One Law

Re-thinking governance. We only need one law - the Non-Aggression Principle - the foundation of libertarianism - to maximize justice, peace, and prosperity.

by

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, the number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. This staffing surge still exists today, but the promised benefits are nowhere to be seen.

Source: The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education

 

The source article is a great piece from Daniel J. Mitchell because it succinctly and effectively sums up what is wrong with public education; however, it ends there.

At some point, we need to realize not only that a problem exists, not only that it is severe, but that it cannot in anyway be corrected by or from within the very structure of human organization which allowed it to evolve and survive in a deficient state – in this case, that organizational structure is government – ever subject to the whims of political successors.

No disrespect to the Cato Institute; it produces some fantastic analyses on a broad range of topics. But like most other political think tanks, it fails when the author or another subject offers a non-solution such as:

“Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition… …He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform.”

The conclusion is correct in that education would improve from greater diversity, innovation and competition. But then, logic, sound economics and reality were abandoned.  The author then adds where Juan’s focus should be – on the left side of the political spectrum.

Given that public education has been under the direction of both ends of the political spectrum, and in reality usually the combination thereof, this clearly isn’t a solution.

The real problem is government itself – not the people, the structure. As a form of human organization, it cannot systematically and sustainably cleanse itself of virtually any ill whether it waste, inefficiency, or graft. Just look at the 40-year trend in the above graph in cost versus performance versus the number of employees.

It is not a right or left problem. It is a structural problem; one that cannot be resolved by politics – ever. Only the free market under one rule of law positively applied to all persons can provide diversity, innovation and competition in education. If you understand the fundamentals of business, and in particular entrepreneurialism; and then centralizing forces of government, you known that this not opinion – it is fact. More choice is always more power. Government cannot provide real choice.

If you really want broad-based educational improvement, then cut to the chase: get government out of education, and do it now.

Note:  The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual and title source:  Daniel J. Mitchell from his blog originally published on fee.org. The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart | Foundation for Economic Education
Media source:  www.fee.org

by

Is Anarcho-Libertarianism Anti-American?

Is Anarcho-Libertarianism American Cementary at Collevilleanti-American?

With the recent passing of Veterans Day, I was reminded of past conversations where it was asserted that support of Anarcho-Libertarianism (AL) was unpatriotic and anti-American; and, especially ungrateful and disrespectful to all those who sacrificed their lives or otherwise suffered for the preservation of American freedom.

Initially, this perspective seems to hold some truth, especially if one equates government to its constituents where government (those employed by or otherwise operating through it) and its citizens are all equal in the “eyes of the law”, being all on the same team so to speak.

However, if we remember that in fact government and its agents are not subject to the same standards, rules and laws as the constituents, then it becomes clear that their interests can and do diverge, often to the point of contradiction!  As such, two classes of persons result. Those who directly or indirectly subsist through the force of government and those who directly or indirectly subsist through the mutual consent of market exchange. An injustice by definition.

Mind you, this is not to suggest that all persons working for or through the government are bandits, thieves, etc.; only that the structure of government provides the deepest cover for such personalities and behavior and allows these systemic deficiencies to accumulate without efficient and timely correction, but that is another story so back to our veterans.

This danger of divisiveness inherent to the existence of government was probably best memorialized by an assertion where Benjamin Franklin who upon leaving the Constitutional Convention supposedly responded to a question as to the type of government the delegates had just created. His response: “A republic, if you can keep it.” We may never know exactly why he alluded to potential instability, but by logic and human nature, the fact remains that it was so then and is even more so now.

Similarly, we need not look further than the Declaration of the thirteen united States of America where it is expressly provided:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…” [emphasis added].

At its core, AL recognizes and respects what it actually means to be American, what it means to be really free and personally accountable, what it means to maintain and improve upon these ideals; all of which, promises a better future for humanity. AL is a socioeconomic political structure which is decentralized, organic, scale-able and more efficient in self-correction than any form of governance currently in practice. And, you don’t need a Constitution to enforce the Non-Aggression Principle.

Although very special from a historical and patriotic perspective, what is most special about American culture is not the typical American symbols:  Old Glory, the American Bald Eagle, Lady Liberty, the shape of our boundaries, the military might of the U.S. Armed Forces, etc. Yes, these are important and interesting icons and symbols to be sure. But like a map to the terrain, these symbols cannot replace or fully reflect the ideal and importance of a nearly unparalleled early culture of freedom; a sense that anything was possible by anyone – the wellspring of entrepreneurialism. Within generations and over lifetimes, relative to the past, many dreams were indeed fulfilled so much that America became known for that sense of real possibility; hence, how the Great American Experiment realized the American Dream.

Almost laughably, government has co-opted this spirit of all things possible as its sole domain, as the provider of the American Dream – think of its marketing of the Armed Forces and related agencies as global protectors and inventors, NASA’s space race, the justification of the postal service or the political promise of more jobs, higher wages, better education, less war, etc. – in sum, providing a better life. In reality, just the opposite has occurred, and not just over the last few years, but well over the last half century. The list of promises is nearly endless as it is incredulous; and, the trend continues. The good news is:  it is not a Republican or Democratic party problem; nor a people problem – it is just a structural problem which unlike human nature is fixable.

Today, that early essence of America – a culture of expanding freedom – has been wholly suffocated by an ever-growing obsession to plan, manage and control literally everyone and everything – seemingly everywhere – a fool’s errand if there ever was one. For generations, we’ve let government and a cadre of special interests grow and increasingly parasitize value created through consensual exchange. Talk about redistribution of wealth.

Although I can never fully empathize with battlefield veterans (not having first hand experience with war), I strongly suspect that the continual expansion of governmental repression of freedom was not what they had in mind when risking their lives. I also would gamble that if more persons were fully apprised of AL, then there would be a better understanding that the earlier ideal of freedom in American culture – that wellspring of entrepreneurialism which can solve any problem – would be best served and protected by AL thus creating the best environment for maximal and sustainable justice, peace and prosperity.

I’d say that’s über-American. Got AL?

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual source: Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Media source: Wikipedia – American Battle Monuments Commission.

by

Real Anarchy and the Non-Aggression Principle

Anarchy with non-aggression?

stock-photo-20218630-peace-symbol-made-from-flowersAren’t they mutually exclusive?

Strictly speaking, no.

Lets look at anarchy. Remember etymology class or perhaps you took Latin?

Like many words, phrases, philosophies and -isms of just about any kind, interpretation can vary widely.  The same is true for anarchy.  However for the purpose of this website, anarchy shall mean its more historical definition:

“without rulers” i.e. absence of government which results in a stateless society but not necessarily one without rules – government and law are not one and the same.

Sunday, April 26, 2015 (4)Anarchy shall not mean what is often incorrectly assumed to occur in the absence of government – chaos, violence and mayhem which is how the word seems largely used today. Perhaps it is unwise to fight the trend, but in this original light, anarchy is a very powerful, provocative and efficient word.

When combined with a largely mutually agreed principle that serves everyone’s interest and accountability most equally, it tends to connote nearly infinite and organic creativity, greater responsibility, and maximal sustainability than what is otherwise possible where governance is founded upon force. As such, the word anarchy is irresistibly simple and accurate.

As alluded above, a stateless society does not necessary mean a society without laws. Government, law and order are not synonymous or even interdependent. Law and order, like language, have been around far longer than the modern nation-state.  They exist in their own right. Governance is a service like any other service imaginable. Like the creation of all products and services, governance can only be effectuated by individuals. Only individuals think, decide and act, regardless of the type of organizational entity from which they act. This should give us a clue as to why life without government is very possible and advantageous to all, but I digress.

Like anarchy, non-aggression means different things to different people, but there is a principle regarding non-aggression which actually drives why anarchy is absolutely necessary for the best possible degree of justice, peace and prosperity. It is called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) – for more information click here – and basically states that one can do anything one wishes as long as he doesn’t threaten or  commit harm to the body or property of another.

Pretty simple, right?  I would say beautifully simple.

But as with any law or principle, implementation can never be perfect, yet there is a certain fundamental accuracy in this principle that pervades basic human nature if we are consistent in how each of us would like to be treated and then in seeing others equally treated pursuant to the rule of law. And even though many cultures, faiths and traditions do not recognize such consistencies and equality, it is still the most basic social foundation to communicate and learn if we are all to otherwise practice what we wish to believe and do, whatever that may be.  If that foundation can be understood and respected by more people than not, then resolution to a host of local and global problems will be better solved.

Inextricably, the NAP is the fabric of a free, healthy, accessible and productive social, economic and political order – a system which inherently and most quickly self-corrects.  The only problem is that because government exists upon a foundation of force, it violates the NAP by its very existence. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the NAP necessarily manifests a condition of absolute anarchy.

Still you may ask, how will society govern itself?

Who will make the rules?

Enforce the peace?

Put out fires?

Manage the roads?

Defend us from terrorists?

The answer:  by and large, the same people who do so today.

Remember, it’s not the government per se which provides these services, it is individuals. Government is merely the organizational framework through which these particular services are currently provided.  Assuming that there is in fact a demand, or degree of a demand, for such government-provided services, the NAP by default also results in a free market which provides the same or better in appropriate quantity and quality. The free market must trend toward greater customization, efficiency and customer satisfaction. As the government inherently violates the NAP, it is also mutually exclusive of the free market.  Government exists and operates by force; a free market, by consent. Like pregnancy, there is no in-between. The market is either entirely free or arbitrarily obstructed in varying degrees by force. That obstruction necessarily relates back to government.

Furthermore, justice, whether social or the good old fashioned kind, requires the best consistency possible, not arbitrary exceptions.  Because government is largely exempt from its own laws, it cannot mutually exist with the highest degree of justice. In its creation, government results in a minimum of two unequal classes of  citizens; simply put, those who subsist through consent of the market and those who subsist through the force of government. Force and consent are mutually exclusive. These two classes, for which as long as there is government, will always create a condition of inherent and fundamental injustice within society.

Since government is synonymous with hypocrisy, it is constantly sowing the seeds of its own destruction – always trending toward more arbitrary action, social disruption, war and narrower distributed prosperity until finally it collapses.  I suspect that this maxim weighs heavily in the rise and fall of all known civilizations.  Government only survives by value created through the market i.e. taxes and then printing or debasing currency (counterfeiting); despite legal sanction, both are purely theft. As noted, through the millennia, civilizations and their governments have come and gone, but the market, however partially or intermittently restrained, has remained ever present and constant.

The takeaway? The freer the market the better.

What’s the most free market?  One without government …but not law and order.

In sum, the NAP provides for the greatest degree of human expression within the boundaries of the greatest degree of accountability. Only the NAP and its manifestation as the free market in a condition of absolute anarchy can sustainably provide for maximal entrepreneurialism with maximal accountability to better solve any problem, including law and order, where greater justice, peace and prosperity can be achieved for all persons.

Where do we start?

To objectively face the hard and deeper reality of what government is and is not; then to take responsibility for this fact, to learn, understand and communicate the NAP to as many persons who may have an interest. Once a critical mass of adherents has been gained, better lives will follow.

Note: The views expressed are solely the opinion of the author.
Conceptual credits: Murray N. Rothbard
Image source: iStockphoto.com and Wikimedia.org