Mark Belling and Anarchy

Recently (late September of 2008) Mark Belling made a startling statement on his WISN afternoon radio referring to Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura as “anarchists.” He was using it in the context of describing extremism wherein he referred to those on the extreme political left as “elitists” and then described the above two gentlemen as extremists on the right and “anarchists.”

I realize that Belling has little use for libertarians and he may very well be using the term simply as a pejorative. But maybe he isn’t. Maybe he believes that Paul and Ventura really are anarchists.

That being a possibility, I will address his statement.

Anarchy is an interesting subject that I find most people do not understand, which probably includes Belling. One reason for the confusion I find, is that like God, there is no clear singular definition of “anarchy.” There are several definitions for anarchy that I will describe, starting with:

True Anarchy

This can best be described loosely as “the law of the jungle.” Animals in their natural state, “in the wild,” live in a state of true anarchy. Murder, rape, theft, destruction are carried on, even within the species, and no one voices an objection. No courts are held, the group does not react to protect the individual animal that was wronged. Each just carries on, numbly, attempting as best he can to survive.

Social scientists state correctly that Man at no time in history lived in a state of true anarchy. There was always some sort of agreed upon social structure to the society in which he lived. There was always a modicum government, even if it was limited to self-government. Wanton murder, rape and theft have always been resisted and punished. Man in his rational state instituted enough self-government to live in reasonable peace with his fellow man even with no formal government.

So I can say with certainty, agreeing with the social scientist, that Man, even in the smallest communal groups, has never lived in a state of true anarchy.

No Central Government

Living without a formal, central governments is as close as Man gets to living in a state of “anarchy,” and is the most common definition of “anarchy,” probably a result of the condescendence of the general population to those in power. Those in power do not acknowledge “self-government” as government. They attempt to degrade it as an “anarchy.”

The Middle Ages has been described as such a state, in Western Europe, anyway. Historian Dr. Carroll Quigley, in his 1300 page tome Tragedy and Hope describes it as follows, “In the West, the Roman Empire disappeared in 476; and, although many efforts were made to revive it, there was clearly a period, about 900 [years], when there was no empire, no state, and no public authority in the West. The state disappeared, yet society continued. So also, religious and economic life continued. This clearly showed that the state and society were not the same thing, that society was the basic entity, and that the state was a crowning, but not essential, cap to the social structure. This experience had revolutionary effects.”

This hard won lesson (it took nearly 900 years) is being lost today.

Belling’s co-host (same radio station, separate show), Vicki McKenna, has a confusion about this distinction. On a recent show she criticized some 9/11 conspiracy buffs as being unpatriotic. What? What has distrust of the government got to do with love of the country?

It is this confusion that brings an individual to believe that without massive amounts of government control, with genuflection to that control, one has a state of anarchy.

There certainly is no evidence that if centralized government is totally eliminated that Man descends into true anarchy. There is evidence that without a centralized government of any kind, the individual would operate at a high state of self control and responsibility. His nature is to act in concert, socially, with his fellow man. And with no central government to interfere with this inherent trait, he would tend to do so on his own.

Government the Referee

The next level of “anarchy” would be government as a referee. A referee makes no rules and does not partake in the game at all, favoring none of the players. The owners of the game make the rules. (In pro sports, the “owners of the games” are the team owners. They make the rules holding regular meeting to do so when the rules need changing. They own the leagues—American League, National League, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc.) The referees only call the fouls and penalize accordingly. The referee does not even determine the penalties for the foul, penalties being determined by the owners of the game.

Government the Referee is the most radical state of libertarianism—but the most moderate state of “anarchy.” It really isn’t anarchy, as a government exists.

Most libertarians are not aware of the possibility of this state existence and, I find, disagree with the possibility of living with such a minimal institutionalized government.

In the context of government today Government the Referee can be difficult to envision in reality: Imagine a government that does not make any rules (passes no laws—there would be no legislature) and establishes no penalties for violation of laws.

If government is only a referee, then in such a state, the owners of the game must be the people themselves. That doesn’t sound too bad to me. I like the idea that the owners of the Game of Life are the people—not the government. The owners of the game should make the rules. The Declaration of Independence alludes to this state.

There would be no legislative body in this state of “anarchy.” That is tantamount to all the rules being according to common law. (“Common law” is simply the customs and practices of a people.) Murder, rape, theft, destruction of property are all recognized as evil under the common law. We all know that. We don’t need legislated law against those things.

In the state of Government the Referee, the owners of the Game of Life establish the penalties. The owners—the people—would do that through the jury process. That is where the decision to “hang ‘em high” or “let him live” would be decided.

I am sure that Government the Referee is a state of anarchy to Belling. And he has a lot of company in that opinion, particularly amongst lawyers and judges.

This state of “anarchy” really is a pure democracy… not to be confused with the “majority rule” democracy, which really is not democracy at all but a form of fascism. In a Pure Democracy, as described above, rule really is by the people.

Above are the three states of “anarchy.” Below that we have rule by government wherein government also owns the game.

Constitutional government

The government is the Sovereign in this state of existence. Here the government makes the rules, establishes the penalties, and calls the fouls as it sees them.

Under a Constitutional government the government is restricted from certain activities concerning individual rights. That is, there are certain areas in which the government is not allowed to infringe. But these restrictions (e.g. the American Bill of Rights) does not make it an anarchy. In this state the individual is still recognized as the progenitor of the government.

That is a bit of a paradox. I find it difficult to comprehend how the individual creates the government, yet the government is the sovereign.

Still it works that way.

This is where Ron Paul sits—you might call him a constitutionalists—far from anarchy. There is a lot of government under a constitution.

Populism

When government can enter all areas of human activity, even the restricted areas that would be prohibited by a constitution, but is careful to do it only to the degree that people want that government, you have populism. Here the government somehow manages to watch out for everyone, making sure that even the most humble and meek, lives a reasonably comfortable life, yet leaves people alone sufficiently to have some individual liberty. A difficult tight wire to walk.

This is where Jesse Ventura sits—a long, long way away from any form of anarchy—and sitting on a ledge from which no society has managed to keep from falling into the depths of statism, and the last two forms of government discussed here.

Fascism

Fascism was originally called “The Third Way.” It was the moderation point between free market capitalism (libertarianism, where Ron Paul sits) and socialism (described below). Benito Mussolini gave Fascism its name, practicing the third way in his Fascist party in Italy. Fascism drew admiration from the likes of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and others around the world (Mussolini made the trains run on time) to where it is the most widely idealized socio-political ideology today.

Fascism is most easily described as that system wherein private ownership of property is allowed, but it is controlled and regulated by the government. Thus you get such things as taxes and zoning, with rules and regulations that fill large libraries with books of court decisions and authors like Rush Limbaugh, trying to figure out just how to properly manage such a society.

Belling and McKenna are both fascists.

Socialism

Socialism steals the last vestige of freedom that the fascists permit: ownership of property. Under socialism the government not only owns the game, makes the rules, established the penalties, enforces the rules and penalties, but it also takes over the playing of the game. Here government tells everyone what to do, how they should think, how they should play the Game of Life.

The general population is just the herd, led to the water, then the feeding troughs, then to the slaughter pens. People are production consumption units to be used by government to attain its utopian goals.

The left wing elitists of which Belling speaks are socialists.

Back to Reality

At socialism you have come full circle from the madness at True Anarchy around the circle finding various levels of sanity and back to madness at socialism.

At Man’s current state, he will probably do best under fascism. Loosen up is chains a bit, give him some latitude by the slow process of reducing the size and scope of government and he could rise up to the state of limited constitutional government.

Should Man ever achieve the state of total personal sanity, he would do best, be most productive, under a system wherein government is only the referee. But that is for a day of a much saner “Man” and is only an incomprehensible dream at this point in Man’s evolution.

THE FALLACY OF A GOVERNMENT BAIL OUT OF WALL STREET

Other than the fact that no government in the history of the world has pulled off a bail out as planned by the federal government to rescue Wall Street, this plan has no chance of success. The proposition is to spend $700 billion to conduct the rescue operation with the possibility of showing a profit from the operation of a trillion or two.

A profit will not be the end product of this scheme.

What will happen is that the CEO’s and board chairmen of those financial institutions that have failed will get their usual multi-million dollar bonuses and Wall Street will be happy. For that is the nature of government: reward failure at the expense of hard working taxpayers in the general public.

If we allow the Free Market to conduct the “rescue operation,” the country will survive the impact. There will be no bonuses. The Free Market makes no such payments. Bad decisions are not rewarded with financial remuneration by the Free Market There will be no failed businesses. Such businesses cease to exist in the Free Market.

The rationale for the federal government bail out is “we can’t afford to do nothing.” This is an interesting statement. It is tantamount to saying that unless something is being done by the government, then nothing is being done. That is the rap the free market gets in dealing with the economy: “nothing is being done.”

The fact of the matter is that if the federal government stays out of it (does nothing) like it should, the Free Market will handle the situation. And the Free Market will handle it like it should be handled. It will reward beneficial accomplishments and penalize detrimental failures.

The Free Market faces a tremendous handicap to Socialism: It operates unseen. Imagine a circuit board with billions of terminals, each terminal exchanging energy on its own volition with any other terminal on the board. What makes it even more difficult to observe is that, unlike a circuit board where the terminals are stationary, the terminals of the free market move around and change their polarity and what they put on the circuit. It becomes an invisible haze of activity.

But it provides.

Ten million people in New York City are fed every day. The reserve of fresh food in the city is probably no more than a week’s worth. Winter storms, summer heat, spring floods occur, but no one starves. Who are the suppliers? Who gets the food to where it must go to feed hungry humans, every day, three or more times a day? In just the right amount? Who sets it up so those who make the deliveries get it to the right place, on time, and then get paid for their troubles?

No one knows. There is no plan. It just gets done.

Socialism however is very observable. The terminals are easily located. The individual in the government operating from whatever bureaucratic department never changes. If the individual moves, the department does not. Another individual is hired to replace that individual and the circuit board remains stable. Cause and effect are easily predicted, spotted and followed. It all makes sense.

The problem with socialism is that it doesn’t work. It is a continuous function of malfunctions.

The Free Market works. The only problem with the Free Market is that it can’t be seen or predicted, other than that it will handle any failure and present a solution for the request.

When the federal government raises the $700 billion to rescue Wall Street we will be able to follow the money, know where it came from and to whom it goes. We will know which bureaucrat spent it and where and which bank or other financial institution received it and how it was used.

Some of it will be hidden, but only because those giving or receiving the money want it hidden for various nefarious reasons.

In the end the plan will fail. Because socialism always fails. Because such government programs have always failed. The average loss will be $2300 for every one of the 305 million men, women and children living in this United States of America.

But if the government stays out of it, and the free market is allowed to work its unseen magic, it will succeed. Those millions of men, women and children will each take a hand in it. They will adjust their habits to handle the financial danger as it is presented to each of them. They will deal with it one dollar, ten dollars, ten thousand dollars, a hundred thousand or a hundred million dollars at a time, depending on each individual’s financial capacity and the impact the failure has upon each of them. For each individual to some degree of action or inaction has been a contributor to this financial condition.

So each individual to that degree must adjust their financial activities, be more frugal, choose more carefully how that which one has is used. Certainly work will become more revered, and making money by making money (no work) will lose some of its allure. The sweet song of Socialism, that someone else will pay for it or take care of it, will not be listened to so willingly.

Yes each of us must change our habits and routines a little bit at least; a lot if we have listened to that song too much. For the free market is a harsh master. It gives life to success; death to failure. But unlike socialism, where only the super powerful are allowed to survive, the free market lets anyone who is willing to put in an honest day’s work every working day succeed.

Those who want to do less will be left in the financial dust bin to mull their failure…but will always be given another chance to do it right.

Even those on Wall Street, who have wasted millions of dollars will be given another chance. The free market punishes stupidity but is very forgiving and one always has another chance. Just don’t get lazy.

And don’t put up with bail outs—governmental or otherwise. That’s just a lazy “let the someone else do it” attitude.

Get busy getting busy, and stay that way. And we will all make it and to Hell with the Kingmakers on Wall Street. We really don’t need them.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwLaWc-63HY

Breaking the government habit.

The municipal administrator scam continues. Now it is Wind Point. Has government really become so complicated that administrators must be hired at exorbitant salaries? And the way they are picked is a bit shady. They seem to be the highest paid bureaucrat in that government and chosen along political favoritism lines. And the rationale is to make the government entity more efficient.

Why, then, does it seem the government grows even larger under the administrators? Racine certainly has not been able to lower taxes since going with an administrator. In fact, government spending has grown dramatically.

Mt. Pleasant hasn't had much of a chance to test their administrator, but taxes certainly have not been reduced during their several years of using an administrator.

Wind Point has a slim to no chance of achieving fiscal success using an administrator.

If you can't control spending without and administrator, you won't be able to do it with one.

Governments are run by politics. They cater to special interests rather than taxpayers who fund them. Administrators are just expensive bureaucrats. They dance to the tune of the politicians who hire them. Don't expect much from administrators.

The only real "out" is to get rid of bureaucrats, including administrators, shrink government, and take care of yourself.

Government will never be able to spend your money as well as you can.

Don't waste your vote

You have and opinion, right? When you are asked a question about that opinion do you state something other than what you believe just because it might not be popular? Or because the majority of the people won't agree with you? Or worse, because you might be one of a very few that believe what you believe?

If you believe in yourself, then of course you answer according to what you really think.

And you should vote the same way.

At the ballot box, you are expressing your opinion through your vote and the individual for whom you are voting.

To vote any other way is wasting your time, your opinion, your vote. If there is no one with whom you agree on that position, then don't vote or write in someone with whom you do agree.

To do anything less than express your own belief, even when voting, is a denial of yourself.

Concealed Carry

Isn't it about time we have concealed carry in Wisconsin. We are now only one of two states (the other being Illinois) that does not allow honest people to carry concealed firearms while going about their daily business...or any business for that matter.
What is the big hold up?