Life Without Government Equals Chaos. Hardly!
We tend to assume that without an interventionist government, life would fall into chaos. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
In the nineteenth century, French economist Frédéric Bastiat remarked on the wonder of that phenomenon by exclaiming, "Paris gets fed!" The same can be said of New York, Tokyo, Mexico City, etc. It's doesn't take the intervention of a governmental planning board to ensure adequate food for all of us. Entrepreneurs seeking profit make certain that eggs and milk are readily available for tomorrow's breakfast.
Consider the alternative:
In the late 1970's and early 1980's I spent three weeks in the then-socialist countries of Yugoslavia and East Germany. If it wasn't for the illegal food market there would have been nothing to eat other than cookies, Vodka, and stale bread. Keep in mind that the brightest minds planned these economies. Not much to be said for central planning.
But we tend to forget these real-world examples of governmental planning. Maybe we assume that our bureaucrats are more omnificent and brighter than those of Yugoslavia and East Germany. Ludwig von Mises of the Austrian School of Economics proved over 80 years ago that all attempts at central planning lead to chaos. He was correct then, and he is still correct today.
Yet we still believe in governmental solutions. Parents allow school officials to make important decisions for their children because there exists the belief that school officials somehow are unbiased and altruistic, and better at guiding children than their own parents. While it is certainly true that most school employees like working with students, they can’t possible have a child’s best interests in mind. That is the realm of parents only.
School officials have jobs, careers and families of their own. They also have biases and beliefs that greatly differ from individual parents. There is nothing wrong with differing views, but parents should not simply hand over their children to the schools and assume the best. We bristle at the idea of our friends, neighbors and family members guiding our parental decisions, yet we readily give school officials, who are nothing more than friends, neighbors and family members, the power to make those very same decisions. The robe of omniscience does not come with school employment. In fact, there is nothing unique and special about school employment.
Remember, it's the entrepreneur who will truck the eggs and milk so that you can eat tomorrow.
Jim Fedako, a former professional cyclist who lives in Lewis Center, OH, is a member of the Olentangy Local School District and maintains a blog: Anti-Positivist.
Comments (7)
P.M.Lawrence
But during the 1870-1 siege of Paris, not only did Paris not get fed, because the comparatively benign French forces were held at bay by the Germans. Within Paris itself rather than a mere orderly absence of government, revolutionaries established their own much worse one - the Paris Commune.
So there's rather more to stopping government intervention. You also have to prevent something worse (and still governmental).
Published: June 2, 2006 12:53 AM
Steven Smith
Government of compulsory jurisdiction is imperative if for no other reason to inforce the malum in se part of criminal law objectively, regularly, predictably, reliably & promptly.
Published: June 2, 2006 7:57 AM
quasibill
"Government of compulsory jurisdiction is imperative if for no other reason to inforce the malum in se part of criminal law objectively, regularly, predictably, reliably"
Cory Maye, O.J. Simpson, and the Duke lax players, for obviously different reasons, would all disagree heartily (if not publicly in O.J.'s case) that the state does what you claim it does.
" & promptly."
I guess it takes someone who knows how the justice system works to find the humor in this assertion!
Published: June 2, 2006 9:57 AM
Steven Smith
I am quite humorless regarding any thing remotely ideologic; so far from trying be humorous I was instead being flatly objectivistic. You rational-philosophic anarchists are about as serious menaces to public safety as subversives & gangs of felons & do not even suspect it.
There is some thing vital I absolutely must know: if rational-philosophic anarchy is so valid & logically unassailable why did 911 occur? why did Ed Clark fail to be elected president in 1980 despite having 50 state ballot access? why did Robert LeFevre spend decades literally crying in the wilderness? why is all the straight-forward good will of people such as yourselves--ourselves when I was 1 of you--the trigger of such massive antagonism, hostility & malevolence on the part of the urban minority under class whose members I have all my life been assured are my ethical equals? why is each & every problem the old right, individualist arch-ultra conservatism, paleo-libertarianism, objectivism, McCarthyism, birchism, isolationism & austrianism, to cite the non-anarchic rightist movements whereto I have been amenable the last 30 or so of my 45 years, steadily & in some cases drastically worsened & all the rational-philosophic anarchist movement does in reply is constantly parrot the same tired line on the imperativeness of withdrawing consent from the very predatory state whose agents & policy makers plainly are indifferent to your advocacy? In short where are your net results & when will I notice without trying?
In 1986 I read an original edition of Rothbard's book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. I think quite highly of how Rothbard dealt with issues such as banking, money, diplomacy, war, trade, constitutionalism, natural right & many other things but neither he nor any one else can ever convince me of the desirability or even possibility of abolishing civil government of compulsory jurisdiction. I know better than many people how dis-appointingly government performs its proper functions but you anarchists forget or neglected your Herbert Spencer: in the 1880s he proved that if government resolutely does any thing it should not it by definition must fail to the same extent to do what it indeed should. What anarchists strain to do is discard the baby with the bath water by assuming government is prima facie objectionable altogether just because it has got away with exceeding its legitimate mandate.
Given my chronic & now worsening downward mobile condition time is too short to spend justifying the necessary but I will leave my critics & gainsayers with this: if I am a crime victim I will call the police, not 1 of you. Criminals here in Dayton, Ohio recognize the formidability of uniformed police officers; all they would see in any of you rational anarchists is just more prey.
Published: June 3, 2006 2:05 AM
Paul Edwards
"if I am a crime victim I will call the police, not 1 of you. Criminals here in Dayton, Ohio recognize the formidability of uniformed police officers; all they would see in any of you rational anarchists is just more prey."
Your bitterness is exceeded perhaps only by your ignorance of the anarchy for which Murray Rothbard stood.
This anarchy would recognize your right to subscribe to and pay for any police service you wish. But you, on the other hand, advocate a coercive monopoly in police services to force me and others to pay for and put up with its services which we would prefer not to subscribe to. You are and have always been a statist in favor of tyranny. You have only managed to fool yourself throughout the years. Too bad. Very sad.
"...when I was 1 of you..."
You were never 1 of us.
Published: June 3, 2006 3:08 AM
haley
wow.
you guys are dumb.
without government, we would crash.
Published: September 15, 2008 11:57 AM
haley
ok sorry.
that last comment wasnt civil.
but you guys barely have any facts to back up what your saying.
i think you should listen to Paul Edwards.
he seems smart...
Published: September 15, 2008 12:10 PM