Dog-Eat-Dog Statism

Bretigne Shaffer recently wrote a brilliant article regarding a conference she attended for parents of special needs children:

Dog-Eat-Dog Statism for Special-Needs Families: You’re Either at the Table or You’re on the Menu

From the article:

"My husband and I are interested in starting a special-needs school based on Montessori or DIR principles. Nothing big, just a little school where our daughter and some of her peers could have an alternative to mainstream special education. But governments put a lot of roadblocks in the way of people doing things like this. Usually you have to get permission from members of your city government, who decide whether there is a “need” for your school in your area. And it is no secret that California is one of the most onerous states for small businesses. My idea was to get the state and local governments to stop interfering with people coming up with their own solutions for special-needs families."

"I asked Dr. Vismara whether the Senator Steinberg would be interested in such a proposal, in working to get government out of the way of people creating solutions. He gave me one of those smiles reserved for people who really don’t understand how the game is played, who are neither at the table nor on the menu, but probably somewhere in the kitchen sweeping up. He said, very definitely, 'no.' When I asked him why, he said because 'it’s a non issue.'

"...In the world in which he operates, the concern about too much government interference in business and other activities is indeed a 'non-issue.' Why? Because you don’t win at the game of government by reducing the powers of government. More specifically: If you are a candidate for public office, running against other candidates, you are going to gain more votes and more campaign contributions by giving your constituents what they want. And generally, what people want from their politicians is not 'free and open markets' or 'unhampered competition.' What they want is special favors for themselves - very often in forms that restrict their competition."

Read the whole article- it's brilliant!

(Thanks to EPJ)

Busybodies and Authoritarianism

EPJ recently informed followers of a debate which took place in San Fransisco about the legalization of Marijuana.  The pro-legalization side was represented by Dr. Michael Edelstein, and prohibition was advocated by Marty Nemko.  The idea of a modern prohibitionist led me to search out Nemko, where I found an article he wrote on his blog entitled, "The Case Against Legalizing Marijuana."  While I anticipated reading some fresh insights regarding the topic of Cannabis, I was dismayed to see Nemko's analysis is the same old saw- the kind of distortions and myths one might find in that cult classic propaganda film, Reefer Madness.

Throughout the article, Nemko presents pictures of people who are acting silly after (presumably) consuming Cannabis.  This is similar to the technique used in Reefer Madness, a portrayal of Cannabis users as wild- indeed, out of control; these people need to be reigned in before they destroy their lives and harm others, say the prohibitionists.  This siren song- one which has been sung for time immemorial by "Dudley Do-Right" and tyrannical dictators alike- makes the case for prohibition as the just solution to what the controllers see as a problem.  However, careful analysis reveals the Cannabis trade to be innocuous, and prohibition as neither just or solvent.  In contrast, social control is a heap of injustices- something to be avoided at all costs.

The first thing to realize about the Cannabis trade is that such exchanges are an inevitability.  Prohibition laws or any other attempts to stifle trade among willing parties will always come up short.  This is because an intrinsic part of human nature is to satisfy desires.  For any product that is in demand, entrepreneurs will spring up to satisfy consumers- children or adults.  Under prohibition law, only the most unsavory types- those who are willing to flout the law- will participate in the market as suppliers.  Thus, prohibition yields gangland activities, and nefarious dealers who settle disputes with violence.1  Bolstering these violent criminals is a greater social harm than any increase in teenage Cannabis use that Nemko presumes will happen without prohibition.  Further, the black-market drug dealer is the person who teenagers and others will buy from under prohibition.  Because of prohibition law, these transactions are carried out in less visible and more dangerous places such as the dealers house, unlit parking lots, and back alleys.  To turn around a phrase which Nemko uses, "is that what you want for your child, your sibling, your spouse, your parent, for America?"

Even the US government admits the approach of prohibition is a failure.  After spending $1 Trillion over 40 years, with harsh penalties for those supplying and purchasing Cannabis, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other outlawed substances no real progress has been made to squelch the drug trade.  However, Nemko's approach actually softens the punitive blow to Cannabis prohibition by keeping the staunch penalties for distributing the substance, but reducing the possession charge:

"You can significantly reduce pot and alcohol's damage to humankind by not making it legally purchasable, with law enforcement only going after big producers and distributors, with law enforcement against users only in response to citizen complaints, in which case the punishment would be a ticket that costs about the same as a carpool violation: $500."

It is unclear how he expects this approach to be much different than the status quo.  Law enforcement has been- since the very beginning- "going after big producers and distributors" will little effect to the overall market.  Because of the demand for Cannabis, a new producer will always step in to fill the void.  Further, slaps on the wrist to consumers such as "a ticket that costs about the same as a carpool violation: $500" will hardly serve as a deterrent.  Prohibition- especially Nemko's version of it- will not affect the fundamental human instinct to trade.

What if prohibition law could be designed to fundamentally affect such human instincts, and prevent trade?  Perhaps the penalty for Cannabis possession could be castration, and the penalty for sale could be death.  This approach would, undoubtedly, make those who desire to trade in such an environment to think twice!  Even if prohibition could affect the desire to trade, the notion of prohibiting trade is an injustice by an outside party to the trade- neither the buyer or seller- who has, thus far, been unaffected by such an activity.

The cloth of Nemko's argument for prohibiting trades such as Cannabis is woven from the thread of preventing social harm.  He uses pictures of teens acting like fools after using Cannabis, as well as the Bieber plane incident to imply that Cannabis users are miscreants who will inevitably harm others- and must be stopped before they do so.  Preventing social harm is the central tenant of the controllers approach to social policy, an intellectual bedfellow of such things as female genital mutilation, forced sterilization, and genocide.

Furthermore, such an approach is arbitrary- based on the whims of those who will control social policy- the controllers.  If Nemko was king, Cannabis and other substances deemed harmful would be prohibited, but ice cream would be allowed:

"A pothead, trying to play gotcha, asked me, "Hey dude, would you outlaw alcohol?" Yes, I would. Alcohol causes harm wildly in excess of its benefits...I enjoy a glass of wine but would gladly give it up for the societal benefits that would derive from a new Prohibition. At the risk of using a term that is becoming obsolete, I believe we've become a too permissive society, prioritizing "do what the hell you want" over "be responsible." And that message filters right down to children.

Our Socratic pothead then tried, "Next you're going to want to outlaw ice cream?!" Marijuana's risk profile is far worse."

Nemko dismisses the "pothead" when he is providing a fundamentally important criticism of Nemko's philosophy- namely, the arbitrary nature of it.  Why does Nemko desire to "outlaw alcohol", while he likes to "enjoy a glass of wine"?  And, why not ban ice cream?  Some folks think ice cream is a devilishly sinful thing to indulge- which damages the glutton's health and yields higher cost to health care for the non-indulgent.  This arbitrary approach to social policy- one based on whims rather than emanating from a concrete principle- is the hallmark of the controller.

Nemko's disrespect for individual rights is shown in his acknowledgement and dismissal of the libertarian case for decriminalization:

"But what about the libertarian argument that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others? Well, pot harms everyone: the user, his or her family, employer, the drivers and pedestrians who are in accidents because of the slow-reflexed, often glacial-driving pothead. How often do you see a car creeping on the freeway? Yes, some are old people who should have their licenses revoked but many are blitzed.  A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 18 percent of drivers in fatal accidents tested positive for a non-alcoholic mind-altering drug, mainly marijuana. And this 2013 study found almost twice as many drivers in fatal car accidents tested positive versus a control group. And since legalization in Washington, data from the Washington State Patrol and Toxicologist shows a 40% increase in the share of driver cases in which the driver tested positive."

As you can see, according to Nemko's philosophy the "user" is not allowed to have control over the personal decision of what can go in his body- an outright denial of the person's right to their body.  For, what is ownership of the body without sole discretion as to what one can consume?  Further, if a person does not own his body, who does?  Nemko seemingly skips right over this, as if it has no relevance compared to his annoyance at being slowed down by the "glacial-driving pothead."  The individual's ownership of his body is absolutely sacrosanct.  For, this property right is the cornerstone of his individual rights; the controller attempting to usurp this principle of self-ownership is fundamentally totalitarian.2  As Doug Casey has said, controllers such as Nemko "...think they know best and are perfectly willing to put a gun to your head to make sure that you do what they think is right."

The act of producing, selling, buying or using a euphoric substance is, of course, not- in and of itself- a violation of the rights of others.  Therefore, the prohibition of such activities (victimless crimes) is a clear injustice.  Instead of focusing on the "glacial-driving pothead", or silly stoned teenyboppers, Nemko- if he is truly concerned for the welfare of society- can advocate a much nobler social cause: property rights, and the abolition of the authoritarian State.


Notes:

1.  See Dr. Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable Pg. 123:

"Whenever the government outlaws a commodity for which there are consumers, be it whiskey, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or high interest loans, the underworld enters the industry that law-abiding entrepreneurs fear to service. There is nothing in whiskey, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or moneylending that is intrinsically criminal. It is solely because of a legal prohibition that gangland methods become associated with these fields."

 

2.  To sanction a coercive State, and assert that the individual has no ownership rights to his own body is the invalidation of individual rights, per se.  Busybodies such as Nemko- by advocating the dismissal of individual rights and empowerment of the State as owner of the individual - provide the crucial underpinnings of the authoritarian State.  Such an institution is a serious threat to society, as has been documented by Professor R.J Rummel who points out:

"In total, during the first eighty-eight years of this (20th) century, almost 170,000,000 men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; or buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens or foreigners. The dead even could conceivably be near 360,000,000 people. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power and not germs"

"Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century." (emphasis added)

 See Professor R.J. Rummel  Democide

9/11 and the Military Industrial Complex

While many naively believe that the US government (or any government, for that matter) has the interest of the citizenry in mind, the policies which inevitably come to fruition reveal quite a different story.  Although so-called representatives of the people are enthroned in their respective positions by voters, government officials are always loyal to special interest groups which pave the way to their current and future success.  To understand why this is so, one must first look at the incentive system in place, and come to grips with the implications that follow.

The State has the ability to create monopolies within the economy, and can be directed to this effect by forces outside of public control or scrutiny.  One only has to examine the revolving door between large corporations and the regulatory bodies to understand that policy can be driven by powerful interests looking to plunder, rather than out of an altruistic desire to protect or further the interests of the citizenry.  The regulators in this crony environment have a very clear incentive to pursue the interests of the industry which they are regulating- specifically the companies they worked for or dream of working for- and are in no way responsible to the public interest.  The same holds true for elected positions, as they pander to the corporations and special interest groups which gave them large amounts of money to become elected (or re-elected).  Proponents of policies and regulations never willingly reveal their ties to the powerful interests which guide policy decisions, for this would reveal the true motive embedded in policy making.  Such honesty would mean, of course, that much of the agenda would never come to fruition!

Another form of dishonesty comes from the citizenry itself, namely the lack of interest in scrutinizing the theories propagated by government which pertain to the cause of important events, as well as considering the crucial cui bono of government "solutions" to deal with the crisis.  Alas, the notion that the US government would be engaged in a "cover-up" regarding 9/11 is a serious challenge for those who are taught to believe that this organization has their best interests at heart.  It is one thing for someone to understand and concede that cronyism is inherent in government, and that those who represent a powerful companies could influence government to help protect their position in the marketplace.  It is quite another for someone to accept that the government would actually go so far as to murder it's own citizens to pursue such ends. 

To begin to delve into this possibility, we can examine this article from ABC news, which describes a military plan called Operation Northwoods.  This was an operation created in the 1960's, which-if pursued- would have involved a false flag event1 to legitimize a military invasion for the purpose of overthrowing Fidel Castro in Cuba.  From the article:

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro."

Author of the book Body of Secrets James Bamford says in the ABC article about Northwoods:

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Indeed, in his farewell address2, President Eisenhower presented a stark warning about the danger which the Military/Industrial Complex (MIC)posed to the nation.  He first described how "an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience."

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.  Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.  This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." (italics added)

Eisenhower then warns that the US government must defend against the potential abuse of power that this reality poses:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial (sic) complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

While one must admire Eisenhower for his honesty and insights regarding the existence of the MIC, his presumption of its legitimacy and lack of foresight regarding the ability of the US government to contain it is disdainful.3  Surely Eisenhower wasn't so steeped in militarism that he forgot Lord Acton's famous quip that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".  Indeed, the MIC revealed its malicious Northwoods plan just a few short years after Eisenhower's remarks!  However, Bamford shows that Eisenhower's faith in the US government to stifle the hunger of the MIC to initiate conflict was correct, at least in the case of Operation Northwoods:

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying."

Eisenhower's warning came when the MIC was merely a toddler, and the Northwoods plan followed rather quickly.  JFK's rejection of this plan understandably caused tension between himself and the military establishment- who apparently were willing to consider murder of US citizens in order to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Cuban government.  Now that the MIC has grown into a well established influence on government as well as a fundamental player in the economic environment in the US, it is much more likely to conceive that something like an Operation Northwoods would be pursued rather than quashed.4

In the case of 9/11, the Project for a New American Century published a policy paper in September 2000 entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses which supported "...the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."  In the paper the authors lament that "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."  Indeed, 9/11 was just such an event.

The events of 9/11 were, undoubtedly, the most important and influential moments in directing the contemporary state of affairs in the US.  For, this is the watershed from which all of the horrors and injustices of modern US civil society- free speech "zones", police militarization, government intrusions into privacy, and TSA fondling- were either created or exacerbated to absurd proportions.  These programs by the US government have, indeed, become the "new normal", and life in the US has been so fundamentally altered that the the old phrase, "it's a free country" is laughable in the extreme.

The post-9/11 environment has been fruitful for the MIC, and equally abhorrent for the people unfortunate enough to reside in the modern US.  Contrasting the adventures the MIC pursued during the "Cold War" years, an open war (such as the "War on Terrorism") yields a far greater sum of power and influence, as well as wealth. With over a decade worth of war debt, the burden that will be shouldered by the mulcted taxpayer- who now has a severely limited capacity to protest, lest he be called an "extremist" and caged- is monumental.  Justice demands an end to warmongering abroad, as well as oppression at home.  As Randolph Bourne pointed out in 1918, "war is the health of the State", and in the same light, peace is the health of free people.  If peace is desired, it can only come by dismantling the State, and thus its wicked cicerone- the Military Industrial Complex.


Note:

1.   A "false flag" event is when a government attacks its own territory or interests and places the blame on another government or organization to initiate a cause to go to war.

2.  Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

3.  One must also wonder if he is consciously referring to Benjamin Franklin's statement that "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." when Eisenhower states that "liberty and security may prosper together".

4.  Consider what Bill Hicks said about becoming the new President:

"A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smokey room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there.  And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, 'Roll the film.' And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, 'Any questions?'"

Studies Indicate I am Not Insane!

Before you ask, I have not been seeing a personal psychologist!  However, when discussing various topics with others, I oftentimes feel that I must have come from another planet, or something- especially when the topic is an event that is extremely important.  Indeed, the visceral and malicious reaction someone receives when offering up a viewpoint that differs from what one could call "conventional wisdom" or the "official" history of a particular subject can caused one to reflect upon their own psychological state.  Turns out, this is all by design!

EPJ highlighted an interesting article by Dr. Kevin Barrett entitled "New studies: 'Conspiracy theorists sane, Government Dupes crazy, hostile".  In this article, Barret discusses a study released this year "by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK).  Entitled 'What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,' the study compared 'conspiracist' (pro-conspiracy theory) and 'conventionalist' (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites."  He also cites a book recently published entitled Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith.  Of course, the very term "conspiracy theorist" conjures up images of someone who is psychologically unbalanced.  But in the article, Barrett sheds some light on the origins of this label, which is designed to invalidate and marginalize the viewpoints of those who disagree with an "official" rendering of major events:

"Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called 'conspiracy theorists': The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! 'The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.'”

Interestingly, the study conducted by Wood and Douglas shows that those who choose not to believe the unbelievable story of 9/11 as depicted by the government indicate a far more psychologically balanced mindset than their counterparts, and-in actuality embody the mainstream opinion of various controversial topics:

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured (sic) the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspirators, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In examination of the unbelievable 9/11 story, James Corbett has put together a 5 minute video which describes that event as the government does.  There is very little commentary in the video; it simply explains the event as depicted by the US government in the 9/11 commission report.  Of course, much like the Warren Commission report of the assassination of JFK, the government story leaves much to be desired with regards to plausibility.  In fact, because of the absurdity of the US government's 9/11 fable, the Corbett video comes off as hilarious!  Thus, it is not surprising that those who question the official 9/11 story are found by the above research to come out in the "sane" category, while the defenders of the government story are found to be more fanatical and hostile.

Although questioning the government story (especially regarding the watershed events of JFK and 9/11) can be frightening to citizens who have been trained that their rulers are benevolent, it is especially important to do so if one would like to have an accurate picture of what type of government assumes authority in their particular geographic area.  If the government simply meant the organization who gives everyone puppies and flowers, it would not matter that much.  However, in the previous century, governments around the world murdered over 200 million of their own citizens!  Skepticism of government is of paramount importance in light of the violent and destructive track record which the State has earned as a form of governance.

There can be no doubt that the State- with the monopoly of force over a defined geographic area, and the likelihood of acting against the interests of the citizenry and for the interests of powerful political forces- poses the gravest danger to the common people who live within it. The fables the State propagates must be viewed not as the gospel truth, but with the utmost suspicion.

The Unpredictability of Freedom

I wanted to share a great article I read from The Ludwig von Mises Institute by Gary Galles:

We Cannot Predict the Many Ways Freedom Will Improve Our Lives 

In the article, Galles discusses a tactic that is often used against proponents of freedom when advocating for an unfettered marketplace. These people would like to hear a detailed analysis from points A to Z- a symptom of their flawed "planner" mentality. Galles points out the absurdity of this approach:

"In the face of such questions, it is nonetheless important to recognize that such questions are rhetorical traps designed to put an unachievable burden of proof on voluntary arrangements, short-circuiting the need to deal with the many valid criticisms of coercive policies.

The trap works because answers to such questions are beyond our competence. But that does not mean statism wins by default. It only means that detailed prediction of what would happen in a future where some government-imposed constraints on freedom are eased is beyond anyone’s knowledge."

Later, Galles offers a few examples of progress which occurred in the market:

"To see this, simply reflect on what freedom has produced in the past. The miracles that freedom has produced, unknown in advance, offer overwhelming testimony for faith in freedom.

For example, compare the Post Office with any other form of communication. Its snail’s pace changes contrast with advances in digital communication possibilities beyond even recent fantasies. In fact, freedom has produced miracles all around us whose nature we fail to understand, because we now take them for granted and forget their genesis (e.g., in a world of digital copying, few remember the lost “joys” of carbon paper and its purple progeny).

We need only revisit the revolutions involved to see that no one ever knew exactly what would happen beforehand. If people had only pursued what could be clearly foreseen, none of those miracles would have happened and we would be immeasurably poorer."(Emphasis added.)

Another example of an unplanned invention is the "sticky note", as described by Wikipedia:

"In 1968, Dr. Spencer Silver, a scientist at 3M in the United States, was attempting to develop a super-strong adhesive, but instead he accidentally created a 'low-tack', reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive that has been characterized as 'a solution without a problem'. For five years, Silver promoted his invention within 3M, both informally and through seminars, but without much success.

In 1974, a colleague of his, Art Fry, who had attended one of Silver's seminars, came up with the idea of using the adhesive to anchor his bookmark in his hymnbook.  Fry then developed the idea by taking advantage of 3M's officially sanctioned "permitted bootlegging" policy.  3M launched the product in stores in 1977 in four cities under the name 'Press 'n Peel', but its results were disappointing.  A year later, in 1978, 3M issued free samples to residents of Boise, Idaho, and 94 percent of the people who tried them said that they would buy the product.  On April 6, 1980, the product debuted in US stores as 'Post-It Notes'."

While Galles is correct in pointing out how a free market is wonderfully spontaneous, it is important to remember that many libertarian scholars have visualized a truly free market in great detail.  Walter Block discusses the concept of removing the government's monopoly on transportation in his book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways.1  Murray Rothbard discusses the privatization of courts and police, among many other things, in For a New Liberty.

 "Ra ta ta ta!"

When faced with a reasoned presentation of the workability of free choice in various aspects of life, many skeptics of the free market will make an intellectual "final stand", fixating on the caricatured notion of the "greedy capitalist".  This emotional appeal is typically based in jealousy of those who have acquired large sums of wealth, rather than a sincere desire to improve the standard of living.  Indeed, in a system of capitalism, cascades of wealth will be generated by those who invent useful products, and head up the companies which produce them!  This is a result of consumers clamoring to acquire the things that are deemed important to them, and impeccable foresight by some in bringing precisely the right goods and/or services to market in the right place and at the right time.  Anyone with gumption and inventiveness can achieve such grandeur, and those who have it can only hold on to their status by continuing to woo the consumer with relevant products and/or services produced in a productive, and efficient manner.

A centrally planned economic system cannot altruistically purge from the human spirit the inherent motivator often referred to as "greed".  Rather, such an economy can only result in entrenching those who serve the omnipresent state, as political leaders and powerful business interests engage in a continuum of backscratching.  Even worse, the coercive nature of the centrally planned economy means that those producers who are not "in the loop" are forced to the black market- where eager consumers are made to suffer through artificially lower quality products, shortages, and high-risk transactions.  In short, central planning results in an environment in which the unscrupulous thrive- in both the "legal" market and the black market, innovation and price deflation are stymied by coercive monopoly, and consumers and producers who wish to engage in voluntary market transactions can be transformed into criminals.  In contrast, a free market embraces the human condition- and achieves the maximum improvement to the standard of living in societies who embrace it- as "greedy" consumers constantly demand lower prices, innovation, and abundance from "greedy" producers who fall all over themselves to most adequately provide the goods and services the consumers desire!


Notes:

1.  Both of the books in this paragraph are graciously offered for free at Mises.org in PDF form.

Foreign Policy Hypocrisy Pt. 2

In my last post, I discussed a recent comment by Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity about the hypocrisy of US foreign policy.  An explanation from Michael Rozeff on the LRC blog entitled "How Does the U.S. Choose Its Friends and Enemies?" discusses the motivators which drive foreign policy in the US to take such awkward positions:

"There is no need to be puzzled by such seeming inconsistencies as the U.S. sometimes supporting terrorists and other times fighting them; or the U.S. being anti-Nazi and yet supporting at times right-wing governments, dictators and death squads. There is no need to be puzzled by the support of democracy in one country and paying no attention to it in another or even undermining it. There is no need to be puzzled by the U.S. seeming to support the aspirations of one people while ignoring the rights of another people, including American citizens. There is no need to be puzzled by the immense hypocrisies of U.S. officials. The reason for all of this is that ideology is being made to serve the underlying purpose of the empire’s maintenance and expansion.

...

"...In the case of the U.S. empire, this purpose is hidden by the fact that territorial acquisitions are no longer its prime means. The U.S. gave up the Philippines and Cuba. It made no attempt to absorb a defeated Germany or Japan. Instead, it used other means. This purpose is also hidden under an immense amount of ideological fictions about American exceptionalism, the self-determination of peoples, spreading democracy, and so on."

Indeed, these fictions lull the mulcted taxpayer into a state of acquiescence or- even worse- support for intervention in matters that have no bearing or impact on their life.  The media plays a significant role in propagating this mentality by offering heart breaking stories which play on the viewer's inherent desire to "help their fellow man"- and implying or expressly stating that the US government is the only vehicle for action against such atrocities.  Such meddling would be considered absolutely unacceptable if the roles were reversed, with another country intervening in the internal affairs of the US- a point brilliantly made by Ron Paul during his 2012 presidential run.  The revulsion felt when considering a government thousands of miles away dictating the affairs of the US should give patriotic boobus americanus pause before advocating interventions by the US government of the affairs of others.  In a satirical article drawing this logic to its ultimate conclusion, Murray Rothbard's proposition was to "Invade the World":

"We must face the fact that there is not a single country in the world that measures up to the lofty moral and social standards that are the hallmark of the U.S.A.: even Canada is delinquent and deserves a whiff of grape. There is not a single country in the world which, like the U.S., reeks of democracy and 'human rights,' and is free of crime and murder and hate thoughts and undemocratic deeds. Very few other countries are as Politically Correct as the U.S., or have the wit to impose a massively statist program in the name of 'freedom,' 'free trade,' 'multiculturalism,' and 'expanding democracy.'

And so, since no other countries shape up to U.S. standards in a world of Sole Superpower they must be severely chastised by the U.S., I make a Modest Proposal for the only possible consistent and coherent foreign policy: the U.S. must, very soon, Invade the Entire World!"

The globally hegemonic philosophy of US government policy-makers (at the behest of those who seek to gain from foreign policy decisions) makes hypocrisy a matter of course- as this philosophy extends the right to intervene to the US, while the idea of a foreign power controlling the US would be considered an outrage!  As Rozeff points out, it is not surprising to see illogical and counter-intuitive positions following from such a foundation.

US Foreign Policy Hypocrisy

Daniel McAdams wrote a great post on the LRC blog recently, that highlights the hypocrisy of US Foreign policy:

A Tale of Two Cities: Fallujah and Allepo

Iraqi army forces intensified their shelling of Fallujah over the past couple of days in attempt to dislodge control from an al-Qaeda affiliate that last month overran the city and most of the Anbar region in which it lies.

US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged support to Iraq in its efforts to expel al-Qaeda from Fallujah and Anbar, promising the US would do “everything that is possible” to help the Maliki government take on al-Qaeda in Iraq. The US has already sent at least 75 “Hellfire” missiles and promised to send in drones as well.

Meanwhile…

Syrian government forces intensified shelling of Aleppo over the last couple of days in attempt to dislodge control of parts of the area from various al-Qaeda affiliates who overran that city.
US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Syrian government actions against al-Qaeda affiliates, stating, “There is no way, not possible in the imagination, that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain legitimacy to govern.”

The US government has pledged support to the Syrian rebels in their efforts to expel the Syrian government from power, with US Congress voting recently — in secret — to step up military assistance to the Syrian rebels. Though the assistance is advertised as going to only the “moderate” factions, numerous reports confirm that US military equipment routinely winds up in the hands of the al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria.

Thus John Kerry and the Obama regime enters into the world of the clinically insane: sending weapons to attack the same al-Qaeda in Iraq that it arms in neighboring Syria. It is the foreign policy equivalent of Caligula naming his horse Incitatus a consul.

I am on RPI, Facebook, and Twitter.

The proper foreign policy is, of course, non-intervention.  If the US Government could bring themselves to taking a "hands-off" approach and allow free-trade, levy no protectionist tariffs, and cease its incessant meddling in the affairs of other nations, many less enemies would materialize.  At the very least, those enemies would have much less fertile ground in which they seed their rejection of the US.  Indeed, there was a time when people in other nations looked to the US as an example to emulate.

Unfortunately, the US has shifted its foreign relations from peaceful and mutually beneficial commercial interactions via free trade to militarism and destruction via foreign policy.  This creates a strange sort of system in that those who are supposed to represent the national interest have an incentive to provoke enemies into existence, if only to justify their own existence.  Even worse, powerful interests exist which lobby the government to procure more and more funding to the military to line their own pockets.  The projects the military undertakes are often spread out to many different constituencies, in a political twisting of the division of labor.  This labor division is not oriented in achieving more efficient or economical production.  Rather, it is designed to procure support from formerly disinterested parties to the war machine because it provides for their livelihood.

The foreign policy of interventionism has created a very messy situation which lacks any clear objective, is imperialistic, is pursued hypocritically and spreads animosity which breeds resentment.  This policy is the wellspring of propaganda which says that the enemy is all around you, hiding under every rock.  Indeed, it is the job of these folks to warn you about the monster in your closet- a monster which only the mighty power of the military can contest.  Intervention is antithetical to peace, and is a threat to the people living in the imperialist's domain, but it is a boon to those who seek to profit from human misery.1  If peace is desired, non-intervention must be the cornerstone of foreign policy.


Note:

1.  Take a look at this chart, which compares the US military budget (2012) to that of other nations:

Articles and Lectures on Libertarianism

Robert Wenzel runs an excellent (and addictive) blog called EconomicPolicyJournal.com, which has published a few very good lists of lectures and articles which can help one develop an understanding of libertarian philosophy:

The 30 Day Reading List that will Lead You to Becoming a Knowledgeable Libertarian

30 Lectures that Will Help You to Become a More Knowledgeable Libertarian

30 Lectures that Will Help You to Become a More Knowledgeable Libertarian (Part 2)

Awesome resource!

Timeless Absurdity

Today I am sharing an interesting letter posted on a blog called The Art of Not Being Governed which shows that the "Support the Troops" mentality is nothing new, and highlights the danger posed by such non-thinking:

An Open Letter From a Soldier, To Those Who Criticize The Troops

To whom it may concern:

It has come to my attention that many people have been directing some of their anger about our country’s foreign policy toward the members of the military themselves rather than to our political leaders who dictate what our policy is.

As a solider [editor's note: typo] soldier, this saddens and upsets me. I joined the military not because I agreed with the politicians, but because I felt a duty to serve our beautiful country and noble people. Our way of life is worth protecting, and it requires that men like me make personal sacrifices so that others don’t have to. Freedom needs to be preserved and protected from those who seek to destroy it, and they are legion. The modern world is complex, and what we have here in our country is attractive to despots, terrorists, tyrants, bolshevists, and religious extremists. They will use any means possible to enslave and control us.


I don’t want to spend my life in the military. I never really wanted to join in the first place, but the economy was such that there simply weren’t any other options that came close to providing the benefits, pay, and security for my family. I have children, and I did what I had to do to make sure they had food on the table and a warm place to sleep. I joined the military so they won’t have to. I want a better life for them, and the surest way to provide that is through national service.

If you haven’t served in the military, you won’t be able to understand the evil that exists outside our peaceful borders. I’ve looked into the eyes of our enemies. I’ve seen the atrocities they commit. I’ve heard their anger. The peace and tranquility you experience at home is the result of the willingness of brave soldiers to pursue evil wherever it takes hold.

I do not mean to say that our soldiers are perfect and always honorable. Of course there are mistakes. Of course innocent people die, and it is always a tragedy when they do. But we do our best to minimize those deaths as much as possible. Sometimes those deaths are out of our control. We don’t always know what is behind every door, and we can’t afford to assume the best of every situation.

Some have criticized soldiers for their willingness to imprison our enemies without trial or charges. I have worked at a detainment complex where some of these people are held. I won’t say the name of the facility, but you will no doubt be familiar with it, as it is probably the most famous of this type of detainment center. I know for a fact that some of the people that were held there were innocent of any crime, and I did what I could to lighten their burden. If I wasn’t there, some other soldier could have been there and he may not have been so kind. We had a lot of people come through, and I didn’t always know their fate in the end. That information was above my pay grade. There was nothing I could do about it. I always tried to treat them with respect and dignity. Of course I couldn’t help them escape, because I would have faced disciplinary charges, and they probably would have been found and killed. This would help nobody. From my position I could at least make their lives a little more tolerable.

I’ve never killed anybody; I’ve never even fired my weapon at another person. I won’t follow orders which go against our national principles. I have taken an oath to our country, our flag, and our Führer, and I will not violate that oath.

Now that I’ve laid out my defense of my chosen occupation, let me offer some solutions.

Those who criticize our troops are always welcome to find another country to live in. Nobody is stopping anybody from leaving. Granted, there are certain checks and procedures that need to be followed, but that is only for security; those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear. Those who get disappeared by the Gestapo are criminals and represent a danger to our pure nation.

If you don’t wish to leave, I encourage you to write to your politicians. They are the ones who make the decisions; they have the power to change things. Our political freedoms allow us to have access to the legislators, and to vote out those who don’t represent the voice of our unified people. We are only their tools and cannot make changes on our own. It is they who determine the orders; we only follow them.

I may not like the stench of the incinerators, I may not agree with every race law, and I may not believe fully in the final solution, but the only reason you enjoy your freedom is that rough men like me are willing to do violence to protect you. It is our willingness to put aside our personal lives, sacrifice our liberties, and deploy to the harshest places on earth that allows you to be comfortable at home, to enjoy the blessings of living in the greatest nation on earth, and to have a peaceful and prosperous holiday season. Don’t forget, as you prepare the Weihnachtsplätzchen this Christmas, that we, the National Socialist soldiers of der Führer Adolf Hitler are away so that you can walk down the Reichsstraße to the Rhine in peace.

Remember the words of our German National Anthem:

Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält.

Germany, Germany above everything,
Above everything in the world,
When, for protection and defense, it always
takes a brotherly stand together.

Sgt Heinrich Ehrlichmann
Military Post Number 34 539 F
Ukraine

Does this sound familiar?

If you are like me, you were mentally preparing your rebuttal as you read the first half of the letter- only to realize that this soldier wasn't stationed in Guantanamo, he was likely stationed in Auschwitz!  This letter could be satire. Nonetheless, all the "justifications" the author used- "duty", "protecting our way of life", preservation of "freedom", bad guys who seek to do harm, providing for his family in a poor economy, etc.- are constantly reasons used by US troops when discussing why they enlist in the military.

Such rationale is as illogical as it is timeless.  Although the arguments for soldiering can appear to have validity for the casual observer, they fall apart altogether upon even an inkling of perusal.  It is too bad such scrutiny seems to be beyond consideration for the hoards of people volunteering to partake in death and destruction, and those who "support" them.

Thanks for the Thanksgiving Workers

Robert P. Murphy shared some interesting thoughts about folks who work on Thanksgiving on his blog recently:

Working on the Holidays

While enjoying the wonderful meal brought together for our enjoyment last night, someone predictably chimed in that it was awful that Walmart remains open on Thanksgiving.  The implicit (and unanswered) question is: why would Walmart do such a thing?  I guess they just are a bunch of money-grubbing scrooges, who wish to punish their employees due to a lack of reverence for the value of family time!

I think Murphy's take on this is worth considering:

I think this outrage that we hear every year is oddly selective. For example, should all gas stations, highway toll booths, bus stations, and airports be closed on Thanksgiving? If so, that would prevent a lot of people from “spending the holidays with their families.” Even if your sole criterion were to boost the amount of time people spend with their loved ones, you would need at least some critical workers at their posts on Thanksgiving Day (at least the morning and afternoon).

In other words, from a purely utilitarian perspective, holiday workers permit many people to travel to see family who could not otherwise do so.  (Can you imagine strapping a few extra fuel tanks to your vehicle in order to have enough gas to get where you are going, due to all the fuel stations being closed?)  In the case of Walmart, people are shopping on the day of Thanksgiving for one of two reasons:

1.  Thanksgiving is a meaningless holiday to them, and they are doing their regular shopping.  This means closing up shop would punish them for not celebrating the sacrosanct "National Holiday", in a bizarre form of collective retribution.1

2.  They are purchasing items they forgot to buy, or didn't realize they needed until the "heat of the moment".  I guess you will just have to live without the stuffing, or cranberry sauce, or whatever else it is that now is unavailable because everyone is closed!2

It becomes clear how strange this perspective of anti-Walmartism is when considering the reality of the issue.  However, those against Walmart, do not stop there!  No, no...they move even further along this twisted logical path to say it is their duty to boycott the establishment!  Of course, that's fine in the sense of boycott being a voluntary measure to take.  However, it reveals the insanity of the thought process these folks engage in: to resort to self-denial if it comes down to it to prove they are serious about their concern for these "exploited" workers!

Taking pity on those "poor souls" who are "forced"3 to work on holidays is a way to marginalize them, and is incredibly degrading to these people who stand at the ready to provide products to market at a crucial time when we are all trying to look our best for those who's opinion we value the most.  After all, when you forget an ingredient for a dish you are preparing on the holidays, they save you the embarrassment of that dish being voided due to your lack of foresight.  Instead of pitying them, perhaps they should be honored.  At the very least, these workers deserve our thanks!



Notes

1.  The liberal frowning upon Walmart is eerily reminiscent of the conservative Christian logic of forcing one's religious values upon others.  Strange bedfellows or birds of a feather?

2.  We were fortunate that the grocery stores were open where we live, because we needed several forgotten items to complete our holiday feast.

3.  Of course, the employees at these establishments who are open do not "have a gun to their head".  That tactic (the threat of violence) is never employed by capitalists, but is always employed by the state.

Support the Dupes

Today is known in the US as Veteran's Day, but before 1954 was known as Armistice Day, the latter honoring WWI veterans and the former a celebration of veterans of all US wars.1  This change came as a result of WWII veteran Raymond Weeks, who hatched the first "National Veteran's Day" celebration in 1947 and led a successful delegation to US President Eisenhower to make the rhetorical change.  (source wikipedia)

What I am reflecting upon this year is the notion that veterans of US foreign conflicts are to be "celebrated" at all.  What makes this occupation so noble that it is to be honored with three national holidays over the course of the year, and indeed on a daily basis for those who are vehemently supportive of the US military?  Anyone who watches sports regularly is indoctrinated constantly with the "support the troops" mentality, as most of these events include military honor guards and sometimes even giant displays of "patriotism."  Many times one will encounter a sign in a business to this effect, and more than enough vehicles are pasted with bumper stickers which either say "support the troops" or an emblems which proudly display the branch of the military which the driver or someone they know is working for.  Suffice to say, over the course of one's daily life here in the US, it is almost impossible to avoid contact with such propaganda.

However, the question remains: what is it about this occupation which earns it such constant and unquestioned devotion?  Why don't we see more bumper stickers which say "support the grocery clerks" and "thank the garbage men"?  In fact, try to thank someone who is working at a business you are patronizing for their service, and watch as they give you a blank stare with a confused "you're welcome".  Although the services one utilizes in daily life are crucial to a sense of normalcy (having a place to buy food and the removal of garbage) the employees who put forth the effort to make these services available are not revered or honored as heros, much less with giant displays at sporting events such as the photo above.  No one sheds tears for the "sacrifice" many have suffered in the service of providing goods and services demanded in the marketplace.

The elephant in the room here is the notion that without US troops engaged in constant warfare, there would be no sense of normalcy.  Indeed, the most fervent supporters of the US military often times say that without endless warmongering, "we would all be speaking German"!2  Another popular phrase is "freedom isn't free".  Even many who are emphatically anti-war will concede that they support the troops, especially in light of the bad treatment many Vietnam War veterans received upon return from that war.  However, in order to investigate the validity of the these claims (that without perpetual war and interventionism in other nation's affairs, the US would not be a "free" country- therefore, the troops are engaged in a noble cause and are to be revered), one must sort through this imperialistic philosophy logically and without emotional bias.

In peeling this onion, one must consider the presumption that US military actions are designed to repel enemies who seek to take control and "do us harm".  This notion is perhaps as old as time as a plea by rulers to a citizen's sense of security in daily life, thus "protecting the country" is the typical stated justification for those who decide to join the military.3  However, rulers necessarily have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that its citizens live in the "greatest country in the world" and that any fundamental change in the nature of power would yield undesirable or at least uncertain results.  Thus, it is difficult to imagine how rulers could separate themselves from their own interest to maintain power in a benevolent act of purity such as the appeal for the "security of the nation".

Indeed, when discussing matters of foreign policy, intellectuals and leaders incessantly refer to the abstract concept of "our strategic interests and obligations around the globe".  This terminology is so pervasive in the rhetoric used by war-mongers to justify various actions, and so rare is the appeal to security of the citizenry, that one must ask, who's "interest and obligations" are they referring to?  As those who are mere citizens do not typically oblige themselves to matters in other nations, it is apparent that the power structure of the nation has simply postulated this concept on its citizenry.  Clearly, when referring to these conflicts, the use of the word "our" is more appropriately viewed as not the citizens of the nation, but rather the powerful interest groups who parasitically utilize the citizenry as a source of funding and cannon-fodder to further entrench their control of resources world wide.  The "enemies" who are created to justify such intervention are likely just unfortunate enough to have been born in a geographical area which contains something these interest groups seek to exploit.  It is hard to imagine how such dastardly ends could be achieved absent the means of the coercive power of the state to extract and subsidize them with financial and human capital.

So, rather than providing a secure life for the citizens of the nation, the role of the soldier is, in actuality, to provide a secure profit for companies who seek to exploit resources from an area which is currently out of their control.  The soldier is also working for what Bob Dylan termed the "Masters of War"- those companies which "build the death plains...(and)...build all the bombs."  Committing such atrocities does not "make us safer", rather it increases the likelihood of retaliation by those who are attacked and, thus, is counterproductive in that it makes life in the nation of the warmonger less secure.  Soldiers, however unwittingly, are therefore responsible for not only the destruction they participate in while warring, but are in their actions sowing the seeds for future conflicts to arise.

For this reason, those bestowing "honor" on soldiers are really making a mockery of the word. Far more honor can likely be found in the innocent civilians of warring countries, who have been murdered in the hundreds of millions in the twentieth century, and, indeed throughout history by soldiers and their masters.  Here's to hoping that in the future, there will be less veterans!





*Published in the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in hopes for a peaceful future on this planet.






Notes
1.  It is of note that the concept of "Veteran's Day" is a redundancy, considering that Memorial Day had been practiced for identical purposes since the mid 1800s.  But one can never be too redundant in honoring "those who served."

2.  Lately, some trade the word "German" for "Arabic" as an attempt to stay fashionable with the current "enemy".

3.  However, many of the enlistments after 9/11 were not embarked upon in an attempt to "protect the nation" from an enemy that was perceived to be a threat to actually overthrow the US government.  Indeed, the idea that Muslim terrorists could undertake such an action would have been, even at that time of great chaos and confusion, a silly notion.  Rather, many of these enlistments were undertaken to participate for the ignoble cause of revenge.

Thomas Woods Speaking to NullfyNow NC

Tom Woods gave a great speech to NullifyNow NC recently that is great for those who already have a grasp on the concept of state nullification:

Tom Woods NullifyNow NC

In this speech, Woods focuses on combating the popular notion that the US is simply "one giant blob" (his words) by giving historical examples which show that the opposite is true- that the US was simply a "collection of societies" which agreed to a compact.  This culminated in the founding of a limited federal government by the states, and provides credence to the philosophy that when the federal government steps outside of the powers granted to it, the states have the duty and the right to interpose on behalf of their constituents.

This concept, although conceived and popularized long ago, has obvious contemporary relevancy, and is currently being used in many states to combat federal laws that constituents find reproachable.  Examples can be found in state-level opposition to national health care, gun laws, and marijuana laws- all issues which are either expressly or implicitly outside the purview of the federal government.  Nullifying federal laws is a bold step to take, and states who do so should be applauded for having the courage to stand between the federal government and the constituents they represent. 

Detroit's (Wonderful) Lack of Governance

Lew Rockwell's interview of  Karen De Coster, who has been chronicling the downfall of the city government of Detroit (and subsequent anarchy in the city) via her blog Detroit: From Rust to Riches, was both entertaining and informative.  Traveling the city by bicycle, she has a unique perspective of the nuances of how people live in a situation when the government crumbles and becomes insolvent and, thus, irrelevant.  The blog is always a fascinating read, and Karen is a great photographer, to boot!  My ears perked up when Lew asked about the city's approach to solving its fiscal disaster.  Karen's answer:


Not a whole lot is known yet about the specifics of the bankruptcy...As you can imagine, the biggest battle has been with the entitlements in the city.  The unions and, of course, the pensioners that are promised lifetime pensions, lifetime insurance, lifetime on the doll everything...the biggest battles that you see publicly right now are the unions here battling for the largesse.   @ 7:25

In reality, the city is insolvent.  We have been riding an unsustainable insolvency for a number of years (like a lot of other cities, by the way), and it was about time that the bubble break.  @8:14


She also makes an interesting comparison between Detroit and Chicago's relative crises when Lew points out that Chicago is in even deeper trouble:


I'm not sure a financial comparison can accurately be conveyed...You know, Chicago has a much, much more...an organized government.  They have a very deeply rooted bureaucracy.  Detroit is not quite so deeply rooted...our ineptness here in terms of the government and their ability to get everything done has really enabled this anarchistic environment.

(In) Chicago, things are going to be a lot more difficult.  You don't see people flocking to Chicago to do these sort of things because it's a very rigid bureaucracy.  A lot of politically powerful people have run the city for years.  @ 9:15 (emphasis mine)


A fundamental observation that can be drawn from Detroit's crisis in governance is that the market is an all encompassing phenomenon, which always lingers, waiting for its moment to spring up.  That is to say- human nature compels us to trade with each other to achieve a harmony of desires.  Even if a public institution has monopolized a service, the moment that the monopoly cannot be enforced is the window of opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and satisfy market demand (if it exists).  In this sense, entrepreneurs are the personification not only of human desire but of human nature itself.

An interesting difference between public and private organizations is the fluidity of the environment in which each of them operates.  Private businesses must respond adequately to the needs of the customer, or risk failure.  If insolvency is inevitable, the business has a financial incentive to fold sooner rather than later.  This is the seed of mergers, acquisitions and partnerships, as people try to find the right formula to better satisfy market demand.  Thus, the marketplace is always changing to meet the desires of the most people possible.

While private enterprises may come and go, public organizations are much more stationary social institutions with no competition.  As in Detroit, governments are unlikely to take corrective action when pursuing an unsustainable course, as input from various factions and interest groups dictate decisions rather than the more accurate guidance of profit and loss.  Because of the inevitable broken promises that result from insolvency, reorganization of public institutions cause much greater social chaos than private businesses.


While public institutions and their traditions may seem unalterably entrenched, history has instead been a constant weathering away of authoritarianism in its various forms.  Contrarily, private entrepreneurship and trade have been only truly inevitable consequence of human nature.  The foundational need to satisfy one's desires ultimately trumps any attempt to intervene by outside forces.