Anarchists, as mentioned in part one, are essentially pragmatic people, grounded in reality, as opposed to the people wallowing in the delusion that the state provides some value of some sort. We view reality and say, "The world can be a wicked place, and that is good to know. How can we make a buck off it?" While those who live to be ever more dominated by the state wring their hands repeating the mantra "if we can only get the right person in office, if we can only get the right person in office..." For state-queens, it's all about anxiety and the mantra. For anarchists, it is all about, "Well, ok, this is tradable..." As in the example of the real estate transaction in part one.
Now anarchists do desire a stateless polity, and have workable concrete plans. And we know they will not be accepted. We also know we can do better anyway, in certain concrete situations. For example, the anarchists among those who founded the USA worked it so the federal government (called the general government until the 1950s) would be funded strictly by duties on imports. And to drive home the point, the expressly forbid duties on exports from the USA in the US Constitution. That'll show 'em! If the rich want to raise taxes for big government, since what was being imported was largely luxuries, then the rich would have to pay for big government themselves. Good idea, but it did not last long, because the hamiltonians overwhelmed the good guys.
Can we try something similar today, a structural means for keeping the state at bay? Here is an idea, but first an observation.
Can anyone cite, at any time in history, a single instance when a government has owned land and used it profitably? I don't think anyone can. We can look at national parks, created to put a halo on stealing lands from the Indians, to city parks, to ocean beaches, to freeway systems, to vast swathes of wilderness today, or any other lands in history in which government ownership was beneficial. If the land is owned by the government, we get wild politically-induced misallocation as a result of bribery, graft, etc.
Especially in hyper-progressive countries like the USSR, PRC and USA, pollution, which particularly annoys anarchists, is worse. Government ownership is detrimental.
In natural law, property is owned when and to the extent you can mix your labor with land and natural resources. Now, what if actual "ownership of land" was not possible? What if everyone had to get along on what land there was. What if all of the land was owned collegially, as with the concept of the first nations idea of man's relationship to land. In the Seattle area, Sealth endeavored to make alliances with the immigrants into his territory, and so no doubt he would welcome some orderly system of leases on land, a immigrant innovation.
Given all of that, and the experience of on of the freest paces on earth, Hong Kong, where land cannot be owned (except for the Church of England) what if we were to set aside and First Nations territory where there could not be title to land, only leases.
If we were to set aside an autonomous region under a "one country/two systems" regime (and Michigan looks ripe) we might create a more prosperous, peaceful and just regime.
Where is your solution?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Now anarchists do desire a stateless polity, and have workable concrete plans. And we know they will not be accepted. We also know we can do better anyway, in certain concrete situations. For example, the anarchists among those who founded the USA worked it so the federal government (called the general government until the 1950s) would be funded strictly by duties on imports. And to drive home the point, the expressly forbid duties on exports from the USA in the US Constitution. That'll show 'em! If the rich want to raise taxes for big government, since what was being imported was largely luxuries, then the rich would have to pay for big government themselves. Good idea, but it did not last long, because the hamiltonians overwhelmed the good guys.
Can we try something similar today, a structural means for keeping the state at bay? Here is an idea, but first an observation.
Can anyone cite, at any time in history, a single instance when a government has owned land and used it profitably? I don't think anyone can. We can look at national parks, created to put a halo on stealing lands from the Indians, to city parks, to ocean beaches, to freeway systems, to vast swathes of wilderness today, or any other lands in history in which government ownership was beneficial. If the land is owned by the government, we get wild politically-induced misallocation as a result of bribery, graft, etc.
Especially in hyper-progressive countries like the USSR, PRC and USA, pollution, which particularly annoys anarchists, is worse. Government ownership is detrimental.
In natural law, property is owned when and to the extent you can mix your labor with land and natural resources. Now, what if actual "ownership of land" was not possible? What if everyone had to get along on what land there was. What if all of the land was owned collegially, as with the concept of the first nations idea of man's relationship to land. In the Seattle area, Sealth endeavored to make alliances with the immigrants into his territory, and so no doubt he would welcome some orderly system of leases on land, a immigrant innovation.
Given all of that, and the experience of on of the freest paces on earth, Hong Kong, where land cannot be owned (except for the Church of England) what if we were to set aside and First Nations territory where there could not be title to land, only leases.
If we were to set aside an autonomous region under a "one country/two systems" regime (and Michigan looks ripe) we might create a more prosperous, peaceful and just regime.
Where is your solution?
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment