Bravo! I get so sick of "but who will build the roads" ...., really, I'm pretty sure I know people who will do a better job than what we have......it's a weird autonomic response.
I once had 2 friends: a city employee who filled potholes and the other a foreman for an independent paver. The independent was constantly shaking his head at the poor quality of government paving. I can't remember how the city employee rationalized his work. But these 2 come to mind whenever I hear 'but what about the roads'.
It's a hard one to get considering how thoroughly we've been indoctrinated since birth. It took me ages to get. I thank the fakedemic for opening my eyes to this and so many other scams. Not easy but important.
I would say your eyes are VERY open now. Not just to the scam being perpetrated by some very evil people, but to the fact that government itself is a scam. That is more eye-open than most humans who have drawn breath over the last 7,000 years!
Indeed! My main concern with subsidy is regarding migration. When the US Constitution was written, it was very expensive to emigrate to the New World - that was the limiting factor. Unless you were a slave, in which case it was free.
Today, migration to The Americas is free for many, subsidized by SorosBucks.
That would make him a modern-day slaver - although the current term is 'human trafficker.'
Didn't the previous US President sign an Executive Order for seizing the assets of human traffickers?
That's very transparent and courageous of you to state the issue so openly and to ask for input. Those problems certainly exist but your examples and rationale consider transactional issues only, not a conquering force such as a gang, a warlord, or a self-declared monarch or dictator. The assumption that a lack of government is the solution is the real issue which you aptly state.
I'm not sure I agree with your example of arbitration though. Arbitration is pushed by big companies because it favors them and lawsuits do not. Arbitration doesn't protect the little guy. There are some great papers out that arbitration is actually more expensive and much less successful for consumers. Arbiters tend to service those who support their industry, which are the big companies. And there is no recourse with a bad verdict as there is with a lawsuit going to a higher Court. So that would seem to be an example of equal or greater failure on the part of private industry. Since it is often more expensive, has no recourse, and favors industry, it can be said it is a worse solution.
But to answer your real question, here is the stumbling block that I cannot get past regarding anarchy as a solution. First, the transaction side. You give examples of inefficient and poor ways of how things are done. How something is done is called a process. All work is accomplished through a process, whether it is documented or not. When we don't get what we want, it is because of a poor or corrupt process. These days, we expect optimized, high quality, efficient processes.
You are correct that government has no motivation or requirement to make their processes efficient or high quality or to serve the people over those in power. Competitive companies where people have a choice are driven to higher quality and lower prices. However, that isn't true in every business either. In 1927 my dad worked in the logging industry in Northern California. He saved all his money in the Bank of Sacramento but before he could withdraw it when the lumber camp closed, the bank president ran off with all the deposits. That doesn't happen much anymore because we have banking laws and enforcement that protect us.
In short, without government and all of its corruption and faults, what would ensure that fair, efficient, quality, and affordable processes would be used by businesses? It doesn't seem sufficient to simply say the market would demand it. That feels short-sighted and idealistic. That certainly wasn't the case in the wild west or even in New York or Chicago before government took control. Government may be standardized thievery, but the argument that processes would be the opposite in the absence of government and laws to protect us falls short because there is nothing to cause that to happen. The idea that it would automatically happen seems incredulous because it has never automatically happened throughout history. The powerful at every level have simply taken control. Might makes right. It's the same today as it always has been.
I believe that the powerful still are in control and that government serving the people at the state and federal levels is often a sham. But at least now we have the ability to vote in a Collaborative Democracy or some other solution. Unfortunately, it seems that the small percentage of people that care enough to make an effort have trouble uniting around the most realistic solution.
People are so easily manipulated by predators, whether they are organized in a government or not. At least with a government, we think of predators as criminals. Without a government, it would be the standard operating procedure. Laws were enacted with a purpose. Governments were attractive to people because of the suffering without law. The fact that powerful people use the law to their own benefit is the problem, not the existence of law itself. And that self-interest part of human nature is the real root cause of the problems In either case, with or without, the existence of laws. We need laws to keep people from preying on others, not to enable transactions. When laws fail in that purpose, then they are bad but no worse than what happened in their absence.
I realize that every single transaction would be an independent case and some would be better possibly and others worse. We could both give examples either way and it doesn't answer the question. My overall emotional reaction is that the idea of absence of law being superior just doesn't make sense.
This brings us to the second issue. There are two things that must happen in a civilization based on trade. People must receive goods and services needed to survive for the price they agree upon and people must be safe. I'm having trouble envisioning the process that would guarantee that you get what you pay for and the process that would guarantee that you are safe without any sort of government. Across the country, businesses and individuals (such as liquor stores and those who want their trash picked up) are still extorted by gangs and mobs. But it is to a far less extent than it was before government took control.
There are no such things as businesses or government. Those are fictitious entities. It is people who run businesses just as it is people who run the government that actually exist and that make decisions of how things are done. In the absence of any sort of government, why would you assume that a revolutionary or warlord would not take control of an area if they had the force to do so? To have the force, they just need some profits with which to buy weapons and an army. Or to be sponsored by a foreign government. Or to be an army of a foreign government. This is what has happened everywhere in the world throughout history in western civilization. And if they had the power, who would stop them? And if they took control, it would be a dictatorship at that level. And eventually it would become a kingdom or dictatorship at a national level. What would prevent that in the market? Nothing, because there is no vehicle in anarchy for collective force except companies who charge for it, who would then become the government themselves by default and would act in the same manner. It is the default result of someone having more power or force than everyone else.
The only solution to me is to give the people together and equally control over that total power. Only then can they protect themselves through their mutual right of Self-Defense. But doing away with that power simply makes them vulnerable to predators who would inevitably conquer and control them. There is nothing inherent in business or the market that would protect them from that.
That's why I don't think the solution is to do away with government but to let the people control it using collective intelligence through a better process than simple voting, which I call a Collaborative Democracy. Politically appointed individuals who run government departments and agencies would be replaced with nine-member councils selected randomly from qualified pools.
The idea is not to eliminate government but to protect it from outside influence by individuals of power and wealth for their own interest instead of that of the people. That doesn't happen in anarchy. That doesn't happen in anarchy. Anarchy gives the Rich and powerful more opportunity to exploit. There is no protection except for those who can pay for it. And they eventually band together and form a government anyway. We have the power collectively to protect ourselves and to put a Collaborative Democracy in place legally. It doesn't require a revolution and we have a realistic plan for it. It seems a more viable option to avoid predation by the most powerful, whether through a representative, government or anarchy.
We here in Florida would keep on living just as we do now, if security were left in private hands. I will take myself and my neighbors - most ex-military - over any scummy little street gang any day of the week.
My grandfather, along with other shotgun toting locals took care of bank robbing mobsters. None of them testified against themselves before the limp, cowardly, and incompetent bureaucrats who claimed to be the law and the order. Governments are simply the assertions of incumbent crime syndicates.
Many people grasp for security and anyone who promises it. That's how government stays in business. It guarantees you justice, healthcare or a roof over your head. Many will take that guarantee at face value because they are incapable of working through the implications.
Most do not yearn for liberty. They'll give it all up for comfort. The more fear the regime can pump out the more receptive the masses become.
I'm at a kind of brave new world stage in my life. Every five years I'd give everyone a chance to belong to some government scheme similar to today, where they are taxed but they get something back. Or zero tax but zero benefits. I'd take the zero tax myself of course. The majority I suspect would want some government help.
Those who choose to live in rural areas may go without electricity, clean water, supply chains for inexpensive food and clothing, basic education, WiFi and countless other services which are either required by, subsidized by, or provided by the government today. I am okay with that reality.
While our length of life should be continuing to increase, the US system has now stopped increasing the length of life. In the USA we have a "market" system now which rewards insurance carriers at the expense of humans. The USA doesn't even make the top 10 nations in length of life.
When the federal government became involved in healthcare in a significant way starting in the 1980s, actual care plateaued and even decreased in many areas. Since the advent of Obamacare (ACA), it's gotten worse. The USA has essentially a pharmacare system unrelated to either good health or longevity. Do you have free care in the Abyss?
When I finished Hoppe’s book on a private law society, I looked up and exclaimed “Oh my God, I’m an Anarchist.” I was terrified by the realization. But now, of course, a few years later, it’s reflexive. How else could it possibly be done!?
Thanks, Christopher, for that entertaining story. I liked your inalienable argument against the social contract, a sham that seems largely sustained by reputation, have you a refutation of that protocol?
Amen. Did you look through chart in detail? It might contain the refutation you seek. If not, let me know so we can figure out what that refutation ought to be.
I looked at your chart and get the gist of it but I have to study it a lot more to see where a refutation of reputation may lurk. I once worked on such a problem in the context of social network clique formation. I did not find it simple.
I built roads in Texas for a private real estate developer. We built the Eagle Lakes subdivision in three phases. All the drainage/storm sewers, footpaths, running trails, and city streets were built by us. We graded the lots and had the water, power, phone, and cable companies install the utilities. Then we sold finished lots to custom home builders who put up "sticks in the air" through to "sheets in the window". After the lots were finished, the developer gave the streets to the homeowner association. A year later, the homeowner association gave the streets to the city and county government. But the streets were all designed, graded, paved, and implemented, up to and including street lights, by the real estate developer.
Most subdivisions in Texas are the same way. Street technology is very old.
It is too bad that so many of today’s HOAs are such petit-fascist asshats. The property association is often cited as a possible locus of private local governance. But you certainly cannot say that to normies and the anarcho-skeptical, because they will rightly point out that most HOAs today are a nightmare. Or at least that the nightmarish ones are nightmares.
Yes, the BTK killer called from a Sedgewick county code enforcement van. He has thoughts.
The idea of a developer creating a home owners association to enforce deed restrictions and maintain common areas such as a community pool or fountain is how Harris county Texas real estate guys in the 1910-48 period chose to run things out of the Shamrock Hilton and various Houston area speak easy booze, drug, gambling, and prostitution emporia. They hamstrung the city council and the mayor. Lyndon Johnson was their favourite procurer and bottle fetcher. So Houston is the largest city in the world that has never had zoning.
Zoning is evil. Zoning commissions are grift central. If you want to understand everything wrong with county and city zoning, read about Marvin Heemeyer. Check on your friends. They may need help welding.
There is a goodness to unitary ownership of property. When the countess owns the whole county, she can put the community gardens and the flower beds where they look best, arrange for the cathedral on the heights, and so forth. But tenant farming with serfs is regarded as unworkable for many reasons.
God owns the whole universe. So more prayer and listening for God's guidance would alleviate much suffering.
As long a tenant farming is voluntary, let people have at it!
And thank God for the example of Houston. Whenever someone shrieks about the horrors that would unfold without zoning, I point to Houston and note that it is not some sort of zoning-free hellscape.
I believe we are on the precipice of the New World Order Fascist/Communist/Plutocracy which is the worst of the worst. But there are 3 main Predator/Parasite factions which fight for the top seat.
Here in America, we can actually take back the country from these Leftist clowns. It "just" takes normal people taking a little bit of time out of their days to pay f*&%ing attention to what these little dictators get up to.
Yeah, but if we succeed, then what? We’re still in a winner-take-all system where one team gains enough power to force our way on the other team. But the other team is still there, angry, and trying to regain control of the same system. It seems like a recipe for endless hell.
Read the book, brother. The point is that people only fight to be in control because there are valuable prizes to be had. We can vote to dismantle Leviathan and thereby remove the prizes. No one competes to win a race which ends in boring but respectable civil service.
I still think any government that is limited does not and cannot remain limited. But I would certainly prefer to see it limited, if only for its temporary benefits.
Most Americans don't know that you can be arrested for delivering first class mail, because the USPS has a monopoly on it. And the USPS loses $billions every year and taxpayers have to subsidize it.
And most Americans also don't know that a lot of European countries privatized mail delivery long ago, and it works great. No taxpayer subsidies needed.
Lysander Spooner lost his case for competitive mail service in 1844. Freddy Smith of Federal Express won his case in the 1970s. You can deliver letters as long as you don't touch the mail boxes. Those are feral gooferment property.
Great Article Christopher. But we must be very diligent not to let "private" companies owned by the Predator/Parasites such as Gates, Bezos, Soros etc in control and worse than the government.
Interesting point. Hard to imagine how they could be worse than government. At least the private corps might be subject to laws whereas governments just write themselves a new ticket whenever they want to do something illegal.
Going barefoot is probably a lot healthier except on rocky terrain. Demand for anything will automatically create supply if the suppliers can benefit and the "demanders" can provide something in return to the benefit of the suppliers. When you involve government, all bets are off.
P. S. A Collaborative Democracy would also fix services such as roads, the National debt, and National spending. It would do so because the people would have the power to fix the processes themselves through the solution process provided through citizen governance websites. The details are in the book End Politics Now that can be read for free at endpoliticsnow.com.
Unfortunately, mob rule has never been efficient and has not supported liberty. A democracy is mob rule by its definition (the will of the majority). The "people" are largely selfish idiots and most can barely tie their own shoes or pick up the poo after their pets, even fewer can balance their own checkbooks. Your fellow citizens are neither as intelligent as you might be nor are they motivated by the same stimulus.
If you read my book, you will find out that the process is not simple voting and subverts mob rule. It's a completely new process that fosters collective intelligence and solutioning over emotional voting.
Great. You have not given me any reason to read your book online. In recorded history of humanity, since ancient Athens, men have been trying to solve the representative government puzzle. Why would someone want to read your book? That is why I suggested short posts on a platform like Substack. Entice people.
And by the way, if you read the studies on large group collective intelligence, it is more effective than the smartest experts and relies on diversity of perspective and intelligence and location. However, my new process enhances that considerably.
The more of your excellent missives I read, the more I am wholly convinced that the no-government way is better and, I hope, do-able. It occurs to me that, 1) Police (writ large) are typically considered as “law enforcement” (contrast with “crime prevention”). And, since there is simply no end to “laws” anyone can be guilty of something or other at any time, and, 2) current laws (or any laws, really) do not actually prevent crime from being committed in the first place, so what good are they?. As you said, the job of the police seems to be to show up after the fact, not to stop the action (pre-crime squad, anyone?). There are laws against murder and robbery, yet people continue to murder and rob despite the presence of said laws and the presence of police. No offence intended, especially to the truly brave, honest and committed souls in that profession who actually are interested in “serving and protecting”, but what exactly do they do?
Thanks for mentioning some of the “big works”. I have not delved into this at all, to be honest, until reading your substack of late. I’ll begin to poke around as time permits, but for now I’ll probably continue to offload the heavy lifting onto such as yourself -- And others among the many thoughtful comments.
I traveled abroad and was an expat a few times — mostly in the 70s 80s 90s and 2000s tapering off into 2000 teens. When it came to goods, no country matched that of the USA. I remember living in Berlin and really love the quaint corner of markets instead of giant grocery stores. It was a refreshing intimate change. But then, a lady I became friends with had visited the United States and she said she cried when she walked into an American grocery store, because it was so plentiful here.
I would always carry about a dozen extra rolls of stage gaffer tape in black and white to give as gifts to stage hands. You couldn’t get gaffer tape of our quality anywhere in the world I visit.
I am very disturbed, sad and fearful seeing so many empty shelves in our grocery stores today.
Thank you Christopher for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
It really creeps me out, and Mom and Pop stores can’t compete, so we are dependent on corporate stores. Fascism seems around the corner. That corner where totalitarianism meets it!
Bravo! I get so sick of "but who will build the roads" ...., really, I'm pretty sure I know people who will do a better job than what we have......it's a weird autonomic response.
And indicative of a fabulous lack of imagination.
💯
That is the truth!
Yes. Now that I have seen the truth, these autonomic responses are making me crazy!
I once had 2 friends: a city employee who filled potholes and the other a foreman for an independent paver. The independent was constantly shaking his head at the poor quality of government paving. I can't remember how the city employee rationalized his work. But these 2 come to mind whenever I hear 'but what about the roads'.
Well said!
But some normies still don’t get it, no matter how carefully or frequently I explain it.
It's a hard one to get considering how thoroughly we've been indoctrinated since birth. It took me ages to get. I thank the fakedemic for opening my eyes to this and so many other scams. Not easy but important.
I would say your eyes are VERY open now. Not just to the scam being perpetrated by some very evil people, but to the fact that government itself is a scam. That is more eye-open than most humans who have drawn breath over the last 7,000 years!
Great that you admit it having been on the wrong track.
Governments exist to benefit people in the government.
Bar none.
Has always been and will always be.
What a charade to convince us otherwise.
Here is a model to tear it all down to size: https://a.co/d/3UCQehS
I feel that most folks understand the word MONOPOLY, and that generally it's a bad thing.
However, I feel that very few folks understand the word SUBSIDY.
Government is a taxpayer-subsidized monopoly.
Very good. Or you could just say that is a mafia protection racket. That would also be accurate.
Indeed! My main concern with subsidy is regarding migration. When the US Constitution was written, it was very expensive to emigrate to the New World - that was the limiting factor. Unless you were a slave, in which case it was free.
Today, migration to The Americas is free for many, subsidized by SorosBucks.
That would make him a modern-day slaver - although the current term is 'human trafficker.'
Didn't the previous US President sign an Executive Order for seizing the assets of human traffickers?
Being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry.
...never being ABLE to apologize!!! PTSD due to Early Childhood Trauma = FUCT.
That's very transparent and courageous of you to state the issue so openly and to ask for input. Those problems certainly exist but your examples and rationale consider transactional issues only, not a conquering force such as a gang, a warlord, or a self-declared monarch or dictator. The assumption that a lack of government is the solution is the real issue which you aptly state.
I'm not sure I agree with your example of arbitration though. Arbitration is pushed by big companies because it favors them and lawsuits do not. Arbitration doesn't protect the little guy. There are some great papers out that arbitration is actually more expensive and much less successful for consumers. Arbiters tend to service those who support their industry, which are the big companies. And there is no recourse with a bad verdict as there is with a lawsuit going to a higher Court. So that would seem to be an example of equal or greater failure on the part of private industry. Since it is often more expensive, has no recourse, and favors industry, it can be said it is a worse solution.
But to answer your real question, here is the stumbling block that I cannot get past regarding anarchy as a solution. First, the transaction side. You give examples of inefficient and poor ways of how things are done. How something is done is called a process. All work is accomplished through a process, whether it is documented or not. When we don't get what we want, it is because of a poor or corrupt process. These days, we expect optimized, high quality, efficient processes.
You are correct that government has no motivation or requirement to make their processes efficient or high quality or to serve the people over those in power. Competitive companies where people have a choice are driven to higher quality and lower prices. However, that isn't true in every business either. In 1927 my dad worked in the logging industry in Northern California. He saved all his money in the Bank of Sacramento but before he could withdraw it when the lumber camp closed, the bank president ran off with all the deposits. That doesn't happen much anymore because we have banking laws and enforcement that protect us.
In short, without government and all of its corruption and faults, what would ensure that fair, efficient, quality, and affordable processes would be used by businesses? It doesn't seem sufficient to simply say the market would demand it. That feels short-sighted and idealistic. That certainly wasn't the case in the wild west or even in New York or Chicago before government took control. Government may be standardized thievery, but the argument that processes would be the opposite in the absence of government and laws to protect us falls short because there is nothing to cause that to happen. The idea that it would automatically happen seems incredulous because it has never automatically happened throughout history. The powerful at every level have simply taken control. Might makes right. It's the same today as it always has been.
I believe that the powerful still are in control and that government serving the people at the state and federal levels is often a sham. But at least now we have the ability to vote in a Collaborative Democracy or some other solution. Unfortunately, it seems that the small percentage of people that care enough to make an effort have trouble uniting around the most realistic solution.
People are so easily manipulated by predators, whether they are organized in a government or not. At least with a government, we think of predators as criminals. Without a government, it would be the standard operating procedure. Laws were enacted with a purpose. Governments were attractive to people because of the suffering without law. The fact that powerful people use the law to their own benefit is the problem, not the existence of law itself. And that self-interest part of human nature is the real root cause of the problems In either case, with or without, the existence of laws. We need laws to keep people from preying on others, not to enable transactions. When laws fail in that purpose, then they are bad but no worse than what happened in their absence.
I realize that every single transaction would be an independent case and some would be better possibly and others worse. We could both give examples either way and it doesn't answer the question. My overall emotional reaction is that the idea of absence of law being superior just doesn't make sense.
This brings us to the second issue. There are two things that must happen in a civilization based on trade. People must receive goods and services needed to survive for the price they agree upon and people must be safe. I'm having trouble envisioning the process that would guarantee that you get what you pay for and the process that would guarantee that you are safe without any sort of government. Across the country, businesses and individuals (such as liquor stores and those who want their trash picked up) are still extorted by gangs and mobs. But it is to a far less extent than it was before government took control.
There are no such things as businesses or government. Those are fictitious entities. It is people who run businesses just as it is people who run the government that actually exist and that make decisions of how things are done. In the absence of any sort of government, why would you assume that a revolutionary or warlord would not take control of an area if they had the force to do so? To have the force, they just need some profits with which to buy weapons and an army. Or to be sponsored by a foreign government. Or to be an army of a foreign government. This is what has happened everywhere in the world throughout history in western civilization. And if they had the power, who would stop them? And if they took control, it would be a dictatorship at that level. And eventually it would become a kingdom or dictatorship at a national level. What would prevent that in the market? Nothing, because there is no vehicle in anarchy for collective force except companies who charge for it, who would then become the government themselves by default and would act in the same manner. It is the default result of someone having more power or force than everyone else.
The only solution to me is to give the people together and equally control over that total power. Only then can they protect themselves through their mutual right of Self-Defense. But doing away with that power simply makes them vulnerable to predators who would inevitably conquer and control them. There is nothing inherent in business or the market that would protect them from that.
That's why I don't think the solution is to do away with government but to let the people control it using collective intelligence through a better process than simple voting, which I call a Collaborative Democracy. Politically appointed individuals who run government departments and agencies would be replaced with nine-member councils selected randomly from qualified pools.
The idea is not to eliminate government but to protect it from outside influence by individuals of power and wealth for their own interest instead of that of the people. That doesn't happen in anarchy. That doesn't happen in anarchy. Anarchy gives the Rich and powerful more opportunity to exploit. There is no protection except for those who can pay for it. And they eventually band together and form a government anyway. We have the power collectively to protect ourselves and to put a Collaborative Democracy in place legally. It doesn't require a revolution and we have a realistic plan for it. It seems a more viable option to avoid predation by the most powerful, whether through a representative, government or anarchy.
the government is that warlord but we're conditioned to see it as benign and necessary when it is neither.
We here in Florida would keep on living just as we do now, if security were left in private hands. I will take myself and my neighbors - most ex-military - over any scummy little street gang any day of the week.
My grandfather, along with other shotgun toting locals took care of bank robbing mobsters. None of them testified against themselves before the limp, cowardly, and incompetent bureaucrats who claimed to be the law and the order. Governments are simply the assertions of incumbent crime syndicates.
100 percent!
I agree on the arbitration part 100%.
Many people grasp for security and anyone who promises it. That's how government stays in business. It guarantees you justice, healthcare or a roof over your head. Many will take that guarantee at face value because they are incapable of working through the implications.
Most do not yearn for liberty. They'll give it all up for comfort. The more fear the regime can pump out the more receptive the masses become.
I'm at a kind of brave new world stage in my life. Every five years I'd give everyone a chance to belong to some government scheme similar to today, where they are taxed but they get something back. Or zero tax but zero benefits. I'd take the zero tax myself of course. The majority I suspect would want some government help.
Curious if you are ready to join me in swearing off nearly all healthcare? Or do you want to have that option should you become terminally ill?
The point is that private enterprise can provide health care, security and any other service government provides (badly)
Those who choose to live in rural areas may go without electricity, clean water, supply chains for inexpensive food and clothing, basic education, WiFi and countless other services which are either required by, subsidized by, or provided by the government today. I am okay with that reality.
Why would I swear off healthcare? Assuming the market can provide it in some form.
While our length of life should be continuing to increase, the US system has now stopped increasing the length of life. In the USA we have a "market" system now which rewards insurance carriers at the expense of humans. The USA doesn't even make the top 10 nations in length of life.
Yes you seem to have a evolved a corporatized system. My understanding is it worked pretty well up to about thirty years ago.
When the federal government became involved in healthcare in a significant way starting in the 1980s, actual care plateaued and even decreased in many areas. Since the advent of Obamacare (ACA), it's gotten worse. The USA has essentially a pharmacare system unrelated to either good health or longevity. Do you have free care in the Abyss?
I'm in the UK. We have the failing NHS here. There is private too of course.
But the best way is to remain healthy if possible.
When I finished Hoppe’s book on a private law society, I looked up and exclaimed “Oh my God, I’m an Anarchist.” I was terrified by the realization. But now, of course, a few years later, it’s reflexive. How else could it possibly be done!?
OMG, love it!!!
And I think you will LOVE this post:
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/exact-moment-i-became-anarchist
Thanks, Christopher, for that entertaining story. I liked your inalienable argument against the social contract, a sham that seems largely sustained by reputation, have you a refutation of that protocol?
Amen. Did you look through chart in detail? It might contain the refutation you seek. If not, let me know so we can figure out what that refutation ought to be.
I looked at your chart and get the gist of it but I have to study it a lot more to see where a refutation of reputation may lurk. I once worked on such a problem in the context of social network clique formation. I did not find it simple.
Definitely not simple. If you get a chance to look further, please lmk what you think.
I built roads in Texas for a private real estate developer. We built the Eagle Lakes subdivision in three phases. All the drainage/storm sewers, footpaths, running trails, and city streets were built by us. We graded the lots and had the water, power, phone, and cable companies install the utilities. Then we sold finished lots to custom home builders who put up "sticks in the air" through to "sheets in the window". After the lots were finished, the developer gave the streets to the homeowner association. A year later, the homeowner association gave the streets to the city and county government. But the streets were all designed, graded, paved, and implemented, up to and including street lights, by the real estate developer.
Most subdivisions in Texas are the same way. Street technology is very old.
It is too bad that so many of today’s HOAs are such petit-fascist asshats. The property association is often cited as a possible locus of private local governance. But you certainly cannot say that to normies and the anarcho-skeptical, because they will rightly point out that most HOAs today are a nightmare. Or at least that the nightmarish ones are nightmares.
Yes, the BTK killer called from a Sedgewick county code enforcement van. He has thoughts.
The idea of a developer creating a home owners association to enforce deed restrictions and maintain common areas such as a community pool or fountain is how Harris county Texas real estate guys in the 1910-48 period chose to run things out of the Shamrock Hilton and various Houston area speak easy booze, drug, gambling, and prostitution emporia. They hamstrung the city council and the mayor. Lyndon Johnson was their favourite procurer and bottle fetcher. So Houston is the largest city in the world that has never had zoning.
Zoning is evil. Zoning commissions are grift central. If you want to understand everything wrong with county and city zoning, read about Marvin Heemeyer. Check on your friends. They may need help welding.
There is a goodness to unitary ownership of property. When the countess owns the whole county, she can put the community gardens and the flower beds where they look best, arrange for the cathedral on the heights, and so forth. But tenant farming with serfs is regarded as unworkable for many reasons.
God owns the whole universe. So more prayer and listening for God's guidance would alleviate much suffering.
As long a tenant farming is voluntary, let people have at it!
And thank God for the example of Houston. Whenever someone shrieks about the horrors that would unfold without zoning, I point to Houston and note that it is not some sort of zoning-free hellscape.
I believe we are on the precipice of the New World Order Fascist/Communist/Plutocracy which is the worst of the worst. But there are 3 main Predator/Parasite factions which fight for the top seat.
Here in America, we can actually take back the country from these Leftist clowns. It "just" takes normal people taking a little bit of time out of their days to pay f*&%ing attention to what these little dictators get up to.
Yeah, but if we succeed, then what? We’re still in a winner-take-all system where one team gains enough power to force our way on the other team. But the other team is still there, angry, and trying to regain control of the same system. It seems like a recipe for endless hell.
Read the book, brother. The point is that people only fight to be in control because there are valuable prizes to be had. We can vote to dismantle Leviathan and thereby remove the prizes. No one competes to win a race which ends in boring but respectable civil service.
I still think any government that is limited does not and cannot remain limited. But I would certainly prefer to see it limited, if only for its temporary benefits.
Example.
Most Americans don't know that you can be arrested for delivering first class mail, because the USPS has a monopoly on it. And the USPS loses $billions every year and taxpayers have to subsidize it.
And most Americans also don't know that a lot of European countries privatized mail delivery long ago, and it works great. No taxpayer subsidies needed.
Excellent points!
Lysander Spooner lost his case for competitive mail service in 1844. Freddy Smith of Federal Express won his case in the 1970s. You can deliver letters as long as you don't touch the mail boxes. Those are feral gooferment property.
Great Article Christopher. But we must be very diligent not to let "private" companies owned by the Predator/Parasites such as Gates, Bezos, Soros etc in control and worse than the government.
Interesting point. Hard to imagine how they could be worse than government. At least the private corps might be subject to laws whereas governments just write themselves a new ticket whenever they want to do something illegal.
Well said. Have you read my “Human Constitution”?
Going barefoot is probably a lot healthier except on rocky terrain. Demand for anything will automatically create supply if the suppliers can benefit and the "demanders" can provide something in return to the benefit of the suppliers. When you involve government, all bets are off.
I spent the whole day yesterday barefoot. Felt great!
P. S. A Collaborative Democracy would also fix services such as roads, the National debt, and National spending. It would do so because the people would have the power to fix the processes themselves through the solution process provided through citizen governance websites. The details are in the book End Politics Now that can be read for free at endpoliticsnow.com.
Unfortunately, mob rule has never been efficient and has not supported liberty. A democracy is mob rule by its definition (the will of the majority). The "people" are largely selfish idiots and most can barely tie their own shoes or pick up the poo after their pets, even fewer can balance their own checkbooks. Your fellow citizens are neither as intelligent as you might be nor are they motivated by the same stimulus.
If you read my book, you will find out that the process is not simple voting and subverts mob rule. It's a completely new process that fosters collective intelligence and solutioning over emotional voting.
Perhaps share your book via Substack in short sections?
You can read it for free online now at endpoliticsnow.com. The entire book is published there.
Great. You have not given me any reason to read your book online. In recorded history of humanity, since ancient Athens, men have been trying to solve the representative government puzzle. Why would someone want to read your book? That is why I suggested short posts on a platform like Substack. Entice people.
I see. Thank you for that advice. I appreciate it.
And by the way, if you read the studies on large group collective intelligence, it is more effective than the smartest experts and relies on diversity of perspective and intelligence and location. However, my new process enhances that considerably.
The more of your excellent missives I read, the more I am wholly convinced that the no-government way is better and, I hope, do-able. It occurs to me that, 1) Police (writ large) are typically considered as “law enforcement” (contrast with “crime prevention”). And, since there is simply no end to “laws” anyone can be guilty of something or other at any time, and, 2) current laws (or any laws, really) do not actually prevent crime from being committed in the first place, so what good are they?. As you said, the job of the police seems to be to show up after the fact, not to stop the action (pre-crime squad, anyone?). There are laws against murder and robbery, yet people continue to murder and rob despite the presence of said laws and the presence of police. No offence intended, especially to the truly brave, honest and committed souls in that profession who actually are interested in “serving and protecting”, but what exactly do they do?
“The more of your excellent missives I read, the more I am wholly convinced that the no-government way is better and, I hope, do-able.”
—Hearing that makes my day! And your realizations and reasons are excellent and valid.
As far is it being doable, have you started reading any of the big works on that subject? (Hoppe, D. Friedman, et al)?
Thanks for mentioning some of the “big works”. I have not delved into this at all, to be honest, until reading your substack of late. I’ll begin to poke around as time permits, but for now I’ll probably continue to offload the heavy lifting onto such as yourself -- And others among the many thoughtful comments.
When you’re ready, start with the reading list at the end of this post: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/no-way-i-can-convince-you-anarchism
And I am available for any questions!
Thank you, that is very gracious. (thumbs up emoji)
Which is why Atlas Shrugged is IMHO one of the most important books in the world, up there with 1984, Animal Farm and Brave New World.
Agreed. A work of philosophy wrapped up in a compelling story. Brilliant!
I traveled abroad and was an expat a few times — mostly in the 70s 80s 90s and 2000s tapering off into 2000 teens. When it came to goods, no country matched that of the USA. I remember living in Berlin and really love the quaint corner of markets instead of giant grocery stores. It was a refreshing intimate change. But then, a lady I became friends with had visited the United States and she said she cried when she walked into an American grocery store, because it was so plentiful here.
I would always carry about a dozen extra rolls of stage gaffer tape in black and white to give as gifts to stage hands. You couldn’t get gaffer tape of our quality anywhere in the world I visit.
I am very disturbed, sad and fearful seeing so many empty shelves in our grocery stores today.
Thank you Christopher for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
Yes to both of those. What traveling I have done has revealed the abundance here. And the new phenomenon here of empty shelves is truly chilling!
It really creeps me out, and Mom and Pop stores can’t compete, so we are dependent on corporate stores. Fascism seems around the corner. That corner where totalitarianism meets it!
Stock up now!
The best definition I have ever heard of an intelligent person is "someone who agrees with your own ideas."
Mr. Cook by those lights is a fucking genius.
https://a.co/d/3UCQehS - for my own elaboration on the very themes he touches on, if I may be allowed to spruik my own book on a colleague's channel!
You taught me a new word: spruik!
Very common in the Colonies - South Africa and Australia, mainly.