Welcome to Free Town (Beware of the Bears!)

(PublicAffairs, 2020)

 

 

I.

 

Although vaguely sympathetic to the principles of libertarian philosophy, I certainly wouldn't call myself a libertarian and think that even freedom becomes problematic when turned into an ideal: I can see why limits might be placed upon individual liberty and I accept the need for some form of minimal state. 

 

Thus it is that Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling's new book attracted my interest ... 

 

 

II. 

 

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear (2020) amusingly exposes the shortcomings of libertarian politics put in to practice; in this case, the attempt to establish a self-governing, small-town utopia in rural New Hampshire, in which everyone marches to the beat of a different drum and no one pays taxes. 

 

Twenty years ago, a group of self-styled free radicals came up with the Free Town Project; a plan to take over a small community of roughly a thousand souls and shape it in their own image. In 2004, they moved to Grafton, NH, a sparsely populated settlement with only one main road running through it and quickly took control - just like the corrupt New York City police officers who dominated Garrison, NJ, in the movie Cop Land (1997). 

The first thing they did was cut public funding by 30 percent, negatively impacting the schoolhouse, the library, and the fire department. State and federal laws were still on the books, but no longer enforced. Citizens were free to carry whatever weapons they liked, ignore hunting regulations, and dispose of their own garbage however they saw fit.

 

Soon, with rubbish piling up and sensing an opportunity, the local bears decided to move into town and an ideologically-driven social experiment conducted by quirky individuals who had met over the internet in dubious chatrooms where they discussed Ayn Rand, came up against grizzly reality. 

 

It seems that autonomous individuals don't always self-regulate and assist one another - they don't even empty their bins! Living free often means living an impoverished existence in which one is always at risk - if not from bears and potholes, then from one's neighbours (New Hampshire has the highest per capita rate of ownership for fully automatic weapons). 

 

As Hongoltz-Hetling notes, despite all their best efforts, the 200-odd libertarians who had promised to create a robust and dynamic private sector, had instead made an already poor town much worse off - and overrun with aggressive and increasingly bold black bears, whilst those now in positions of authority argued whether they should or should not do something about it. 

 

(Surely it was up to each individual to defend themselves and their property? Isn't bear management just another statist attempt at control?)         

 

Ultimately, the New Town project failed because no one - or, at least, no one in their right mind - wants to encounter a huge hungry bear in their backyard. 

 

As Patrick Blanchfield concludes in an excellent review of Hongoltz-Hetling's book, whether libertarians wish to accept it or not, "when it comes to certain kinds of problems, the response must be collective, supported by public effort, and dominated by something other than too-tidy-by-half invocations of market rationality and the maximization of individual personal freedom."

 

 

 

    

See:

 

Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling, A Libertarian Walks into a Bear, (PublicAffairs, 2020).

Patrick Blanchfield, 'The Town That Went Feral', The New Republic, (Oct 13, 2020): click here to read online. 

At the Tail End of German Idealism

Nico Metten: Libertarian

Nico Metten is a young German sound designer with a ponytail. He is also someone with interesting views on the question of immigration and national border controls. In a nutshell, he wants to encourage and massively extend the former as a good thing per se, whilst completely dissolving the latter as a matter of principle.

For Nico is a libertarian. He also openly admits to being an idealist which, in his case, means he is someone who believes that everyone is just like him; namely, an abstract labour unit. Or, at least, they should be. Otherwise he's fully prepared to subject them to the law, thereby equating radical difference or any form of otherness that can't be subsumed within a universal humanism, with criminality and terrorism.  

Nico doesn't conceive of those who care nothing for freedom - understood primarily as the freedom of the market place - or bourgeois individualism. That some men and women might value fulfilment over freedom and find such collectively as members of a people, is not something he even stops to consider. 

Besides, a global economy will put an end to such social primitivism in favour of the systematic anarchy and triumphant philistinism which he, Nico, favours, but which, as Nietzsche points out, allows someone only as much culture as it is in the interest of commerce that they should possess. If old ways of being persist, they may do so only as lifestyles; i.e. as commodities that afford men and women the chance to dress-up and indulge in colourful games of nostalgic make-believe, but not to opt-out of the New World Order. 

Of course, Nico is right to argue that many people have been granted human rights within the above and we should not simply dismiss this fact. But, on the other hand, as Deleuze and Guattari argue, human rights ultimately fail to address or compensate for the "meanness and vulgarity of existence that haunts democracies ... The ignominy of the possibilities of life that we are offered."

And so, sorry Nico, but I'm unconvinced by your attempts to politically theorize; one respectfully suggests that you don't give up the day job. And maybe think about a haircut.

                                                                                  
Note: Lines quoted from Deleuze and Guattari are in What is Philosophy?, trans. Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomlinson, (Verso, 1996), pp. 107-08.   

   

Informal Economics: The Triumph of System D

People, cattle and vultures all enjoying the benefits 

of an informal economy

I recently attended an interesting talk given by Dr Marianna Koli, Senior Lecturer in Economics at NCH, on crime, development, and democratization in Latin America, using Mexico, Columbia, and Brazil as her case studies. Central to her paper was a concept which, apparently, has become increasingly popular amongst economists and sociologists, namely, that of informality.

Informality is a term that is used to refer to the unofficial, unregulated, and frequently illicit activity carried on by people either marginalized by the state, or self-excluded and self-employed from preference (often because they resent paying tax, or having to comply with restrictive laws and regulations).

We used to refer to this informal sector as the black market, or shadow economy, and many of those who objected to its existence might point to its flirtatious relationship with the criminal underground. But now, it seems, we are invited to view it in a rather more positive light; i.e. not as a sign of social division and corruption, but as a flourishing of entrepreneurial know-how and urban ingenuity involving skilled professionals and creative individuals and not just the poor and dispossessed desperate to earn a few dollars, or provide basic services and amenities for themselves and their families living in 'non-stable communities' (i.e. what we used to call slums or shanty towns).

Indeed, it is claimed by admirers and advocates that informal activity is not simply a feature of advanced capitalism, but the very engine of such, driving production and innovation forward. Libertarians - keen to do away with the State entirely - are particularly quick to argue that governments should give up their futile attempts to control or combat informal activity and celebrate, expand, and learn from it instead.

For such political optimists, ur-capitalism (or agorism) provides a working model for the future; we can all be free to earn less and do without public services and provisions (such as health care); we can all live hand-to-mouth like those happy-go-lucky Latin Americans, or other peoples who opt for a more traditional lifestyle free from government and state regulation, but not from poverty, exploitation, violence and insecurity.

Who needs civilized society with its boring formalities, material benefits, and universal rights when we can have culture - developed organically from within the conditions of actual lived existence - allowing every individual to shape their own future and stand on their own two feet atop the garbage heaps of the world ...?


Afterword

Dr Marianna Koli has kindly commented on this post below and made her own position clear. I would hope it's understood that the views expressed in this post are mine alone - as are the errors and distortions made. 

Obviously, the post is a piece of polemic written by someone lacking in expert knowledge or experience in this area. Nevertheless, I stand by the central argument that informal economics is simply another way of saying laissez faire capitalism and, as such, something likely to attract the attention of libertarians and those of an Ayn Rand persuasion (i.e. those I regard as political opponents).