Being Sovereign
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above a whisper in condemnation of it."
- Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, 1913
Long ago there were Egypt, Greece, and Rome. These empires were built on the backs of slaves, and hierarchy was a seemingly natural extension of the dichotomy of slaves and free men. Some ruled, some were priests, some scholars, most toiled. From the wreck of one empire, a period when diffuse power was spread among many thousands of principalities would lead to consolidation, and the rise of another empire. And so it went down through the ages.
In the early 17th Century, something interesting happened. Beyond the edge of the Holy Roman Empire, some English parliamentarians, extending on the ideas contained in a great charter then some 400 years old, got together and chopped off the head of their king. The English civil war led to the philosophy of John Locke, the Glorious Revolution, a great flowering of trade and commerce, the American Revolution, and an enormous tide against chattel slavery that finally led to its abolition.
By the end of the 19th Century, Oscar Wilde was considering the possibility that the slavery of machines could replace the slavery of people. He correctly pointed out that slavery of humans is terrible, criminal, and degrading to both slave and slave driver. With machines to do much of the labor, more people were able to afford leisure, study, and contemplation.
But before Wilde's ideas had gained notoriety, many secret cabals had been formed. These were cabals of powerful men who sought a return to old ways of doing things, a return of rigid hierarchy and absolute control, a limited circle of influence and power, and none of these contemptible middle-class sorts rising in importance without having hereditary credentials. These cabals are not conjecture, they are identified in the diary of Cecil Rhodes, in the work of Adam Weishaupt, and in the writing of George Bernard Shaw and many others. Wall Street bankers financed the Bolshevik revolution that resulted in the extermination of tens of millions of civilians in the Soviet Union.
To achieve their ends in these various countries, the assorted cabals had to attack several basic institutions. Private property was a key institution for the rising of merchants, traders, artisans, and scholars. Private property would have to be put under assault, in order to establish the necessary hierarchies. Freedom would have to be assaulted. And what was the keystone in the arch of freedom but the right to keep and bear arms? Private ownership of weapons had to be attacked and, where possible, eliminated.
The history of these processes is long and tedious, and the nature of many of the various cabals, and their exact origins, is shrouded to an extent in various mysteries and mythologies. But the vast outline is quite clear. Socialism is no mere attack on private property by have-nots, but a conscious effort to organize opposition to private gain by those already in power. Socialism, in other words, is just hierarchy grafted onto a popular mythos. Scientific socialists claim that those in power, those in bureaucracies, those gifted by understanding, should run the affairs of others. In their view, individuals are incompetent to run their own affairs, so they must be ruled, if needs be with an iron fist. This same argument is the creed of every hereditary aristocracy. Some must rule and others must serve. Those who won't submit are assassinated, massacred, or exterminated.
Humane societies and various animal enthusiast groups were among the first to prey upon property rights in livestock, as a wedge to drive against private property of all sorts. From these efforts came extensive environmental movements. These efforts to "preserve wild places" are but an echo, amplified, of the king's forest and game reserves. Environmentalism is a charade, with the goal of taking private property away from individuals, locking it up for the benefit of a hierarchy consisting initially of bureau-rats and ultimately of hereditary rulers. Those who would make it a crime to hunt animals in "national parks" or "World Heritage Sites" are of the same stripe as those who would outlaw men for feeding their families by hunting in the King's forest.
An example of the excesses to which this sort of thing leads is the Crown Butte affair, where a private landowner, Margaret Reeb, obtained financial support for a mining operation on her land. Environmentalists went crazy in 1995, and proclaimed that the New World Mine would destroy or endanger Yellowstone National Park, and demanded that the United Nations (which had already placed the park on the World Heritage register, due to the cowardice of various presidential administrations) list the park as "in danger." The mine was stopped, but evidently the mining company and the landowner have not been paid any compensation. In other words, private land and its usufruct were taken for public use without just compensation.
Ethically, this situation is no different from the establishment of royal hunting preserves and the assault by the king's men on anyone who dared to enter such lands to get food for their families. Obviously, the king had no ethical property right to the land, since he gained it through taxation - theft. Instead, the whole basis for an exclusive royal hunting preserve was the arrogance of hereditary authority.
These activities have been aggravated by the closing of the American frontier in the 1890s. In the two generations immediately following that event, an enormous amount of damage to private property, by which term I refer to individual liberty, was done. The conquest of the Philippines and other Spanish territories created a large-scale American empire. Prohibition of alcohol, marijuana, heroin, and cocaine provided the pretext for civil asset forfeiture and the formation of a national police and domestic espionage agency, the FBI. Income tax, even in the absence of an explicit law requiring it, along with withholding funded two major world wars. An outrageous monetary policy combined with the trade wars attendant upon a high tariff produced economic chaos - quite deliberately - with socialist redistribution schemes to follow. Alcohol prohibition led to the formation of large scale gangs which in turn provided the excuse for limiting private access to useful tools of self-defense such as sawed-off shotguns and automatic weapons.
So, what should be done about these things? Is it inevitable that humans live in a hierarchical society, where some serve and others rule? Or is it possible for people to live together in communities of consent?
The answer to the last question is yes, and any number of examples exist to demonstrate this fact. There are intentional communities for all sorts of religious affiliations, including nuns, monks, Mormons, Mennonites, various other stripes of Anabaptist such as the Amish, and there have been a large number of utopian communities founded in the 19th Century by groups like the Shakers, and even a few free market enthusiasts - as chronicled about a decade ago by Wendy McElroy.
Wendy has pointed out that much of the theoretical groundwork for libertarian communities has already been laid, and tested. In his book Equitable Commerce, Josiah Warren identified several key ingredients to successful liberty communities. These included a meeting place, a private currency, the expectation that each member of the community be responsible for himself, and that every institution of society be privately owned.
Warren was an interesting character. He felt social harmony required radical individualism. In fact, he saw that differences of opinion, tastes, and purposes would increase in proportion to the demand for conformity.
For an example of this individualistic approach, Wendy points to Warren's solutions for eating facilities and sleeping arrangements. Rather than having common ownership of such things, Warren preferred that eating facilities be modeled after restaurants and sleeping facilities after boarding houses. It is interesting to think that some contemporary proprietary communities such as Irvine, California or Sun City, Arizona have plenty of restaurants, hotels, and condominiums, but few dormitories or mess halls.
Warren wrote about the libertarian community of Utopia, founded 1848. "Throughout the whole of our operations...everything has been conducted so nearly upon the individual basis that not one meeting for legislation has taken place. No organization, no indefinite delegated power, no 'constitutions,' no 'laws,' or 'by-laws,' 'rules,' or 'regulations' but such as each individual makes for himself and for his own business. No officers, no priests nor prophets have been resorted to...."
Having things privately owned also seems to be a good way to deal with potentially disruptive persons. One of the hallmarks of successful community projects, Wendy points out, is to screen applicants to make sure they are self-sufficient and not a drain on the community's resources. As well, by having all land within the community owned by originators, Wendy suggests that they would sell land only to new members based on observance of the community's rules or standards. (This idea is entirely corroborated by the deed restrictions and covenants that make subdivisions in Houston, Texas work without any zoning laws.) Wendy goes further in suggesting that private courts, or "a free market court system to arbitrate and adjudicate disputes," would be useful.
Shortly after Wendy's essay on this topic appeared, I was in Wyoming thinking about how to pursue this idea of intentional communities as a business opportunity. Admittedly, I was also working with Michael van Notten on a similar concept in the Somali region of Awdal at about the same time. (The Somali system of law is very similar to the free market court system which Wendy had mentioned.) My term for this business opportunity was the Libertarian Real Estate Investment Trust (LREIT), and the related plan included an enormous quantity of research on dude ranches in Wyoming.
The idea was to acquire several thousand acres of land, operate a dude ranch, firing range, training center, amusement park, and multi-use real estate development, making available finished, utility-ready lots to home builders and individuals in easy reach of offices, shopping, and entertainments such as riding, hiking, shooting, hunting, fishing, herding or rodeo. Since then, I've refined the idea to inculde a sort ethical Disney World (that would not, e.g., require finger scans on admission) in a low population county in Wyoming, arising on land that is now largely fallow. The idea would be similar to Disney's theme parks in that there would be games, rides, shows, puzzles, mazes, and activities such as paintball, dirt bike paths, bridle paths, snowmobile trails, obstacle courses, war games, parades, pageants, and historic re-creations.
As with the "experimental prototype community of tomorrow" (which has, apparently become "ecologically planned," in the time since Disney's passing), there would be opportunity for learning about history and philosophy as well as the economics behind free markets and free enterprise. Some of the corporate sponsors for such a center of trade and learning might include booksellers, software developers, free market money entrepreneurs, gun makers, ammunition makers, outfitters, and outdoor equipment makers, as well as providers of education and training in all manner of martial arts. There would be many opportunities for demonstrations of survival gear, for the sale of food and beverages, for the demonstration of sundry arts and technologies.
Part of this idea is in common with the Mennonite/Hutterite communities and their Western counterpart, the Mormon communities. But, rather than a religious alignment, the members of the prototype community would share a common culture being armed, free, entrepreneurial, decent, and honorable. Moreover, if this idea works in one place, then something like it should work in other places, and so a sort of cookie-cutter model of franchises might be effected.
There is much work to be done in updating the old business plan, discarding what has become outmoded or irrelevant, and writing a new business plan, identifying a team competent to implement the plan, and gaining the trust of prospective investors to raise the necessary capital to make it work. Curiously, my message on this very topic crossed paths with an announcement of a Rice University symposium on venture capital to discuss the renewal of "initial public offerings," as a way of raising money which - in the face of Sarbanes Oxley - seems intriguing if not quite credible.
There seem to be a number of opportunities here which would best be exploited by creating more than one company, as well as various foundations, trusts, and potentially offshore entities, as well. Given that the eventual time scale for realizing such a bold venture would be decades, especially for establishing multiple communities of this sort, a foundation capable of matching the longevity of the purpose to the lifespan of the enterprise would be appropriate. And, of course, if the projects don't make money, then they aren't worth doing.
Recently, I shared some of the above ideas with a select group of friends. A number of extremely interesting ideas came back, especially with regard to competition. One correspondent mentioned Front Sight which provides advanced weapons training for individuals. Another correspondent mentioned The Founder's Ranch of the Single Action Shooting Society. Both of these are now well-developed communities, the one dedicated to shooting and the other to history. Naturally, the existence of competitors suggests that the idea has some business potential. It also provides opportunity for more research, especially to find dimensions along which the plan might develop distinctive competence.
Part of the vision is to create places where men, women, and children live, work, and play. These people are free, prosperous, decent, and honorable by choice, by consent, and gain strength from a culture which supports them in seeing God's creation as a miracle of cornucopia and opportunity rather than a dismal and wretched universe of scarcity. Since it is the myth of scarcity which promotes hierarchy and politics, and the reality of cornucopia which generates prosperity, it is essential to convey the vision thoroughly and well.
Some aspects of this vision and its conveyances would be showpieces, people wearing bright outfits and choosing to be armed openly as an indication of their honor and rectitude, as symbols of their willingness to defend life, liberty, and property with effective force, but also as the essence of effectiveness in training and ability. Some of the vision is in showing that such a place would work, would embrace the best aspects of human culture and human nature, and support the development of advances that are yet beyond our ken. A sort of prototypical community of freedom, but today rather than tomorrow.
Less than three hundred years ago, it remained traditional in Europe for gentlemen to go about armed. Why? Gentlemen were armed in defense of the realm, in defense of the faith, and in defense of decency. They were armed to protect their own lives, their liberty, and their property. While the hierarchical aspects of this cultural phenomenon have been correctly discarded, the idea of being armed for these valid purposes has remained, for across the West, especially in rural communities, it remains traditional to have a rifle rack in the pickup truck, a gun on the front seat. The value of being armed to defend life, liberty, and property and the realm of freedom has remained, though the persistence of thieves and goons has driven these traditions from many larger communities.
About the time Wendy was reviewing Josiah Warren's ideas on free communities, Neil Smith was writing about a cultural war. He pointed out that we are fighting over cultural issues: the meaning of terms, the definition of freedom, the choice of which values to hold dear. We are fighting against a culture which seeks to impose old ideas of hierarchy and caste structure in the name of new terms like environmentalism and communism. We are fighting against the creepy notion of scientific socialism, where the few rule the many because they are more adept at managing the affairs of others than individuals would be at managing their own affairs, and the million cultural artifacts that go with such essential idiocy.
The core idea of Neil's essay was that to win a cultural war, we need cultural artifacts. We have the opportunity to create a culture of our own. Since our ideas of liberty, property, self-reliance, trade, and commerce are superior, our philosophy should win - but a philosophy is powerless unless embedded in a culture. It seems to me that a grand free mountain West prototype community and amusement park represents a sort of epitome of cultural artifacts, brought together and culminating in an actual movement toward broader freedom, greater prosperity, and, ultimately, access to the Solar System - the high ground from which we should better be able to defend our liberty and the treasure house of resources to fuel our burgeoning prosperity.
Wyoming makes particular sense in some ways. It is fairly well provided with water. It has cheap land and low population counties, which motivated the selection of Florida for Disney World several decades back. There is already a dude ranch industry and a larger tourism industry which brings millions of travelers to Wyoming every year. There is a Free State Wyoming project that is already committed to extending the culture of freedom that exists in Wyoming now. Wyoming has open carry, not just in law but in practice.
My favorite correspondent thus far on this topic is collaterally gobsmacked by this idea. He's proposed the creation of a sort of hospitality club, which would provide open carry resorts, campgrounds, bed and breakfasts, and sundry other venues everywhere. Wherever someone wants to invite like-minded people, who are agreeable to a code of conduct and pay their dues, to come for a visit. These could be formal hospitality industry venues or private residences. The opportunities are endless.
Which brings me back to secret cabals. The vicious socialist thugs have had their cabals, and done much damage with them. The use of private and secret action for freedom has been discussed in books such as Unintended Consequences (in which it is the main theme) and Molôn Labé! (in which it is a fascinating plot element). As authors John Ross and Ken Royce suggest, the best conspiracies where violence are concerned would be individuals taking separate action, perhaps inspired occasionally by news of one another.
But where organizations are concerned, there is no need to cede the field to the enemy. Organization, planning, and leadership are not the enemies of freedom. Quite otherwise. Organization and planning are the result of applying tools and techniques. A tool may be used for good or for ill, and is otherwise neutral. Leadership is a technique for inspiring action in others, and so is also tool-like. Joseph led his brothers and eventually his entire people into slavery in Egypt to avert a famine. Moses led his people out of slavery. So, leadership works either way.
Yet another author has written on this interesting subject. Neil Schulman wrote Alongside Night in which he envisioned a series of free market communities all over the world, many of them hidden from view or actually underground. Various signs and signals were used by free marketeers to gain entry to these places. Agents provocateurs and informants compromised one location, but escape plans were in place and implemented with more or less good results.
By some accounts, the contemporary "war on terror," which is really just a new phase in the war on freedom (previously incarnated as the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, and the war on poverty) may be expected to last for decades. It is a sort of final rigidity of the ruling class as power slips from their fingers like water slips through a clenched fist. In such circumstances, it is useful to be mobile, prepared, and related to freedom enthusiasts in many locations.
As in the past, the ramping up of totalitarian methods in one location will cause many to flee the country. Perhaps authoritarianism would be limited to major cities back east, but likely the application of brutality would be enthusiastically distributed in many other places. Good then to plan in advance to have friends over the borders in various directions.
We've heard a very solid rumor from an impeccable source that another GBH dividend is in the works.