Sorry I haven't posted here recently. I've been busy with both the hustle and bustle of the holiday season as well as some personal hardships. These forces have combined to make me sit down and reflect on what I have. I believe that we are each confronted with difficulties in our lives, and few of them are unique, and that when this happens we must make a decision. Will we allow ourselves to be burdened and oppressed by the difficulties we face, or will we choose happiness? Will we make a decision, here and now and again and again, to focus on our own power and our own possibilities, and to find a way to press on with hope? Sometimes the wind is at your back, and sometimes you have to lean into it, but if we keep taking steps we will keep moving forward.
So in that vein I have been thinking about ways to achieve true freedom. Freedom from tyranny, violence, and lies. Instead of focusing on the problem we must focus on the solution. Society is an imagined construct, it can not act, and it can not hold responsibility. Instead, it is the individual who is always responsible for history. So what can individuals do to move away from statism and towards voluntarism?
Firstly, I believe that we can work to become divorced from the state system. Think critically about what services you rely on the state to provide, and find private solutions instead. Learn to be self reliant instead of reliant on others. If you rely on government schools, then school your children at home or in the private sector. If you rely on the government to provide protection, then learn to protect yourself and acquire the means to do so. If you rely on the government to insure the safety of the products you purchase and the foods you eat, then go out and do your own homework. Eat at restaurants where you know the food is safe. Read consumer reports and research vehicles before you purchase them. Ask for references before you engage in business contracts. These are simple activities that you can do which will increase your ability to be self reliant and decrease your need for the state.
Secondly, you can secede economically from the system. Purchase products from some online vendors or from private individuals where taxes are rarely collected and difficult to enforce. Engage in unregulated economic transactions where you can set your own prices and freely contract with others. If possible, relocate to parts of the country where taxation and regulation are less intrusive. Rely on private organizations for your charitable giving, not the state. Whenever possible, make decisions which will give money to individuals, and not to the state.
Certainly economic secession isn't the answer to the problem, but it can be one tool you can use to lessen the power of the state. Less taxation is still theft, but it is also less theft. Less regulation on private contracts between consenting individuals is still unjust, but it is also less prohibitive. Economic secession will not in and of itself put an end to the state, but it will enable you with greater resources, greater self reliance, and greater opportunity.
While you may find these actions to be redundant based on the fact that those services are supplied, at least theoretically, by the state, you must remember the poor job the state does at each of these things. Your children will receive far better education, and have far more opportunities as a result, if you educate them privately. Protecting yourself will yield far greater results than relying on others to do so. Houses in unregulated municipalities may not be safe, but then again they may be, and you can get them inspected and choose only to purchase those that are. There are ways to handle your own business, without reliance on the state, and you will find the rewards worth it.
And most importantly, the state will not be around forever. With every “economic stimulus package,” and every corporate bailout, and every government “solution” the problem gets worse. The system is unsustainable. It will fail. And when it does, you want to make sure that you will be one of the people ready to thrive, not one of the sheep struggling to survive. If the electricity quit coming through the wires, and the trucks quit coming into WalMart, and the water quit coming through the pipes, how long do you think most people would survive? How long before true chaos became the rule?
Unfortunately, this is the end result of the state, and it will occur. Look through history. Every time the state fails, the people who were raised to rely on it struggle, and many of them die. Yet many survive, and people find ways to go on. They lean into the wind and mankind perseveres.
The state solution is no solution at all. It ultimately results in hyperinflation and chaos. But that is the problem. Don't focus on the problem. Focus on the solution. Focus on how you can live a life of freedom. Someday the state will collapse. It may happen in two years, or it may happen in twenty, but I don't think it will take two hundred. You may have to live through that tough time, and you definitely have to live through these tough times.
So live the best you can. Take care of yourself and your family, and find ways to live life as a free person. Encourage others to do the same. Encourage your friends and families to be self reliant. Encourage people to educate themselves. Encourage people to seek their own solutions to their problems, instead of ceding more and more authority to the state. They may use violence to take what you have and shackle you in chains, but you decide whether you are free or a slave. A free man in chains can be an inspiration to those around him. A slave is no inspiration at all. Be free. Live free. And be thankful that you are. In that way, you can bring freedom to others. Raise you children to be free.
Someday there will be a generation of men and women who do not know the evils of statism. They will live unencumbered by the chains of tyranny, violence, and lies. They will prosper and grow and fall and rise based on their own merit. We can help to bring this about. We can live our lives with the knowledge that someday, people will be free and we played a part in bringing that about. We can make that happen.
We can make the morning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Coming to a Country Near You
1923 Weimar Republic inflation: A German woman feeding a stove with Papiermarks, which were more valuable as fuel than as money.
This is what happens when your money becomes worthless. This is hyperinflation. Today, be thankful this isn't you. Yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Monday, November 24, 2008
Tomato(R) Tomato(D)
This country recently faced a difficult decision. Millions upon millions of Americans went to the polls to decide which of two men would lead our nation into the future. They cast their vote to determine whether tax and spend economics, foreign adventurism, government interference in the free markets, crony capitalism, violent oppression, vice laws, theocracy, and fascist control of businesses and private commerce were to be the law of the land, or, well, ummm...
While nearly half of those who recently voted in the national elections are somewhere between mildly disappointed and suicidal that their candidate lost in the election, I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective, which I believe may be both disheartening, and in its own way, comforting.
While the major media, both political parties, some corporate concerns, and members of academia would like you to believe that democrat and republican politicians can be easily pigeonholed, certain historical realities would seem to belie that fact.
You are supposed to believe that democrats want big government, social welfare, and peace, while republicans want small government, free market solutions, and war. Those in power propagate these stereotypes so that they can frame the argument to their immediate advantage in order to manipulate the people into voting for the leaders they want elected. In reality, both parties are more than happy to steal, spend, and kill whenever it meets their current needs.
Since Lyndon Johnson in the sixties, democrat presidents have overseen increases in spending which were smaller than the increases in revenue, while republican presidents have done the opposite. This means that while both parties have presided over constant increases in spending and debt, democrat presidents have actually increased spending less than revenue has grown, and republicans have drastically increased the debt by increasing spending far beyond the increases in revenue. So clearly, the myth that republicans want small government and less spending isn't historically accurate.
So what about social welfare? Well, since the fifties welfare spending has steadily increased, but it really started blowing up in the seventies. Regardless of which party was in power, the government has continued to increase welfare spending at an ever increasing rate. While they would like you to think that it is only democrats who increase welfare spending, this is simply untrue. And that is before you take into account corporate welfare.
Corporate welfare includes everything from tax cuts, and economic subsidies, to direct payments, loans, and bailouts from the state to private business concerns. In recent years, this kind of welfare has equaled something close to 100 billion a year, approximately one fourth of the total yearly cost of social welfare, but recently, this amount has exploded. 20 billion dollar loans to automakers, 160 million dollar loans to insurance companies, and 700 billion dollars worth of loans to wall street have all added up to nearly a trillion dollars in additional corporate welfare this year alone, more than twice the amount spent on social welfare programs, and all under a republican president.
This really only leaves the issue of war. While liberals cry out for peace while accusing those evil conservatives of being bloodthirsty warmongers, and those on the right wrap themselves in the flag and march ever onward into the teeth of the enemy, the history of this country has far more wars begun by democrats than republicans.
While modern republican presidents did get us into Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice, the modern democrat party is responsible for entering World War I, World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, and Kosovo, as well as limited military action in Iraq, the Sudan, and parts of Russia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. You can hardly make the case that they have some kind of special monopoly on peace.
So if both parties believe in increasing government revenues and spending and debt, increasing the size and scope of government, and engaging in multiple overseas wars, which are used as an excuse to further increase the size and scope of government and its debt, then does it really matter which of the two major party candidates was elected?
Some of you still think it does. But I would propose that the difference between Obama and McCain was only in how they defined the problems facing this country. Obama thinks poor people are being taken advantage of. McCain thinks that people need helping sending their kids to college. Obama thinks that the government should pay for your health care. McCain thinks that the government should give you money, and you should pay for your health care. Both candidates think that the government should regulate your property rights, your right to bear arms, recreational drug use other than alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, your right to buy and sell goods, and to enter into contracts, among other things. Regardless of how they define the problems facing the nation, their solutions are the same. More taxes. More spending. More government oversight. More state authority. More power, less freedom.
So if your candidate won, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. He won't end war, or eliminate poverty and disease and injustice. He will increase the power of the state at the expense of the people. And if your candidate lost, don't feel too bad. Things won't be drastically different under the other guy than they would have been under your guy. You'll still have socialized medicine, an ever growing welfare state, and increasing public debt. Republican or democrat, they are almost all statists at heart. That R and D stuff is just to keep you distracted.
If you pay attention to their actions, instead of their words, the whole thing becomes pretty obvious. The two parties go back and forth, eating away at your liberties from the ends without every really repairing the damage done by the other. They aren't opposing each other, they're opposing freedom and liberty and reason. They're opposing you. Both of them. Always.
The only real difference between the two parties is the bumper stickers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
While nearly half of those who recently voted in the national elections are somewhere between mildly disappointed and suicidal that their candidate lost in the election, I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective, which I believe may be both disheartening, and in its own way, comforting.
While the major media, both political parties, some corporate concerns, and members of academia would like you to believe that democrat and republican politicians can be easily pigeonholed, certain historical realities would seem to belie that fact.
You are supposed to believe that democrats want big government, social welfare, and peace, while republicans want small government, free market solutions, and war. Those in power propagate these stereotypes so that they can frame the argument to their immediate advantage in order to manipulate the people into voting for the leaders they want elected. In reality, both parties are more than happy to steal, spend, and kill whenever it meets their current needs.
Since Lyndon Johnson in the sixties, democrat presidents have overseen increases in spending which were smaller than the increases in revenue, while republican presidents have done the opposite. This means that while both parties have presided over constant increases in spending and debt, democrat presidents have actually increased spending less than revenue has grown, and republicans have drastically increased the debt by increasing spending far beyond the increases in revenue. So clearly, the myth that republicans want small government and less spending isn't historically accurate.
So what about social welfare? Well, since the fifties welfare spending has steadily increased, but it really started blowing up in the seventies. Regardless of which party was in power, the government has continued to increase welfare spending at an ever increasing rate. While they would like you to think that it is only democrats who increase welfare spending, this is simply untrue. And that is before you take into account corporate welfare.
Corporate welfare includes everything from tax cuts, and economic subsidies, to direct payments, loans, and bailouts from the state to private business concerns. In recent years, this kind of welfare has equaled something close to 100 billion a year, approximately one fourth of the total yearly cost of social welfare, but recently, this amount has exploded. 20 billion dollar loans to automakers, 160 million dollar loans to insurance companies, and 700 billion dollars worth of loans to wall street have all added up to nearly a trillion dollars in additional corporate welfare this year alone, more than twice the amount spent on social welfare programs, and all under a republican president.
This really only leaves the issue of war. While liberals cry out for peace while accusing those evil conservatives of being bloodthirsty warmongers, and those on the right wrap themselves in the flag and march ever onward into the teeth of the enemy, the history of this country has far more wars begun by democrats than republicans.
While modern republican presidents did get us into Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq twice, the modern democrat party is responsible for entering World War I, World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, and Kosovo, as well as limited military action in Iraq, the Sudan, and parts of Russia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. You can hardly make the case that they have some kind of special monopoly on peace.
So if both parties believe in increasing government revenues and spending and debt, increasing the size and scope of government, and engaging in multiple overseas wars, which are used as an excuse to further increase the size and scope of government and its debt, then does it really matter which of the two major party candidates was elected?
Some of you still think it does. But I would propose that the difference between Obama and McCain was only in how they defined the problems facing this country. Obama thinks poor people are being taken advantage of. McCain thinks that people need helping sending their kids to college. Obama thinks that the government should pay for your health care. McCain thinks that the government should give you money, and you should pay for your health care. Both candidates think that the government should regulate your property rights, your right to bear arms, recreational drug use other than alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, your right to buy and sell goods, and to enter into contracts, among other things. Regardless of how they define the problems facing the nation, their solutions are the same. More taxes. More spending. More government oversight. More state authority. More power, less freedom.
So if your candidate won, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. He won't end war, or eliminate poverty and disease and injustice. He will increase the power of the state at the expense of the people. And if your candidate lost, don't feel too bad. Things won't be drastically different under the other guy than they would have been under your guy. You'll still have socialized medicine, an ever growing welfare state, and increasing public debt. Republican or democrat, they are almost all statists at heart. That R and D stuff is just to keep you distracted.
If you pay attention to their actions, instead of their words, the whole thing becomes pretty obvious. The two parties go back and forth, eating away at your liberties from the ends without every really repairing the damage done by the other. They aren't opposing each other, they're opposing freedom and liberty and reason. They're opposing you. Both of them. Always.
The only real difference between the two parties is the bumper stickers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Saturday, November 22, 2008
It's Just Another Movie
I know a man who is a local business owner. He owns a restaurant. One day, the city approached him in his shop and told him he needed to install a mop sink in the floor of his shop. Health code demanded it.
Easy enough. The very next day, he opened up the phone book and called a plumber to come out and install this mop sink. He paid the plumber, got his signature on some of the paperwork the city had left for him, and mailed it all of to the city. Problem solved.
A few weeks later, he received a letter from the city informing him that he was being fined four hundred dollars for failing to comply with health codes. He contacted the city and asked what health code he was in violation of, and they told him that they'd warned him to get a mop sink, and he'd failed to comply. He explained that he had in fact gotten the mop sink, and had sent in the paperwork to prove it. They told him that yes, they'd received that paperwork, but the plumber who installed the mop sink had an expired license, and so his signature was unacceptable, and so he would have to get a new mop sink installed by a licensed plumber. Finally, they told him that instead of a new sink, if he got an architect to approve the placement of the mop sink, and a licensed plumber to approve the installation of the mop sink, then they would approve his paperwork.
So he called another plumber. This man came out, looked at the sink, and said, you need a new part here, it will cost you twelve hundred dollars. The owner of the restaurant couldn't afford twelve hundred more dollars, on top of what he'd already paid to have the sink installed, so he called another plumber.
Before the third plumber could come out, he had a city health inspector arrive to inspect his business. The inspector looked at everything. His sanitation, his food safety practices, his cooking temperatures, and his mop sink, and approved. He passed his health inspection.
Later on, someone else from the city arrived and explained to him that because he had failed to turn in the approved documentation proving that he'd installed a mop sink, they were hanging a temporary public health warning in his front window. He tried to explain to the person that he had a mop sink, and offered to show it to him, but the city employee wasn't interested. The paperwork wasn't properly filled out, so as far as the city was concerned, it wasn't safe to eat here anymore.
People would arrive every day to eat at this man's restaurant, and as they approached the front doors, they would see the big yellow public health notice, and turn around and walk away. Time after time, customers who had arrived to do business with him left before even opening the door because of the sign in the window.
Then another plumber came to look at the sink. He said everything looked fine, but before he would sign the cities paperwork, he wanted eight hundred dollars for the inspection. So my friend called another plumber.
One day, someone from the city came to do a building inspection. They looked at his handicapped access, they looked at his emergency doors, they looked at his facilities, and they looked at his mop sink. Everything being in order, they passed him on the inspection.
Later on, someone else from the health department showed up and noticed the public health warning hanging in the window. They asked him why it was there, and he explained the situation. They called there supervisor, and returned to tell him that he didn't have to have the sign hanging in his window, because he was addressing the problem, so they took the sign down.
Then he had another plumber come out and look at his mop sink. This one said everything looked fine, and agreed to sign the city's paperwork. The papers were signed and delivered to the city, and for now, the problem appears to have been addressed.
But in the intervening months, how many customers turned away at his doors while the public health notice was up? How many hours were wasted by city employees, private plumbers, and this business owner while he tried to address their concerns? How much money was lost in travel expenses, unproductive man hours, and lost business?
Not because the city mandated that he have certain equipment in his business. Once they told him he needed a mop sink, he got it the very next day. Not because the city was truly concerned with public health, after all, merely having a mop sink is no guarantee that it will be used. Not because the city was concerned with compliance, because he offered to show the city inspectors where the mop sink was, and they informed him it wasn't the sink, but the signature, that was the root of the problem. Not because he was failing to meet health or building codes, because he passed his inspections.
No, all that waste was the result of paperwork being filled out improperly. You can argue that it was his responsibility to ensure that his plumber was licensed, but once the work was done, and the paperwork sent in, he believed the problem was addressed. The reality is that this kind of thing can only happen under an oppressive state authority. He needed a mop sink. He called a professional. He got a mop sink. That wasn't at the root of the cities concern.
They didn't really want him to get a mop sink. They wanted him to get a signature from someone they had previously approved. Someone who was paying them money in exchange for permission to operate a business. When it turned out that the person he'd contracted to do the work wasn't paying his protection money, they punished my friend. Not because it was his fault, but because they have a vested interest in making sure that the only plumbers who can get business are the ones who have paid for the privilege. Otherwise, no one would pay.
And so like so many other government practices, they punish the consumer for the actions of the provider. Because the plumber failed to keep his protection money current, the consumer is punished for purchasing his services.
This is the kind of insidious consequence of living under subjugation. In order to ensure that people will comply with their theft, they set enforce their demands with violence. No men with guns arrived to shut down his business, but if the city had decided to shut him down, and he had decided to stay open, you can be sure the men with guns would not have been far behind. They can't allow for people to ignore their edicts, even in the simplest things, or else no one would listen.
What if the city had shown up and put him out of business, mop sink and all, just because he had the wrong signature on his paperwork? How much would have been lost then?
For want of their fees the signature was lost. For want of a signature the
mop sink was lost. For want of a mop sink the business was lost. For want of the business the savings was lost. For want of the savings the mortgage was lost. For want of the mortgage the home was lost. For want of the home the life was lost.
For want of a nail the kingdom was lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Easy enough. The very next day, he opened up the phone book and called a plumber to come out and install this mop sink. He paid the plumber, got his signature on some of the paperwork the city had left for him, and mailed it all of to the city. Problem solved.
A few weeks later, he received a letter from the city informing him that he was being fined four hundred dollars for failing to comply with health codes. He contacted the city and asked what health code he was in violation of, and they told him that they'd warned him to get a mop sink, and he'd failed to comply. He explained that he had in fact gotten the mop sink, and had sent in the paperwork to prove it. They told him that yes, they'd received that paperwork, but the plumber who installed the mop sink had an expired license, and so his signature was unacceptable, and so he would have to get a new mop sink installed by a licensed plumber. Finally, they told him that instead of a new sink, if he got an architect to approve the placement of the mop sink, and a licensed plumber to approve the installation of the mop sink, then they would approve his paperwork.
So he called another plumber. This man came out, looked at the sink, and said, you need a new part here, it will cost you twelve hundred dollars. The owner of the restaurant couldn't afford twelve hundred more dollars, on top of what he'd already paid to have the sink installed, so he called another plumber.
Before the third plumber could come out, he had a city health inspector arrive to inspect his business. The inspector looked at everything. His sanitation, his food safety practices, his cooking temperatures, and his mop sink, and approved. He passed his health inspection.
Later on, someone else from the city arrived and explained to him that because he had failed to turn in the approved documentation proving that he'd installed a mop sink, they were hanging a temporary public health warning in his front window. He tried to explain to the person that he had a mop sink, and offered to show it to him, but the city employee wasn't interested. The paperwork wasn't properly filled out, so as far as the city was concerned, it wasn't safe to eat here anymore.
People would arrive every day to eat at this man's restaurant, and as they approached the front doors, they would see the big yellow public health notice, and turn around and walk away. Time after time, customers who had arrived to do business with him left before even opening the door because of the sign in the window.
Then another plumber came to look at the sink. He said everything looked fine, but before he would sign the cities paperwork, he wanted eight hundred dollars for the inspection. So my friend called another plumber.
One day, someone from the city came to do a building inspection. They looked at his handicapped access, they looked at his emergency doors, they looked at his facilities, and they looked at his mop sink. Everything being in order, they passed him on the inspection.
Later on, someone else from the health department showed up and noticed the public health warning hanging in the window. They asked him why it was there, and he explained the situation. They called there supervisor, and returned to tell him that he didn't have to have the sign hanging in his window, because he was addressing the problem, so they took the sign down.
Then he had another plumber come out and look at his mop sink. This one said everything looked fine, and agreed to sign the city's paperwork. The papers were signed and delivered to the city, and for now, the problem appears to have been addressed.
But in the intervening months, how many customers turned away at his doors while the public health notice was up? How many hours were wasted by city employees, private plumbers, and this business owner while he tried to address their concerns? How much money was lost in travel expenses, unproductive man hours, and lost business?
Not because the city mandated that he have certain equipment in his business. Once they told him he needed a mop sink, he got it the very next day. Not because the city was truly concerned with public health, after all, merely having a mop sink is no guarantee that it will be used. Not because the city was concerned with compliance, because he offered to show the city inspectors where the mop sink was, and they informed him it wasn't the sink, but the signature, that was the root of the problem. Not because he was failing to meet health or building codes, because he passed his inspections.
No, all that waste was the result of paperwork being filled out improperly. You can argue that it was his responsibility to ensure that his plumber was licensed, but once the work was done, and the paperwork sent in, he believed the problem was addressed. The reality is that this kind of thing can only happen under an oppressive state authority. He needed a mop sink. He called a professional. He got a mop sink. That wasn't at the root of the cities concern.
They didn't really want him to get a mop sink. They wanted him to get a signature from someone they had previously approved. Someone who was paying them money in exchange for permission to operate a business. When it turned out that the person he'd contracted to do the work wasn't paying his protection money, they punished my friend. Not because it was his fault, but because they have a vested interest in making sure that the only plumbers who can get business are the ones who have paid for the privilege. Otherwise, no one would pay.
And so like so many other government practices, they punish the consumer for the actions of the provider. Because the plumber failed to keep his protection money current, the consumer is punished for purchasing his services.
This is the kind of insidious consequence of living under subjugation. In order to ensure that people will comply with their theft, they set enforce their demands with violence. No men with guns arrived to shut down his business, but if the city had decided to shut him down, and he had decided to stay open, you can be sure the men with guns would not have been far behind. They can't allow for people to ignore their edicts, even in the simplest things, or else no one would listen.
What if the city had shown up and put him out of business, mop sink and all, just because he had the wrong signature on his paperwork? How much would have been lost then?
For want of their fees the signature was lost. For want of a signature the
mop sink was lost. For want of a mop sink the business was lost. For want of the business the savings was lost. For want of the savings the mortgage was lost. For want of the mortgage the home was lost. For want of the home the life was lost.
For want of a nail the kingdom was lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Friday, November 21, 2008
Santa Claus is Coming to Town
For now, congress has closed the door on a proposed bailout of the major American automakers. Lawmakers feel that the automakers failed to convincingly argue for their need for the money, as well as describe a plan for how they would restructure their business model once they had the money so that they wouldn't have to come begging for more in a few months.
But congress didn't close that door completely. They've given the automakers two weeks to come up with a new plan. If they can, and they are “convincing” enough, then congress will consider giving them 25 billion dollars of tax payer money. Of course, that would be in addition to the 25 billion dollars of tax payer money that congress has already given the automakers, just two months ago.
So if we just gave them 25 billion dollars, and just two months later they need 25 billion more dollars, then is it now the role of government to subsidize the American auto industry to the tune of roughly 150 billion more dollars a year from now on? Apparently, the successful self reliant people of this country are now being called upon to fund not only failed individuals, and failed banks, and failed insurers, and failed agricultural industries, but we are now to fund failed automakers as well.
Part of the defense of an auto bailout is that we can't afford the loss of jobs nationwide. By some estimates, as many as 1 in 12 American jobs is dependent on the auto industry, and every day the number of proposed job losses grows by leaps and bounds. They argue that if this industry fails then America will face further economic hardship, and that we just can't allow that to continue.
So you see, it's really in your best interest to bailout these auto manufacturers. After all, we can't afford to lose jobs, or to lose the revenue generated in the economy by this industry. But what if it were the porn industry? By some estimates, pornography generates between 4 and ten billion dollars annually. It also employs thousands of people, from actors, to directors, sound and lighting technicians, camera men, internet tech specialists, delivery drivers, and store clerks. If the porn industry were to suddenly face economic collapse, and all those people were facing unemployment, and all that money was going to disappear from the revenue stream, do you think congress would consider bailing them out, even though it would require far less money to do so?
Let's pick something a little less controversial. How about video games? In 2007 the industry made close to 19 billion dollars, more than twice that of pornography, and employs roughly 25,000 people in the U.S. alone. What if this industry were to face collapse, possibly causing programmers, marketing personnel, hardware manufacturers, delivery drivers, and sales clerks to all face unemployment? What about all the boutique stores which specialize in video games? They would also face shutting their doors. What about all the online video gaming services? What about all the ancillary marketing that takes place in and around video games? Even Barack “the future” Obama advertised in a video game recently. Would the government consider bailing out this industry, even though it would cost far less than the 25 billion dollars the auto industry is asking for again? What about all those poor video game fans who would lose their sole source of enjoyment in this world?
I think we all know the answer. While congress is more than happy to bailout insurance companies like AIG, and banks like CitiBank, and automakers like GM, there is no way they are going to bailout the pornography industry, or the video game industry, or the cigarette industry, or the firearms industry, no matter how many jobs stand to be lost. It doesn't have to do with the welfare of the people, and you know it. It has to do with who has the ear of the king. And because of that, you also know that the automakers will get their money, they'll just have to wait until christmas to open their present.
The idea that a proposed loss of jobs is any justification for government subsidization of private industry is based on pure fear mongering. You could be next! You could lose everything! If we don't act, the whole country will descend into chaos and zombies will roam the streets! It's ridiculous. Remember before they passed the 700 billion dollar wall street bailout bill, you know, the one they still haven't spent a dime of, and they were telling everyone that people would be thrown out on the street, and get kicked out of school, and no one would get their paycheck next week because business used credit to pay their payroll, and your ATM wouldn't give you money? Remember how they said that would all happen if they failed to pass this bill? Well, they still haven't spent a dime of it, and yet, you still have a home, and kids still go to school, and your ATM still works, and you're still getting paid. Now that doesn't make any sense. Hmmmm.
It is the same dog and pony show here. Everyone will lose their jobs and have to start eating rock soup if the automakers go under. Baloney. People will still need jobs, so there will still be jobs. People will still need to get places, so there will still be cars manufactured and sold. Maybe these companies won't be doing it, and maybe the companies that do won't be paying as much, but maybe that means they'll have a stable business model that won't require regular injections of government subsidies to survive.
Besides which, the worker doesn't own his job, and doesn't have any specific right to be employed. The company owns the jobs. The worker owns his labor. The company exchanges a job, and monetary compensation for the labor that the worker can provide. The more difficult, unpleasant, or skilled the labor the worker is able to provide, the more money he is generally able to get in return for that labor. It isn't GM's or our government's responsibility to employ anyone. If GM has a job, and you have labor, you may enter into a contract with them to exchange the two. Just because people might lose jobs doesn't justify using stolen money to prop up a failing business so that people can do jobs for which there is no current market demand.
I'm not saying there isn't a demand for cars, clearly there is, and so there is also a demand for people who can make cars. What I'm saying is that if there was a market demand for cars to be produced under the business model that these companies are using, then they wouldn't be facing complete financial collapse. Clearly, there are other auto manufacturers who are not facing complete financial collapse, because there is a market demand for their business model. It isn't that people don't need cars, it's that these failing companies are failing to produce them in a cost effective manner.
And that shouldn't be any surprise. After all, they know damn well that they can simply appeal to the king for money whenever their purse is light. And so what if it comes off of your back, the government is going to send you a bailout check soon too, so you don't need to worry. They'll just keep printing money, and passing it out, and everything will be fine. I'm sure that'll work.
It always has before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
But congress didn't close that door completely. They've given the automakers two weeks to come up with a new plan. If they can, and they are “convincing” enough, then congress will consider giving them 25 billion dollars of tax payer money. Of course, that would be in addition to the 25 billion dollars of tax payer money that congress has already given the automakers, just two months ago.
So if we just gave them 25 billion dollars, and just two months later they need 25 billion more dollars, then is it now the role of government to subsidize the American auto industry to the tune of roughly 150 billion more dollars a year from now on? Apparently, the successful self reliant people of this country are now being called upon to fund not only failed individuals, and failed banks, and failed insurers, and failed agricultural industries, but we are now to fund failed automakers as well.
Part of the defense of an auto bailout is that we can't afford the loss of jobs nationwide. By some estimates, as many as 1 in 12 American jobs is dependent on the auto industry, and every day the number of proposed job losses grows by leaps and bounds. They argue that if this industry fails then America will face further economic hardship, and that we just can't allow that to continue.
So you see, it's really in your best interest to bailout these auto manufacturers. After all, we can't afford to lose jobs, or to lose the revenue generated in the economy by this industry. But what if it were the porn industry? By some estimates, pornography generates between 4 and ten billion dollars annually. It also employs thousands of people, from actors, to directors, sound and lighting technicians, camera men, internet tech specialists, delivery drivers, and store clerks. If the porn industry were to suddenly face economic collapse, and all those people were facing unemployment, and all that money was going to disappear from the revenue stream, do you think congress would consider bailing them out, even though it would require far less money to do so?
Let's pick something a little less controversial. How about video games? In 2007 the industry made close to 19 billion dollars, more than twice that of pornography, and employs roughly 25,000 people in the U.S. alone. What if this industry were to face collapse, possibly causing programmers, marketing personnel, hardware manufacturers, delivery drivers, and sales clerks to all face unemployment? What about all the boutique stores which specialize in video games? They would also face shutting their doors. What about all the online video gaming services? What about all the ancillary marketing that takes place in and around video games? Even Barack “the future” Obama advertised in a video game recently. Would the government consider bailing out this industry, even though it would cost far less than the 25 billion dollars the auto industry is asking for again? What about all those poor video game fans who would lose their sole source of enjoyment in this world?
I think we all know the answer. While congress is more than happy to bailout insurance companies like AIG, and banks like CitiBank, and automakers like GM, there is no way they are going to bailout the pornography industry, or the video game industry, or the cigarette industry, or the firearms industry, no matter how many jobs stand to be lost. It doesn't have to do with the welfare of the people, and you know it. It has to do with who has the ear of the king. And because of that, you also know that the automakers will get their money, they'll just have to wait until christmas to open their present.
The idea that a proposed loss of jobs is any justification for government subsidization of private industry is based on pure fear mongering. You could be next! You could lose everything! If we don't act, the whole country will descend into chaos and zombies will roam the streets! It's ridiculous. Remember before they passed the 700 billion dollar wall street bailout bill, you know, the one they still haven't spent a dime of, and they were telling everyone that people would be thrown out on the street, and get kicked out of school, and no one would get their paycheck next week because business used credit to pay their payroll, and your ATM wouldn't give you money? Remember how they said that would all happen if they failed to pass this bill? Well, they still haven't spent a dime of it, and yet, you still have a home, and kids still go to school, and your ATM still works, and you're still getting paid. Now that doesn't make any sense. Hmmmm.
It is the same dog and pony show here. Everyone will lose their jobs and have to start eating rock soup if the automakers go under. Baloney. People will still need jobs, so there will still be jobs. People will still need to get places, so there will still be cars manufactured and sold. Maybe these companies won't be doing it, and maybe the companies that do won't be paying as much, but maybe that means they'll have a stable business model that won't require regular injections of government subsidies to survive.
Besides which, the worker doesn't own his job, and doesn't have any specific right to be employed. The company owns the jobs. The worker owns his labor. The company exchanges a job, and monetary compensation for the labor that the worker can provide. The more difficult, unpleasant, or skilled the labor the worker is able to provide, the more money he is generally able to get in return for that labor. It isn't GM's or our government's responsibility to employ anyone. If GM has a job, and you have labor, you may enter into a contract with them to exchange the two. Just because people might lose jobs doesn't justify using stolen money to prop up a failing business so that people can do jobs for which there is no current market demand.
I'm not saying there isn't a demand for cars, clearly there is, and so there is also a demand for people who can make cars. What I'm saying is that if there was a market demand for cars to be produced under the business model that these companies are using, then they wouldn't be facing complete financial collapse. Clearly, there are other auto manufacturers who are not facing complete financial collapse, because there is a market demand for their business model. It isn't that people don't need cars, it's that these failing companies are failing to produce them in a cost effective manner.
And that shouldn't be any surprise. After all, they know damn well that they can simply appeal to the king for money whenever their purse is light. And so what if it comes off of your back, the government is going to send you a bailout check soon too, so you don't need to worry. They'll just keep printing money, and passing it out, and everything will be fine. I'm sure that'll work.
It always has before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Those Who Reject the Argument
Well, there you go. It took a little longer than I'd expected, and certainly some of those articles were a bit dense and lengthy, but there are the answers to the six great challenges. They are by no means exhaustive. I was trying to inspire you to think about these concepts in a new light, not to put forever to bed the questions. As I said at the beginning, the answers I've given you here are only possibilities, no one can truly say how the market would meet the demand for education, or roads, or currency going forward, because we've never been truly free of the state.
Further, I told you at the beginning that no answer would suit the committed ideologue. That is still true. Many people support the state for many different reasons, and to some, no alternative, no matter how rational and well reasoned, no matter how their interests could be served, no matter how plainly you paint the image of their suffering, could sway them to deny it.
I believe that people support state authority for many reasons, but at their most basic, I believe these reasons can be summarized in four motivations.
The first is simple ignorance. I don't meant that in a derogatory sense, nor to imply a lack of intelligence or education. What I mean to say is that most people have either never been confronted with, or never even imagined, the idea of a stateless society, except perhaps in the most limited “Mad Max” sense of the concept. It's not that these are irrational or unintelligent people, they simply haven't looked at the issues yet. These people are the easiest to reach, you must simply present the cases for and against the state, and they are able to come to the conclusion on their own.
The second reason people support the state is out of base self interest. They are getting something from the existence of the state and so seek to maintain the status quo. They are not necessarily bad people, or even greedy people, but they believe they profit in some way from the state. This can range from welfare mothers to corporate executives, there is no social class which holds the monopoly on this position. These people see their lives as improved by state action, and so will cling tenaciously to their benefactor. These people can be reached. You must simply show them in a convincing way how their lives would be improved free from theft and violence. Just as no social class is singular in their view of the state as their provider, so too is no social class unique in their suffering under the weight of government authority. We all suffer the theft of wealth from the economy. We all suffer when innocent individuals are lost to the war on drugs, or poverty, or terror. How many innovations or works of art have we lost because the government stole the wealth of those who would have created them? How many philosophers and scientists have we lost because their ancestors were killed by government violence before they were conceived? All are punished.
The third reason people support the state is fear. They are afraid of being preyed upon. They are afraid of their fellow man. They are afraid of responsibility. They are afraid of being self reliant. They are afraid of being unique. And so they turn their sovereign authority over to others. I've heard people say “humanity isn't ready to be free from subjugation.” I've heard people say “If I had a gun, I know I'd be irresponsible with it, so you shouldn't have one either.” This kind of thinking is irrational. They are so confined by their fears, that they blindly accept oppression and domination for some measure of perceived security. These people will be far more difficult to convince, because their position is not based in logic. You can't argue or educate or enlighten them out of this hole. You can attempt to show how their security would be vastly improved, and you can attempt to address the root of their fear, but since they are constrained by emotion and not reason, there is only so much you can do for them. We must teach our children to act on logic, not on feelings, this is the only way we can someday address those who would sacrifice everything, and everyone, to their passions.
The final reason people support the state is simple evil. They see the state as a means of gaining power over others, and they pursue that means as far as they can. They relish in the ability to crush hope and life and justify it all by hiding behind the morality of the majority. It's ok to hold slaves, because everyone agrees, except the slaves of course, but they don't get a vote. It's ok to put people in prison camps because we were elected to defend the nation. It's ok to imprison millions of non violent Americans because most people don't agree with their hobbies. Like sadists, these people find gratification in the suffering of others. They can not be reached. They are beyond reason, beyond emotion, and beyond compassion. There can be no compromise with evil.
I don't mean to imply that everyone who supports vice laws or terrorist internment or other forms of government oppression are evil. I believe that like all support of the state, their behavior can be generally ascribed to the four previous motivations. Certainly some are evil, but some are afraid, or gain from the system, or simply don't know any better.
I believe that most people fall into the first category, with the majority of those remaining falling into the second. There are a small amount which fall into the third, but they are mostly individual beneficiaries of state action. The fourth category is the most vile, but also the most limited. There are very few people, even amongst our government, who are truly evil. The woman working at the DMV, though she supports an oppressive idea that your property must be licensed and registered with the government, and that by extension you only own and operate it with their permission, is not an evil woman. She wants what most people want, to feed their family and pay their bills. She doesn't see that her paycheck comes from money stolen from her neighbors, and if you pointed it out, she'd say, “Well that's just tax money.” Just tax money. People say it everyday as though that justifies everything.
Even those charged with using violence on behalf of the state, law enforcement and military personnel, are not generally evil. They believe as they have been taught. That they are the protectors. That they are doing right. That they stand against evil. And often they do. When a cop kills a murderer to defend the innocent, he has stood against evil. But when he pulls a person over for failing to display their license plates, arrests that person, impounds the vehicle, and writes the person a fine, he has done evil. He doesn't know it, and wouldn't see it, but it's there none the less.
Most people can be reached. You must simply sit down with them, listen to their fears, and explain the situation. They don't always come around immediately, but if they are objective and honest, and seek truth above all else, they will eventually. There is simply no other logical consequence. Only those blinded by emotion could come to any conclusion other than a stateless society.
If uninstigated violence is inherently wrong. If theft is wrong. If slavery is wrong. If man has the right to create his own life with his own hands, free from the oppression of others, than there is only one solution. Half measures are a compromise with something we know to be wrong. There can be no justification for rape and murder, no matter how dire the consequences, nor how mitigated the act. If evil is wrong, than any evil, in any measure is equally so. There can be no question of degrees where upon doing evil becomes doing good. If we are truly to be free, we must be wholly free. We must put aside any state, and all states. One may be better than another, but none are truly righteous. Only individuals, in a perfect state of freedom, oppressing none, can be truly righteous.
We can be truly righteous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Further, I told you at the beginning that no answer would suit the committed ideologue. That is still true. Many people support the state for many different reasons, and to some, no alternative, no matter how rational and well reasoned, no matter how their interests could be served, no matter how plainly you paint the image of their suffering, could sway them to deny it.
I believe that people support state authority for many reasons, but at their most basic, I believe these reasons can be summarized in four motivations.
The first is simple ignorance. I don't meant that in a derogatory sense, nor to imply a lack of intelligence or education. What I mean to say is that most people have either never been confronted with, or never even imagined, the idea of a stateless society, except perhaps in the most limited “Mad Max” sense of the concept. It's not that these are irrational or unintelligent people, they simply haven't looked at the issues yet. These people are the easiest to reach, you must simply present the cases for and against the state, and they are able to come to the conclusion on their own.
The second reason people support the state is out of base self interest. They are getting something from the existence of the state and so seek to maintain the status quo. They are not necessarily bad people, or even greedy people, but they believe they profit in some way from the state. This can range from welfare mothers to corporate executives, there is no social class which holds the monopoly on this position. These people see their lives as improved by state action, and so will cling tenaciously to their benefactor. These people can be reached. You must simply show them in a convincing way how their lives would be improved free from theft and violence. Just as no social class is singular in their view of the state as their provider, so too is no social class unique in their suffering under the weight of government authority. We all suffer the theft of wealth from the economy. We all suffer when innocent individuals are lost to the war on drugs, or poverty, or terror. How many innovations or works of art have we lost because the government stole the wealth of those who would have created them? How many philosophers and scientists have we lost because their ancestors were killed by government violence before they were conceived? All are punished.
The third reason people support the state is fear. They are afraid of being preyed upon. They are afraid of their fellow man. They are afraid of responsibility. They are afraid of being self reliant. They are afraid of being unique. And so they turn their sovereign authority over to others. I've heard people say “humanity isn't ready to be free from subjugation.” I've heard people say “If I had a gun, I know I'd be irresponsible with it, so you shouldn't have one either.” This kind of thinking is irrational. They are so confined by their fears, that they blindly accept oppression and domination for some measure of perceived security. These people will be far more difficult to convince, because their position is not based in logic. You can't argue or educate or enlighten them out of this hole. You can attempt to show how their security would be vastly improved, and you can attempt to address the root of their fear, but since they are constrained by emotion and not reason, there is only so much you can do for them. We must teach our children to act on logic, not on feelings, this is the only way we can someday address those who would sacrifice everything, and everyone, to their passions.
The final reason people support the state is simple evil. They see the state as a means of gaining power over others, and they pursue that means as far as they can. They relish in the ability to crush hope and life and justify it all by hiding behind the morality of the majority. It's ok to hold slaves, because everyone agrees, except the slaves of course, but they don't get a vote. It's ok to put people in prison camps because we were elected to defend the nation. It's ok to imprison millions of non violent Americans because most people don't agree with their hobbies. Like sadists, these people find gratification in the suffering of others. They can not be reached. They are beyond reason, beyond emotion, and beyond compassion. There can be no compromise with evil.
I don't mean to imply that everyone who supports vice laws or terrorist internment or other forms of government oppression are evil. I believe that like all support of the state, their behavior can be generally ascribed to the four previous motivations. Certainly some are evil, but some are afraid, or gain from the system, or simply don't know any better.
I believe that most people fall into the first category, with the majority of those remaining falling into the second. There are a small amount which fall into the third, but they are mostly individual beneficiaries of state action. The fourth category is the most vile, but also the most limited. There are very few people, even amongst our government, who are truly evil. The woman working at the DMV, though she supports an oppressive idea that your property must be licensed and registered with the government, and that by extension you only own and operate it with their permission, is not an evil woman. She wants what most people want, to feed their family and pay their bills. She doesn't see that her paycheck comes from money stolen from her neighbors, and if you pointed it out, she'd say, “Well that's just tax money.” Just tax money. People say it everyday as though that justifies everything.
Even those charged with using violence on behalf of the state, law enforcement and military personnel, are not generally evil. They believe as they have been taught. That they are the protectors. That they are doing right. That they stand against evil. And often they do. When a cop kills a murderer to defend the innocent, he has stood against evil. But when he pulls a person over for failing to display their license plates, arrests that person, impounds the vehicle, and writes the person a fine, he has done evil. He doesn't know it, and wouldn't see it, but it's there none the less.
Most people can be reached. You must simply sit down with them, listen to their fears, and explain the situation. They don't always come around immediately, but if they are objective and honest, and seek truth above all else, they will eventually. There is simply no other logical consequence. Only those blinded by emotion could come to any conclusion other than a stateless society.
If uninstigated violence is inherently wrong. If theft is wrong. If slavery is wrong. If man has the right to create his own life with his own hands, free from the oppression of others, than there is only one solution. Half measures are a compromise with something we know to be wrong. There can be no justification for rape and murder, no matter how dire the consequences, nor how mitigated the act. If evil is wrong, than any evil, in any measure is equally so. There can be no question of degrees where upon doing evil becomes doing good. If we are truly to be free, we must be wholly free. We must put aside any state, and all states. One may be better than another, but none are truly righteous. Only individuals, in a perfect state of freedom, oppressing none, can be truly righteous.
We can be truly righteous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Scale of Economies part IV
Well, there is actually ample historical precedence for how this would be accomplished. When credit cards first achieved widespread usage in America, there were no stores accepting them. The credit card was invented before there were signs in every window proclaiming “We accept all major credit cards.” How was this possible? How could a private means of exchange become liquid?
By the provider of that means of exchange offering certain benefits to merchants willing to accept it. In this case, credit card companies offer guaranteed payment on debt, and simplified transactions. They even offer the less obvious benefit of encouraging customers to spend more money than they may otherwise by divorcing the expense from the point of sale. Because of the money illusion, customers are more willing to swipe their card for one hundred dollars, and send a hundred dollar check to the bank later, than they are to remove five twenty dollar bills from their wallet for the same purchase.
These may not seem like incredible benefits to you, but look around. What major company doesn't accept credit cards these days. By offering a few simple and inexpensive benefits to merchants, credit card companies have convinced nearly everyone to accept their private means of exchange, and even to pay a fee to do so.
Private currencies could do the same. They could offer benefits to merchants such as, guaranteed exchange in any currency of the merchants choice for their currency, or even offering to discount their currency to merchants who agree to accept it by 1%. While that may not seem like much, imagine what a business could do with a 1% increase in operating funds over the course of a year. The company providing the currency would make the expense back when everyone decided to buy and use their currency because of the vast number of merchants willing to accept it.
Merchants either accepting or requiring a variety of different currencies wouldn't be a major burden on the consumer either. Consider that regardless of your individual bank, all companies that accept checks will accept your check. This isn't because they know your bank and have an agreement with them specifically. It's because banks have agreements with each other to honor debts and credits. This is done through clearing houses who oversee the financial transactions. This system would continue to exist.
And if you used automatic deposit and withdrawal from your bank account? Banks that wanted your business would offer services where they would convert your currency to the currencies accepted by your creditors at the most favorable exchange rate to you. Any bank that didn't offer this service would run the risk of losing their customers to one that did.
So liquidity isn't really an issue either. Private local currencies, such as the Ithaca Hour, have no problem encouraging local companies to accept them as means of exchange. In fact, companies are happy to do so, because it increases their business and frees up other forms of currency for trade outside the community.
What other concerns do people have, now that we've addressed fungibility, liquidity, and stability? Well, what if the company providing the currency goes bankrupt? Would that leave the bearers of their currency penniless?
Any reputable private currency company would make their business and management practices open to the public and highly transparent. Any company that didn't would automatically be viewed with skepticism and avoided by most customers. In fact, some private currency companies already do this and as a result, the well managed companies are able to increase market share and stability. If consumers saw their currency provider struggling, they would have an incentive, and more importantly an opportunity, to take their business elsewhere. An opportunity you don't have under the current fiat money system.
Additionally, competitors who recognized a failing currency provider could offer incentives to his customers to move over to their currency, such as offering to exchange his currency for his competitors at 105% value. Customers would be only to happy to switch over to his currency for a 5% increase in their holdings. Again, this already happens between banks who offer financial incentives to their customers to close their checking accounts with their competitors and open new accounts with them. These aren't ground breaking concepts, their already in practice.
In reality, private currencies already exist in the form of private credit cards, checking accounts, local currencies, and electronic money transmitters. These are real private means of exchange, they just aren't generally thought of in those terms. They aren't a fairy tale or a myth, and the systems for their viability are already in place. The only real difference is that most of them are backed by fiat money instead of real commodities, and that change would only be for the better.
Governments don't want private currencies because in order to be viable they would have to be stable and resist inflation, and that doesn't allow for them to steal the wealth and leave the people empty handed. So they want you to be scared. Hopefully now you're less scared and more equipped to consider the idea of private currencies and stateless economies. Hopefully you can now take a rational view of how they would work, and what you stand to gain. Hopefully now you have begun to think about what you want in a currency, and who's offering to fill your market demand. Once we educate the uneducated, only the truly evil will stand in the way of rational thought.
That will be the easy part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
By the provider of that means of exchange offering certain benefits to merchants willing to accept it. In this case, credit card companies offer guaranteed payment on debt, and simplified transactions. They even offer the less obvious benefit of encouraging customers to spend more money than they may otherwise by divorcing the expense from the point of sale. Because of the money illusion, customers are more willing to swipe their card for one hundred dollars, and send a hundred dollar check to the bank later, than they are to remove five twenty dollar bills from their wallet for the same purchase.
These may not seem like incredible benefits to you, but look around. What major company doesn't accept credit cards these days. By offering a few simple and inexpensive benefits to merchants, credit card companies have convinced nearly everyone to accept their private means of exchange, and even to pay a fee to do so.
Private currencies could do the same. They could offer benefits to merchants such as, guaranteed exchange in any currency of the merchants choice for their currency, or even offering to discount their currency to merchants who agree to accept it by 1%. While that may not seem like much, imagine what a business could do with a 1% increase in operating funds over the course of a year. The company providing the currency would make the expense back when everyone decided to buy and use their currency because of the vast number of merchants willing to accept it.
Merchants either accepting or requiring a variety of different currencies wouldn't be a major burden on the consumer either. Consider that regardless of your individual bank, all companies that accept checks will accept your check. This isn't because they know your bank and have an agreement with them specifically. It's because banks have agreements with each other to honor debts and credits. This is done through clearing houses who oversee the financial transactions. This system would continue to exist.
And if you used automatic deposit and withdrawal from your bank account? Banks that wanted your business would offer services where they would convert your currency to the currencies accepted by your creditors at the most favorable exchange rate to you. Any bank that didn't offer this service would run the risk of losing their customers to one that did.
So liquidity isn't really an issue either. Private local currencies, such as the Ithaca Hour, have no problem encouraging local companies to accept them as means of exchange. In fact, companies are happy to do so, because it increases their business and frees up other forms of currency for trade outside the community.
What other concerns do people have, now that we've addressed fungibility, liquidity, and stability? Well, what if the company providing the currency goes bankrupt? Would that leave the bearers of their currency penniless?
Any reputable private currency company would make their business and management practices open to the public and highly transparent. Any company that didn't would automatically be viewed with skepticism and avoided by most customers. In fact, some private currency companies already do this and as a result, the well managed companies are able to increase market share and stability. If consumers saw their currency provider struggling, they would have an incentive, and more importantly an opportunity, to take their business elsewhere. An opportunity you don't have under the current fiat money system.
Additionally, competitors who recognized a failing currency provider could offer incentives to his customers to move over to their currency, such as offering to exchange his currency for his competitors at 105% value. Customers would be only to happy to switch over to his currency for a 5% increase in their holdings. Again, this already happens between banks who offer financial incentives to their customers to close their checking accounts with their competitors and open new accounts with them. These aren't ground breaking concepts, their already in practice.
In reality, private currencies already exist in the form of private credit cards, checking accounts, local currencies, and electronic money transmitters. These are real private means of exchange, they just aren't generally thought of in those terms. They aren't a fairy tale or a myth, and the systems for their viability are already in place. The only real difference is that most of them are backed by fiat money instead of real commodities, and that change would only be for the better.
Governments don't want private currencies because in order to be viable they would have to be stable and resist inflation, and that doesn't allow for them to steal the wealth and leave the people empty handed. So they want you to be scared. Hopefully now you're less scared and more equipped to consider the idea of private currencies and stateless economies. Hopefully you can now take a rational view of how they would work, and what you stand to gain. Hopefully now you have begun to think about what you want in a currency, and who's offering to fill your market demand. Once we educate the uneducated, only the truly evil will stand in the way of rational thought.
That will be the easy part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
