy property that isn’t yours (or yours if we’re talking arson for the insurance), or lie to get someone else in trouble. If you broke it, you bought it. Take all the chances you want to, but accept that actions have consequences. That pretty much covers it. Other than that, live and let live. We grow stronger through handling our own problems and taking responsibility for our decisions. Have you ever asked your pharmacist, “Is the warning on this label serious or is it to protect from the one in a million chance?” Mine always laughs and replies, “The one in a million chance.” “Child proof” caps on medicine bottles lead to MORE deaths because older people had so much difficulty opening them they left the tops off. The answer is a society where children are supervised properly, not government interference. Chuckle…to this day, the sound of a radio, TV, or voices wakes me instantly. It has been twenty years since I had small children, but my mother’s instinct won’t stop saying, “Somebody is out of bed and can’t be left alone!”
Excellent article, Doug and Louis. Well-spoken and very agreeable (considering the limited space)
When my mom, “staunch Republican”, warned me that “many Libertarians are really anarchists!”, I had to admit to her that indeed I was an anarchist…and indeed, did she know that many Republicans are really fascists!