|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 39TransitionsWritten by Darrell Anderson. If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them. Basuto proverb, used by Robert Ruark in Something of Value Collapsing the philosophies of statism and the political means of sustaining energy flows will not magically resolve the many conflicts among humans. A critical mass of the global population must be educated to understand the complexities of social and legal systems. The Soviet Union is a recent example. After several generations of living as political slaves, the Russian people were unfamiliar with how to rebuild their communities after coercive political communism collapsed. The result was predictable. Bullies, gangs, thugs, and organized criminals quickly filled the void left by the politicians. Americans can expect much the same during any sudden collapse. Education is important to provide a peaceable transition. Education and knowledge offsets ignorance, emotions, and irrational responses. Bullies, gangs, thugs, and organized criminals always will exist to some degree, but their efforts can be negated if a sufficient number of people are knowledgeable and refuse to surrender to illicit demands and false doctrines — and if the underlying principles guiding human action are modified to benefit all people rather than a privileged few. Few individuals would argue that the social and political mess seen today happened overnight. Likewise, unless there is a sensational shift of momentous proportions in intellectual and ideological thinking, few people doubt that a state-free environment will arrive in one smooth motion. More than likely such a transition will happen in stages. Many individuals want to undo the mess they find themselves, unfortunately too many people simply want to eliminate the mess with a magical wand. Humans live in a complex real world, and if people hope to successfully eliminate slavery, they must do so in an orderly and purposeful manner. Disorderly or bloody revolution will only provide opportunity for new tyrants to replace the old. Too many people currently depend upon the coercive philosophy of statism for survival and sustenance — and that is the main reason why dismantling statism is difficult to achieve. Most people today never have experienced a social system founded upon self-reliance.[1] Today, coerced wealth redistribution and forcibly redirecting energy flows is status quo. Reversing the process of the past few hundred years need not be violent or slow, but will be painful if reversal is performed in any “instantaneous” manner or without forethought. Such action tends to leave people abandoned on the street. Transitioning to a state-free world is just as important as establishing a state-free world. Perhaps tomorrow humans will succeed in eliminating statism, but to get there resources need to be returned to the people. People need to once again taste ownership of their labor and property. Enjoying the fruits of labor and property are the cornerstones of liberty. People retaining and controlling their own resources marks the beginning of the end of statism. Restoring resources means less dependence upon statism. Less dependence means less legal plunder. Once people embark on that road a “limited government” might be possible. Once establishing a “limited government,” a state-free world is possible; but short of a miracle, simply abolishing statism in one fell swoop more than likely will not succeed, and possibly will make the situation worse. Take a look once more at the Soviet Union — or Afghanistan or Iraq. The coercive wealth redistribution process cannot be peaceably eliminated without first providing people an opportunity to taste the fruits of their own labor — and keeping those fruits. Destroying the political system first and then telling people they are free will result in the beast returning from the ashes, more than likely in the form of ruthless dictators, gangs, and mobs. The concepts of free association and voluntary exchange might then be truly destroyed. The secret is to get people back on their feet so they can escape the system peaceably. Slaying Leviathan begins with each individual becoming self-governing. An attitude readjustment is necessary. This adjustment is philosophical and intellectual. People must learn that perpetual motion is impossible and that when they seek to create virtual perpetual motion by capturing the labor of other people, they are only enslaving themselves too. Statists and politicians must learn that their philosophy is no longer are wanted or needed. People must become more self-sufficient — at least with respect to being dependent upon coerced wealth redistribution. The modern world’s division of labor has placed almost all people into a position of dependency upon one another, but eliminating statism from that process is what matters. Returning resources means allowing people to keep more of the wealth they help create; allowing people to save, invest, or capitalize new ventures; and possibly most importantly, helping people become debt free. Thus, education plays a primary role in reversing the destructive statist process. Education takes time to harvest fruits, typically a generation or two. Sometimes longer. That implies that one avenue of change is to use the current political system and societal processes to start returning resources to people. Humans generally try to sustain their energy flows by producing as efficiently as possible. That effort includes designing tools and technology to help augment and multiply the efforts of direct labor. A strict definition of the word capitalism describes only a process, a process of reinvesting some previously produced wealth — capital — back into the production process of further producing wealth. If humans are to continue progressing materially then the simple process of capitalism must continue. However, the coercive manipulation of capitalism must end. In practice, “capitalism” has become a mantra for infinite growth and never-ending profit. Infinite growth within a finite system is impossible. Something has to give. Human conflict is a result. The goal of reinvesting capital to improve material progress must be from within a philosophy of sustainable growth, not infinite growth and absurd gains derived at the expense of others. Many humans today incorrectly embrace that life is an “all against all” struggle for existence. The foundations for this fallacy was laid in the early stages of the Enlightenment period when René Descartes and Isaac Newton popularized a mechanistic perspective of human nature and the universe while using a reductionist approach for scientific study. Using that foundation Thomas Hobbes offered the world a flawed interpretation of human action. Although conflict is possible in human relationships, cooperation tends to be the norm. Hobbes’ flawed conclusion denied that observation. Then add the uncertainty and fear of Thomas Malthus’ population dynamics. In 1798, in An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus proposed that human population would increase geometrically (exponentially) and food production would increase only arithmetically (linearly). That difference in growth would lead to massive starvation, a struggle for existence, and open doors for violent conflict. Although Malthus’ idea is conceivable that human population could exceed the carrying capacity of the planet, history has shown that his geometric/arithmetic presumptions were flawed. Later, numerous misinterpretations of Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection added to the confusion. Both Malthus’ and Darwin’s theories were popularized as a struggle of existence and the “survival of the fittest.” The phrase “survival of the fittest” is attributed to the 19th century philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer and not Darwin. In the Darwinian sense the phrase does not describe destructive competition but the ability to adapt. The phrases “survival of the fittest” and “struggle for existence” are not necessarily the same because adaptation includes cooperation. The modern colloquial usage often means lawlessness and “might makes right.” Add the problem of reification, where people convert ideas into living entities. “The state” and “society” do not exist as living beings, they are concepts only. Yet, attributing living qualities to such ideas tends to mask the true nature of social problems — humans. Then throw in massive ignorance — the absence of knowledge. Deceit is easy through ignorance. People who choose the political means of survival often are cunning and capable of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Only reflective thought is capable of stopping such efforts. Through willful ignorance and deceptive propaganda most people never become aware of the flawed presumptions and equations driving modern social systems. Understanding these flaws opens the door to many possibilities. Address the flawed equations and the treadmill everybody is on suddenly spins more slowly. The foundation was thus laid for a philosophy and interpretation that destructive competition is “normal” and “natural” and that statism is therefore justified as Hobbes had proposed. That destructive attitude manifests in two modern mechanisms currently used to distort the physical process of capitalism into a politicized dog-eat-dog world:
By design, modern currency systems introduce numerous social and legal conflicts. Nationalized currency systems create far too much social tension for the nominal perceived advantages. Despite the challenge, humans eventually must find ways to provide for their individual and aggregate material progress without depending upon manipulated currency systems. A root cause analysis demands eliminating national currencies and letting people choose freely how they prefer to exchange wealth. In the long-term, such a goal is prudent. However, short of a complete social collapse there is no direct way to quickly abolish the present monetary system.[2] There is the further challenge of changing the habits of all people accustomed to using a commonly known currency. Despite the defects, the short-term focus must not be on eliminating national currencies but on stabilization. Three straightforward solutions would provide immediate relief within the modern political and exchange system:
These solutions help remedy several nagging problems:
Although “parchment barriers” have proven to be no barrier at all to those people who seek the political means of sustaining energy flows, a constitutional amendment provides transitional philosophical relief by closing the politician’s ability to create new currency backed by no wealth. The simple act of implementing such measures will serve as educational tools. Politicians must be kicked out of the counterfeiting business that inflates and erodes future exchange power. Primarily that means ending the illusion of central banking. Without the mechanism of central banking politicians are discouraged from inflating the currency to pay for empty political promises. Politicians also would be severely limited in buying and promoting weapons of mass destruction as well as continuing policies of foreign intervention. Central bankers would be reduced to providing simple clearinghouse functions. Because this mutually shared utility greases the world’s wheels of exchange, no individual or group should be able to monopolize that currency. No individual should receive special or privileged benefits from its existence, other than being provided a means to help exchange goods and services. Because currency represents and unfinished exchange of wealth and hence, future energy flows, the old adage of “follow the money trail” takes on profound new meaning. Manipulating a monetary exchange system to create privilege and inequitable advantage is only one of the many ways people try to create virtual perpetual motion. Eliminate the power to borrow and, to fund their own pockets, politicians and bureaucrats are left with taxation, selling assets, and providing true goods and services through user fees. There are natural limits to taxation and selling assets, and providing true services must face competitors. Eliminating the Federal Reserve System certainly will inhibit the politicians’ ability to create currency backed by no wealth. However, eliminating the Federal Reserve System will not completely provide monetary reform. The majority of the so-called national “public” debt is owned by private investors. Eliminating the Fed removes the counterfeiting machine but eliminates only that portion of the debt “owned” by the Fed system. That portion of the debt is largely bookkeeping transactions, easily extinguished, and not worth fighting over. Yet, as long as politicians possess an alleged “power” to borrow, borrow they will. The “public” debt problem will not go away through conventional thinking or eliminating the Fed. The current system needs new relational rules to move people through the transition. Eliminate the illusion and ignorance that politicians can borrow without production. Introducing local currencies provides competition among currencies and requires the politician’s national scrip to maintain stable future exchange power. Local bankers could issue local currencies when providing local loans. Business owners also could circulate their own currencies (frequent flyer miles and grocery coupons already illustrate this concept). The national currency would circulate only when the politicians and bureaucrats circulate their scrip, and will help the exchange process across local boundaries, but the alternative of using local currencies should prevail to provide stability. All currencies, regardless of origination, must compete with one another. More important than changing the banking system at the top national level, is that the concept of compound interest must become a socially unacceptable idea — a socially condemned, unenforceable, and unconscionable contract. Compound interest is by far the most damaging element of the current instability in modern monetary systems. Eliminating compound interest should happen immediately with no turnover or phase-out period considered. A concurrent global rejection of the idea means everybody is treated the same and experiences the same immediate dramatic relief because in the current system. Because of the recursive embedded effects of compound interest, everybody is both a creditor and debtor held prisoner by this flawed concept. The concept of compound interest must be abolished and replaced with straightforward linear administrative fees. Eliminating compound interest in such a manner does not eliminate the original contractual debt, but only the exponential compound interest. In the long run compound interest is mathematically impossible to sustain, creates an unstable exchange system, and enslaves everybody. Conflict is, and always will be the final result. Compound interest is a process whereby individuals try to create debt out of debt, to create virtual perpetual motion and minimize their own necessary production efforts. From the simple and straightforward perspective that all of life is a process of sustaining finite energy flows, the concept of compound interest to create virtual perpetual debt becomes untenable. The concept of compound interest enslaves the entire global population into unsustainable overproduction and necessarily requires unsustainable overconsumption to satisfy the aggregate flow of wealth. Something has to give. There should be a proportional linear relationship between production and debt, not an exponential relationship. Capital is a feedback mechanism with respect to the flow of wealth. In the modern world the politically privileged bankers enable capitalization through the political power of instantaneous currency creation. Thus, there probably isn’t a single aspect of human life that is unaffected by the modern method of capitalization because the exponential cost of compound interest is passed to everybody. Technology, science, industry, equipment, and tools have progressed to the point that collectively humans need now provide only a fraction of the productive labor of ancestors to sustain the fundamental needs of the entire global population. Humans now produce in an incredibly efficient manner. Thus, these improvements have solved one of the great challenges of human existence — mere survival and sustaining energy flows. That should be wonderful news because everyone should be able to focus more on creative labor and less on productive labor. However, that efficiency also means “total employment” is no longer feasible or possible. People do not receive this news joyfully because with reduced employment, many people no longer are able to continue the “debt servicing” game created by monetary inflation and compound interest. Adding to this fact of reduced employment, is the people of many developing regions are now competing to provide goods and services and compared to westerners, embrace a dramatically reduced cost of living — thereby allowing these relative newcomers to underbid many western workers for jobs and contracts. Wages and salaries in western communities will continue to decline for several decades until wages and salaries equalize globally. However, under the current system, the “debt servicing” will not decline and conflict will increase. The solution is to end the processes of currency inflation and compound interest. Because of the long-running but flawed concept that currency is wealth, a primary motivator for the past few hundred years has been the accumulation of currency — the concept of profit. Yet, as scientists, engineers, and technologists continually increase and improve the efficiency of human production, profit margins continue to dwindle. Humans today produce at a fraction of the comparative cost and labor of ancestors. An obvious tension today is this push for increased profits versus improved efficiency that necessarily decreases profits. The problem is the confusion that currency and wealth are the same thing. Compound interest exasperates this confusion in an exponential manner. Monetary inflation and compound interest embrace positive feedback and produce negative systems. By definition, negative systems are inherently unstable. Scientists and technologists call such systems thermal runaway or avalanching systems. Such systems are inherently unsustainable and often collapse or reach natural limits. Theoretically, negative systems can be controlled, but the control mechanism must be incredibly responsive — almost instantaneous. How does one stop an avalanche once the snow begins sliding down the mountain? The only realistic response is to wait for natural limits (the bottom of the mountain). Likewise, exercising such a controlled response is impossible for any realistic monetary system. Monetary systems cannot be manipulated or controlled artificially. Without addressing these two prime movers of social disorder, discussing other reforms is a fruitless exercise. For the long term, several additional solutions would promote a more equitable approach toward cooperative mutual survival and provide dramatic relief:
As long as politicians are directly involved in redistributing wealth, no monetary policy solution will succeed unless associated with fiscal policy reform.[3] Monetary and fiscal reform must go hand-in-hand. The current income tax system must be abolished if people are to begin standing on their own feet. That process is a drain on everybody, both in the regressive nature and because of the complete invasion of privacy. Some studies indicate that the embedded hidden effects of the income tax adds approximately 30 percent or more to the cost of goods and services. People waste billions of dollars and billions of hours of time supporting this nightmare — time and money that could be put to beneficial use elsewhere. The entire process encourages each individual to pass the buck to sustain energy flows. That process increases social disorder because the rules are arbitrary and discourage meaningful production. Inequities of wealth never can be resolved by destroying the means of production. There is a challenge with simply eliminating the income tax. Approximately 80 percent of the federal budget is on auto-pilot with respect to payments. Many state budgets are in similar predicaments. Some of those costs can be reduced, such as reducing military spending by ending the current costly and hostile interventionist foreign policy, but much of that budget is more or less fixed. Those payments often are referred to as political “entitlements.” As always, “civil rights” are not true rights but political privileges. These privileges were not created through free association and voluntary exchange but through the political illusion of fiat declaration. Therefore, understanding human nature and short of a repeat of Runnymede, legislators are not going to easily abolish the income tax. Too many people depend upon those auto-pilot payments. Terminating those payments without first providing opportunities for those same people to get on their feet would be an open invitation to chaos and disorder. Likewise, the general property tax enslaves every human where that tax is collected. Humans cannot live without ties to the land. Everybody is relegated to a role of being coerced into renting their own property. People are forced to forever produce, not to supply their own needs and wants, but to supply the wants of politicians and bureaucrats — those people who prefer to live using the political means of survival. Understand that replacing these taxation processes does not have to be “revenue neutral” or provide a one-for-one exchange. First eliminate the root causes for the high costs of administration and replacements become much smaller. Immediately terminating the politician’s ability to borrow ends the accumulation of additional debt. Immediately ending the philosophy of compound interest ends the nonsense of “debt servicing.” Both solutions provide effective and meaningful reform toward eliminating the income and property tax and the cost of supporting many auto-pilot payments. A third problem with taxation is that possibly 80 percent or more of the various goods and services provided by the politicians’ wealth redistribution scheme easily could be provided be private providers. Thus, simply migrating those goods and services to the private market dramatically reduces costs and hence, the cost of taxation. This three-pronged approach changes the face of the problem. What remains becomes a more palatable discussion. By definition, no tax honors the concept of consent. The only way to truly honor consent is to ensure there are no consequences for not collecting or paying. Of the current existing methods, many people propose that a broad-based sales tax causes less damage than the existing tax models. Often many people label a sales tax as a consumption tax, but the phrase is misleading. Because only people can be taxed, all taxation is a tax on production because people must first produce before they can consume. A sales tax does not fully honor consent because the incredibly high division of labor requires almost all people to participate in retail exchanges. Such a tax arguably provides some degree of consent in that people are taxed only when they choose to participate in a taxable transaction conducted in commerce for profit. People also can avoid that tax merely by directly exchanging wealth for wealth rather than using a common medium of exchange. If some obvious essentials and necessities are exempted from a sales tax, then a weak argument can be made that a sales tax is constitutional and somewhat honors consent. A weak argument, but a much better one than provided by the existing income or property tax systems. At least an up-front out-of-pocket sales tax much better exposes the true cost of the entire coerced wealth redistribution game. Should people be in favor of exchanging the income and property tax for broad-based sales taxes? The trade is merely exchanging one form of iniquity for another. All taxation is coerced theft under the color of law. Transitionally, however, should people oppose replacing the income and property taxes with a sales tax? The income and property tax must go, including any “single-tax” or “ground-rent” tax levied on land (humans cannot live without ties to the land), but there must be a rational orderly transition. No tax reform discussion will resolve anything unless the problem of borrowing and compound interest are confronted. Through those efforts, once people who depend upon auto-pilot payments are on their feet, a sales tax then might become a transitional replacement. Only then. Remember that if the tribulations of inflation and compound interest are removed from the discussion then the rate of any tax becomes much lower than what current advocates propose. Much lower. Eliminating the hidden and embedded costs of monetary inflation and compound interest dramatically reduces the price of everything. Everything. Yet, a sales tax is still a tax — a coerced taking of property. The more obvious and credible solution is that after eliminating the politicians’ ability to borrow, eliminating compound interest, and transferring many goods and services to the private sector, the arguably remaining “public needs” can supported with true user fees. The magical element of such an approach is only those people who truly seek those various goods and services actually pay for them. With respect to those auto-pilot payments, one of the more glaring challenges is the dependency upon the pay-as-you-go Social Security wealth redistribution scheme. Many individuals have labeled this system a Ponzi scheme, and the pay-as-you-go structure certainly provides justification for that label. There can be little doubt the current process must end. Unfortunately, approximately 25 to 30 percent of the population depends upon those monthly payments. Worse, in the next few years, millions more will become dependent upon the coerced wealth transfer scheme as baby-boomers begin mass retirements. Despite the repugnant nature of the current political process, a solution must come forth. Although a handful of individuals receiving such payments could integrate themselves back into the productive work force, many cannot and simply eliminating statism will not peaceably eliminate this challenge. There is no doubt family and charity will need to play a critical role, but the dependency problem still will exist even if every tax was eliminated and replaced with a user fee. Eliminating currency inflation and compound interest will help resolve this problem dramatically. Typical privatization proposals leave the statists and politicians in control. The entire social security philosophy must be abolished, and the challenge is how to move through that process in a manner that does not throw your grandmother out onto the street. That is why a prohibition against the politicians borrowing, and eliminating the concept of compound interest will go far toward true reform. Eliminating those two hidden costs of living dramatically changes the options available to everybody. Likewise, tariffs find no foundation in an environment of free association and voluntary exchange. However, tariffs cannot be eliminated overnight. Because tariffs provide protections to specific industries, those industries would be adversely affected, creating immediate disorder if tariffs protecting those industries disappeared overnight.[4] Like so many other messes, backing out of the tariff mess must be performed orderly. The key is to establish a graduated deadline when all tariffs are extinguished. The volatile concept of taxation must be addressed at a local level only. Taxation as practiced today exists primarily to coercively redistribute wealth from one class of people to another — with politicians and bureaucrats being the primary benefactors. If that redistribution is voluntary those payments are more appropriately called association fees. When collected involuntarily those fees are theft. People must be allowed to choose how they participate in their local communities. Such decisions cannot come from without. People also must be allowed to vote with their feet and move to different communities if they so desire. This does not mean within only existing political boundaries but across those boundaries too. There is little question that received political revenues cannot be reduced without first reducing expenses; and expenses can be reduced only by first returning resources to people. Coerced wealth redistribution is a proverbial snowball rolling down the hill. Providing relief within the monetary and banking systems is a good start, but other political and legal reforms are necessary too. Legal systems at all levels desperately need reform and should be reduced to a straightforward process of resolving true trespasses. Trespasses can be intentional (crimes) or unintentional (accidents). In either case, with true trespass there always is a bona fide victim and the potential for a true complainant. Restitution to the victim and restoration of the victim and trespasser must be the goal of any legal system. The primary goal of any legal system should be restoration and reconciliation. The initial stage of any legal dispute should be arbitration and mediation, not combat. What must disappear is the illusion of victimless crimes, as well as invisible parties through legal fictions and the “nanny state.” Local customary law must replace the nonsense of distant dictatorial statutory law. Formal legal codes must only acknowledge existing customary law, not create new law at the whim of the powers-that-be. Additionally, all adjudication decisions must be declaratory in nature. Judges must not have any enforcement powers. The right of enforcement belongs only to the awarded party. Additionally, the right of restitution must be socially recognized as a property right, and as with all property rights, can be exchanged, transferred, or sold. The concept of legal fictions must end, specifically the concepts of incorporation and recognizing corporations as “legal” persons. People incorporate political systems and then reify those corporations into living legal fictions whereby individuals can hide under the color of law to cause much damage yet remain unaccountable from accusations of trespass. Likewise, incorporating business ventures serves one primary purpose — to avoid or bypass legal liability and accountability. The primary purpose of the philosophy of incorporation is artificial political privilege, to bypass the natural processes of life and the natural processes of free association and voluntary exchange. Ending the legal fiction of incorporation does not mean the end of joint ownership, but only that ownership is no longer a legal fiction. Also impacting natural energy flows is political monopolization of land titles. Conflict will continue as long as that process is politicized and access to natural resources is artificially restricted. Although currently there is plenty of land to accommodate 6 billion people, the mechanics of peaceably distributing land titles among everybody is a challenge. However, most people should be convinced that the current “good old boy” privileged distribution process causes more harm than good. Ending the legal fiction of incorporation and compound interest will do much to alleviate the problems of land title distribution. Longer-term solutions require additional thought and action. The most important long-term change is education. Within that perspective, the current system of politically empowering third parties to create currency must end. People must learn how to negotiate, contract, and monetize their own debts directly. As long as political privilege enables third parties to create new currency, the old battle of “wage slavery” will continue because that is the mechanism through which large-scale politicized capitalization occurs. Through legal fictions of incorporation and creating massive amounts of currency, people are denied their natural right to the land and the natural right to sustain their energy flows because those processes allow for large-scale control of land and resources. The technology now exists for numerous intertied computerized barter and trading exchange systems, which necessarily avoids the need for third parties to create currency, and allows people to exchange directly. Also importantly, by denying this process of large-scale capitalization, modern warfare and purchasing weapons of mass destruction is stopped in its tracks. Because education is critical to meaningful reforms, the “public” school system as currently organized must be dramatically changed. Everybody must be able to choose how they pursue and educate themselves and the children they choose to bring into this world. The current education model serves only as a political propaganda system and coerced wealth redistribution mechanism. The way to kill any beast is to starve or slay it. Both solutions should be considered. In general, the property tax system must be eliminated — or in transition at least that portion that funds the statist school system — and parents must be allowed to seek alternate methods to educating their children. For many parents the “public” school system is not a means of education, but a glorified babysitter while parents work 60 to 80 hours every week to make ends meet. Eliminating currency inflation and compound interest, along with meaningful tax reform, allows parents to be more involved in their children’s’ lives and quashes concerns about eliminating the coerced “public” school system. The property tax must be eliminated because no human can live without ties to land. Such a tax enslaves all people at all times. The property tax system coerces home owners to rent their own property. Land titles today are not true titles but mere political privileges — a system of feudalism. To socially recognize land titles people should be willing to pay nominal annual or long-term title registration fees, and those registration services should be a part of free association and voluntary exchange, but people should not suffer eviction at gunpoint for not wanting to participate in local political systems. Another important issue is removing politicians and bureaucrats from monopolizing and regulating trades and commerce. Incorporation charters, tariffs, and regulation also encourage monopoly thinking. Eliminating politicians and bureaucrats from the monopoly racket does not mean monopolies never will exist, only that force and coercion cannot be used to prevent other people from trying to enter those markets. Another issue is the size of political societies. There can be no debate the United States political society attempts to cover too large a geographical area. Likewise with the size of typical states. There is almost no accountability in such vast sizes and there is too much diversity in opinions and worldviews, thereby creating much conflict. Political societies should exist through voluntary consent, but accountability and general agreement is impossible with the geographical areas of today. Certainly many states should be reduced in size to reduce conflict. Peaceful secession must become a strong topic discussed openly. There are 3,149 counties and parishes in the United States. Consider the effects if confederation was limited to those areas. That is, there were no states and no overall nation-state. A confederation of 3,149 counties would provide sufficient decentralization, allow for local autonomy and worldviews, yet provide ample opportunity to continue material progress, and encourage free association and voluntary exchange. Consider the decentralization effects if confederation was limited to townships and boroughs. Large metropolitan areas are candidates for additional peaceful separation. There is no reason not to have “city-states” or “city-counties.” Likewise, there is no reason why larger metropolitan areas cannot be subdivided into smaller contractual communities and neighborhoods. Typically, urban areas often are in disagreement with surrounding rural areas, and vice-versa — why not separate? Many large cities already possess distinct ethnic, religious, tribal, and economic communities that would do well once left alone to self-govern. Because of diverse beliefs and worldviews, the people within those communities become self-determining by their own definitions, and not to the opinions of people hundreds or thousands of miles away. Some individuals will argue that with tens of thousands of autonomous groups there will be too many coordination challenges because of opposing worldviews. However, look at the world today where coordination is coerced among people and look at the amount of conflict. Coordination challenges always will exist — always. Resolving coordination challenges through free association and voluntary exchange is a more peaceable way to face those challenges. History proves that force and coercion continually fail.[5] Force and coercion must be restricted to the realm of resolving true trespasses — and even then the primary focus should not be punishment but restoration. Returning resources to people also includes withdrawing all hostile military and political presence in foreign political territories. Consider the economic boom that would result with those people returning to local communities to produce useful products rather than destructive products. More importantly, consider the negative consequences of having troops abroad preventing other people from being self-determining. Let those people determine their own destiny and they then have little need or desire to attack Americans. The peaceful results would be dramatic. To be effective and reduce conflict, human social systems necessarily require fractionalization of the planet into small self-governing and self-determining communities. Without exception that change in system relational rules must apply to the world as a whole. Significant failure to conform to change by pockets of resistance will eternally be a source of continuing conflict. One world government or large-scale political systems are not the answer but the problem. Hence, we see continuing current and historical evidence of people trying to fractionalize,[6] but facing much resistance by people who prefer the political means of sustaining their energy flows. In the long-term the concepts of the nation-state and statism must die. The illusions of “common value systems” and the “great melting pot” are soundly rejected throughout the world — and always have been. People want to trade and exchange freely with one another but also want to be self-determining and self-governing. There are far too many differing and incompatible worldviews to coercively require a common political process. Free association and voluntary exchange must become primary elements guiding human action. The mechanics and structure of how each group of people decides to collectively regulate their own actions is a secondary issue, and the idea of a solitary, monolithic structure is not feasible. There always will be a need of administrative skills to coordinate certain activities, but that administration must be localized and discovered through free association and voluntary exchange. The primary issue is that people must be allowed to choose and be self-governing. The concept of the nation-state will survive as long as a privileged few are allowed to possess a monopoly on the fiscal and monetary systems. Break the politician’s ability to arbitrarily tax and to create currency, and thereafter massive large-scale wars, weapons of mass destruction, and domestic tyranny become incredibly difficult to obtain. Eliminate politically sanctioned monopoly banking, compound interest, and land title distribution, and the entire world becomes free to exchange freely and voluntarily. Eliminate legal fictions and boundaries become knowable. Every such effort reduces uncertainty and fear, which increases mutual survival and reduces conflict. History reveals repeatedly that among humans, for thousands of years persuasion and cooperation has been normal, and that force, coercion, and war is the exception.[7] A casual glance at history tends to reveal continual human warfare, but close observation reveals that conflict has been instigated by a minority element of the entire human social system. Throughout history the masses have lived in relative peace and cooperation. Material progress continues not because of statism, but in spite of. Political systems only impede material progress, not enhance. Only through massive ignorance and miseducation have these minorities been able to fool the majority. Thus, conflict and violence is the exception, not the rule, and practiced only by a few. The continuing problem always has been those few who prefer the political means of sustaining their energy flows, not the masses. In the modern era there should be little debate that conflict is almost always instigated by politicians, bureaucrats, the financial elite, and military proponents, not the general masses of humanity. Although conflict is always possible in the “struggle for existence,” observation reveals overwhelmingly that all animal species prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible. Even among carnivorous predators, those animals kill only when necessary, not continuously or for fun. The problem is the nation-state model. The nation-state model is a Hobbesian “all against all” model. The concept of the nation-state is nothing but “might makes right.” The nation-state model continually deprives people of:
Just as a lack of nutritional elements will cause physiological disorder, so too will a lack of certain social elements cause psychological disorder.[8] The innate need to sustain energy flows creates distinctive needs for travel, exchange, and meaningful protection. Begin resolving these primary problems and people begin to keep more of what they produce. Poverty and conflict begin to disappear. A state-free world is possible. Getting there requires some forethought and common sense. That is, do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Do not forget the goal — a state-free world, but achieved with a humane transition. Finis. Next: Chapter 40 — Tomorrow Is Only A Day Away Endnotes [1] de Jasay, The State, p. 5. [2] Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 327. [3] Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 327. [4] Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, “Who’s Protected by Tariffs?,” p. 83. [5] For many insights into how force and coercion continually fails, read Healing Our World In an Age of Aggression, Mary J. Ruwart, 2003, SunStar Press. [6] Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, pp. 293–300. [7] Kropotkin, Mutual Aid, in toto. [8] Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative, p. 334. |
||