New Orleans: A Case Study

[SOCALHUSKER]

New Orleans: A Case Study

 

Anarchy is a functioning society free of government controls. That is individual persons operating together in harmony based on freely reached agreements concluded between individual members and groups of a society. Anarchy is simply a free society. Anarchy is not the result of a statist-government failure; that would be chaos. The chaos in New Orleans is not due to anarchy, it is an example of the failure of statist-government.

 

People have said and written to me that: “See, anarchy can’t work because look at what happened in New Orleans when there was no government.” To define anarchy as statist-government failure is such an obvious distortion of the concept of a free society that it is hard to decide where to begin to dismantle such thoughtlessness. I like to begin by simply pointing out that at least four layers of statist-government agencies still claim jurisdiction over the area known as New Orleans (city, parish, state and federal). The undeniable fact is that they all four failed to provide the services they had promised to provide when they were justifying the theft of individual resources called taxes.

 

It boggles the mind how one can point to obvious failure to live up to political promises as a way to abdicate the responsibility of politicians to live up to those promises. Of course statist-governments never have and never will provide what they have promised. They simply return promising more and more if only they could have more power and more money. Next time, politicians promise, things will be different, better. Politics is just a show, and the curtain was pulled back in New Orleans .

 

The main problem is that in spite of a long history of failure living up to its promises, so many people still see the statist-government system as the only available method of organizing society. When one government fails, statist drones can’t wait to revive it or start another one. The problem is perceived to be that it was the people who ran the system that failed and not the system itself. The blame game gets heated up as the bureaucrats immediately start pointing at each other. The sheep line up behind their “leaders” who “did all they could do” so that when the dust settles and the checks spending taxpayer monies get distributed, their loyalty will be rewarded. But these knaves are but a small band of thieves; it is the dupes who make it all possible.

 

The lure for those educated in statist-government indoctrination centers and informed by media misinformation organs to equate the failure of statist-government to a state of anarchy is overwhelming to what little logic remains in their thought processes. When someone truly believes that society cannot exist without a central authority wielding a monopoly on the use of force to keep order, then it is easy to fall into this illogical mire. Getting out of this mire takes a level of desire for the truth that most sadly lack. So try undisputed facts that most people already know of to counteract this tendency.

 

First, the catastrophe in New Orleans was not caused by the hurricane, but by the flooding that followed the failure of the dikes. Were these dikes built and maintained by private organizations, as they would be under anarchy (if built) or by statist-government agencies? The Army Corp of Engineers built and maintained the dikes after politicians decided it was a good idea to build a city below sea level. The failure of the Army Corp of Engineers to build dikes that would withstand a commonly known potential risk as well as their failure to maintain these dikes is not anarchy.

 

Second, when the water started flooding into the city, who escaped: those who relied on self-initiative or those who relied on statist-government assistance? This is about as clear-cut an example of the contrast between vertical command structures based on central command authorities (statist-government) and horizontal command structures based on individual responsibility (anarchy) as you will find. People conditioned over a lifetime of waiting on the statist-government check to arrive are probably still waiting for someone from the government to show up and save them from their own inaction.

 

People with a sense of self-government easily made the decision that it was time to go. Of course, most of these people had already left. So was the fact that many people were trapped in their homes during the flooding due to anarchy or statist-government policies? That statist-government officials asked people to rely on their own resources (anarchy) to do the obvious (leave) does not mitigate their failure, but only points to where people should have been focused to begin with.

 

Third, after the statist-government security agents either abandoned whole areas or were completely ineffective in accomplishing their stated purpose (to protect persons and property), was the looting due to anarchy or the failure of the statist-government security system? Was the complete lack of respect for the property of others due to a culture that respects private property (anarchy) or a culture that believes in the redistribution of private property (statist-government)? Either coming or going, it looks like another failure of statist-government, not anarchy. Further consider what would have happened if a property owner had stayed to protect his property and shot a looter. Who do you think would have been arrested: the looter or the guy who challenged the monopoly on security?

 

Fourth, after the floodwaters had done their damage and people needed help, was it the effort of statist-government agencies like FEMA that came through, or was it the friends, families, neighbors and charitable persons and organizations (anarchy)? The statist-government agencies not only stumbled, fumbled and bumbled about focusing on irrelevant issues like trying to figure out who was in charge, but they hindered the recovery efforts of free-society (anarchy). Here in Central Florida at least, one local airboat club was loaded up with water, chainsaws, blankets, food and fuel ready to hit the road the day after the flood, but made the mistake of calling FEMA to allow the pathetic bureaucrats to tell them where to go. They were told not to go.

 

Instead of ignoring the official statist-government idiots, they obeyed like good citizens. When even big-hearted good ‘ol boys in the home of the brave and the land of the free ask bureaucratic weenies for permission to do the right thing and then obey those orders even when they know that the fools are wrong, America has slid too far down the slippery slope of statism.

 

The response of private individuals and businesses including doctors was immediate and overwhelming to the central command authority that was inherently unable to deal with the scope of the problems involved. Over 50 countries around the world offered to respond immediately to help but were told no thanks or at best, wait. Wal-Mart sent some trucks loaded with water to the area and were told it wasn’t needed. So in the recovery phase, was it anarchy or statist-government that helped or hurt the most in New Orleans ? The answer should be clear by now.

 

The more freedom a society has, the better the living conditions of that society will be during good times and bad. Only elite lever pullers behind the curtains benefit from statist-government, not the masses who religiously worship at the statist altar praying for help that will never come. To be brainwashed into equating anarchy with chaos to the point where obvious government failure defines anarchy is unacceptable to people who wish to be free.

 

People ruled by a fear of not having Big Brother take care of them will never be free. The pertinent question then is how many people in America are ruled by their fears and wish to trade their liberty for the illusion of security based on empty promises? I fear too many are blinded by irrational fears but hope enough brave souls may still be able to rationally think about it when presented with the facts.

 

Government failure is not anarchy. Anarchy is a society that functions without government control, a free society. Society can continue to function somewhat with limited government control, but that doesn’t mean government control is required to have a society. When government control obviously hinders the efforts of society to function efficiently, it is time to remove those controls. A society can function better with no government controls. New Orleans should be a case study educating Americans and the world of this simple fact.

[huskertim]

Firstly, let's stop redefineing the term anarchy to whatever suits the author. According to dictionary.com, websters3rd, and yourdictionary.com, your defitions are flawed and self serving.

 

As to the stated example of New Orleans. Without government, there almost certainly would not have been dikes, people would either have lived on the higher ground or served to prove Darwin correct and expired. As to recovery from a disaster, I can tell you that most people I spoke with (not in LA) after the hurricane would just as soon have plowed the city under and be done with it. Ultimately, that would almost certainly have been to the greater good nationally, but I doubt the people of LA would be so quick to agree.

 

Ultimately, I don't know what the auther intends to prove here other than that a corrupt government like the one in New Orleans is a recipe for disaster. However, the idea that "individual persons operating in harmony" isn't akin to government and thusly open to the ravages of corruption is idealist at best.

[HuskersNow]

Firstly, let's stop redefineing the term anarchy to whatever suits the author. According to dictionary.com, websters3rd, and yourdictionary.com, your defitions are flawed and self serving.

 

As to the stated example of New Orleans. Without government, there almost certainly would not have been dikes, people would either have lived on the higher ground or served to prove Darwin correct and expired. As to recovery from a disaster, I can tell you that most people I spoke with (not in LA) after the hurricane would just as soon have plowed the city under and be done with it. Ultimately, that would almost certainly have been to the greater good nationally, but I doubt the people of LA would be so quick to agree.

 

Ultimately, I don't know what the auther intends to prove here other than that a corrupt government like the one in New Orleans is a recipe for disaster. However, the idea that "individual persons operating in harmony" isn't akin to government and thusly open to the ravages of corruption is idealist at best.

 

Regarding the first paragraph, anarchy doesn't have to be about violence. Also, I know that some definitions in the dictionary are based upon prejudices and not the whole truch. My dictionary at home is a wonderful example.

 

Regarding the second, people can work together voluntarily because it is in their best interest to do so. But with government, people just depend on their leaders to get it done. So you don't see this kind of thing very often in most countries, especially involving such large projects.

 

Finally, individuals operating in harmony is the opposite of government, it is voluntary. You don't have to participate, it's you choice. The government doesn't give you a choice.

[HUSKER 37]

I would think you anti-govt types would come up with a better catch phrase than "anarchy"...Instead of trying to change everyone's conception of it being a bad thing, you could make up a new word like C.A.O.S. vs. C.O.N.T.R.O.L. on "Get Smart"

 

I agree..New Orleans probably would've been better off if we'd sent all the governing agencies to Bermuda that week, But how long would you expect your "anarchy" to peacefully co-exist?

[SOCALHUSKER]

I would think you anti-govt types would come up with a better catch phrase than "anarchy"...Instead of trying to change everyone's conception of it being a bad thing, you could make up a new word like C.A.O.S. vs. C.O.N.T.R.O.L. on "Get Smart"

 

I agree..New Orleans probably would've been better off if we'd sent all the governing agencies to Bermuda that week, But how long would you expect your "anarchy" to peacefully co-exist?

 

So you would suggest that educating people on the correct and true definition of the term anarchy is a lost cause? I disagree. Would you then also suggets that educating people on anything out of the norm is also a lost cause? If people were taught a fallacy, by government I might add, they can also be untaught. Education is as paramount to a free society, as covering up the truth is to the disaster of it.

 

To answer your second question. Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

[carlfense]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

[HuskersNow]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

 

Very funny. He never said that anarcho-capitalism would be perfect. People err and learn from their mistakes. The problem is that government lets people err and err and err, while never accepting consequences for their actions.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

 

Glad to see you're finally coming to your senses carlfense. I don't remember ever mentioning anything quite like the utopian grandeur you speak of, but hey, to each his own. By the way, what about freedom and responsibility frightens you so much?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Very funny. He never said that anarcho-capitalism would be perfect. People err and learn from their mistakes. The problem is that government lets people err and err and err, while never accepting consequences for their actions.

 

Actually, they force them to err and err and err. To "let" is to have a choice, with government there is no choice.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Firstly, let's stop redefineing the term anarchy to whatever suits the author. According to dictionary.com, websters3rd, and yourdictionary.com, your defitions are flawed and self serving.[/b]

 

 

Is that so? Maybe you need to look up the definition of anarchy, because it's you who's twisting the definition in a more self serving way.

 

From answers.com dictionary:

From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition at Dictionary.com

 

Anarchy n., pl. -chies.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

2. Political disorder and confusion. (notice political)

3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.]

 

From Princeton Wordnet:

 

Anarchy - Noun

S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))

 

From Wikipedia

 

"No rulership or enforced authority." [1]

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere

 

From Merriam-Webster

 

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3: anarchism

[carlfense]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

 

Glad to see you're finally coming to your senses carlfense. I don't remember ever mentioning anything quite like the utopian grandeur you speak of, but hey, to each his own. By the way, what about freedom and responsibility frightens you so much?

 

I do enjoy the way you can phrase your questions to serve as the answer you seek. Rather than an open ended question such as "What do you think of anarcho-capitalism?" you would instead ask "What about the freedom and responsibility of anarcho-capitalism frightens you so much?" I'm not sure whether you actually think this is a rational question or if you think it is clever. I'd volunteer that it is neither. You would make an excellent pollster though.

 

And yes you did mention topian grandeur. You said that people would realize how much better off they are living in your system and that they would prosper, flourish, and be free and peaceful. Sounds utopian and grand to me.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

 

Glad to see you're finally coming to your senses carlfense. I don't remember ever mentioning anything quite like the utopian grandeur you speak of, but hey, to each his own. By the way, what about freedom and responsibility frightens you so much?

 

I do enjoy the way you can phrase your questions to serve as the answer you seek. Rather than an open ended question such as "What do you think of anarcho-capitalism?" you would instead ask "What about the freedom and responsibility of anarcho-capitalism frightens you so much?" I'm not sure whether you actually think this is a rational question or if you think it is clever. I'd volunteer that it is neither. You would make an excellent pollster though.

 

And yes you did mention topian grandeur. You said that people would realize how much better off they are living in your system and that they would prosper, flourish, and be free and peaceful. Sounds utopian and grand to me.

 

A pollster that's funny!! Actually, the reason I asked it the way I did is because there is only one kind of freedom and responsibility? They are both absolutes. There's no such thing as partial freedom, much as there is no such thing as partial responsibility. To state otherwise is false. It doesn't matter if I ask it the way I did or in the name of anarchy, they are both the same. So what about freedom and responsibility scare you so? Simply referring to the question as irrational or clever merely shows that you flat out don't know or that you are just plain afraid of the truth.

 

And as far as utopian grandeur, I wasn't aware that freedom, peace and prosperity were utopian. In fact, you are the only one stating such.

[carlfense]

Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

And the sun will shine each day, with only enough rain to keep the earth green. Enemies will hug. Thieves and wards of the state will seek gainful employment. All will be right with the world. Hallelujah!

 

Such is the word of anarcho-capitalism. Amen.

 

Glad to see you're finally coming to your senses carlfense. I don't remember ever mentioning anything quite like the utopian grandeur you speak of, but hey, to each his own. By the way, what about freedom and responsibility frightens you so much?

 

I do enjoy the way you can phrase your questions to serve as the answer you seek. Rather than an open ended question such as "What do you think of anarcho-capitalism?" you would instead ask "What about the freedom and responsibility of anarcho-capitalism frightens you so much?" I'm not sure whether you actually think this is a rational question or if you think it is clever. I'd volunteer that it is neither. You would make an excellent pollster though.

 

And yes you did mention topian grandeur. You said that people would realize how much better off they are living in your system and that they would prosper, flourish, and be free and peaceful. Sounds utopian and grand to me.

 

A pollster that's funny!! Actually, the reason I asked it the way I did is because there is only one kind of freedom and responsibility? They are both absolutes. There's no such thing as partial freedom, much as there is no such thing as partial responsibility. To state otherwise is false. It doesn't matter if I ask it the way I did or in the name of anarchy, they are both the same. So what about freedom and responsibility scare you so? Simply referring to the question as irrational or clever merely shows that you flat out don't know or that you are just plain afraid of the truth.

 

And as far as utopian grandeur, I wasn't aware that freedom, peace and prosperity were utopian. In fact, you are the only one stating such.

 

I can't believe I am discussing this again.

 

Your claim that freedom is an absolute is false. Your own claims of the freedoms afforded by a/c show otherwise. For example, you extol the attributes of private property. One of the attributes of private property is that you can control who is allowed to come onto your land. Therefore, as a person not permitted to go onto a property owners land, I am NOT free to go wherever I want. Therefore, my freedom is not absolute. Correct? Yet you claim that a/c provides freedom . . . and that freedom is an absolute. Still with me? Do you see how this is a logical impossibility?

 

Similarly, responsibility is NOT an absolute. I don't know how you can possibly argue that it is. However, I'll accept your false claim if you can show me a single instance of a single person or single action that is 100% responsible for a single result. I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist. (start with a simple fact pattern: A shoots B in the head, killing B. However, C manufactured the gun. D manufactured the bullet. B was only in range of A because he was going to work for E. A got to the site of the shooting by driving a car made by F. The list goes on.)

 

The real world (and people in particular) does not function in absolutes. That is left to philosophers and religions.

 

In short, you say that if I disagree with the viability of a/c then I am A. afraid of freedom, or B. afraid of responsibility. However, my answer (which according to your comments on the righteousness of personal choice is the only possible "true" answer for myself) is C. A/C is an entirely theoretical system with zero real world relevance that is so laughably fraught with erroneous contradictions that I can barely comprehend how someone would willingly and zealously defend it.

 

----

I used your own words that you used to describe an a/c society. "Prosper." "Flourish." "Free." "Peaceful." Does this not sound utopian?

[carlfense]

Also SOCAL, you said one thing a couple months ago, and now you are saying the exact opposite. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Or were you wrong both times?

 

SOCALHUSKER. Post #12 in New Orleans: A Case Study. Today, at 1:26PM.

"Actually, the reason I asked it the way I did is because there is only one kind of freedom and responsibility? They are both absolutes. There's no such thing as partial freedom, much as there is no such thing as partial responsibility. To state otherwise is false."

 

SOCALHUSKER. Post #42 in Anarcho-Capitalism. May 26 2009, 06:32 PM

"Nobody said anything about absolute freedom, of course that's not possible." (saying how absolute freedom is not possible in any system, including anarcho-capitalism.)

 

---

I guess you're saying that your earlier post in the A/C thread was false. How's that for a contradiction?

[huskertim]

Firstly, let's stop redefineing the term anarchy to whatever suits the author. According to dictionary.com, websters3rd, and yourdictionary.com, your defitions are flawed and self serving.[/b]

 

 

Is that so? Maybe you need to look up the definition of anarchy, because it's you who's twisting the definition in a more self serving way.

 

From answers.com dictionary:

From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition at Dictionary.com

 

Anarchy n., pl. -chies.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

2. Political disorder and confusion. (notice political)

3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.]

 

From Princeton Wordnet:

 

Anarchy - Noun

S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))

 

From Wikipedia

 

"No rulership or enforced authority." [1]

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere

 

From Merriam-Webster

 

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3: anarchism

 

Did you honestly just post these without reading them, the only one that approaches the authors hackneyed definition is wiki clause 3,Not the most reliable source, whereas all others support my claim.

 

Wherein do your read Anarchy is a FUNCTIONING society? Wherein do you read persons operating together in HARMONY? How does one come to "reached agreements" without some tacit goverence even within the dynamic of couple much less a society?

 

I submit that a group of individuals acting in concert is to a degree a society and that the organs by which agreements are made and instituted are in themselves a form of governence. To be governed isn't by definition to by ruled nor is to govern to rule.