Privatize The Government?

I don't mean that it's weird or toxic - just that it doesn't emanate from nature. "Management" isn't a tree or a river. It's a telegraph or a transistor radio. Somebody invented it. And over time, most inventions - from the candle to the cotton gin to the compact disc - lose their usefulness.

Management is great if you want people to comply - to do specific things a certain way. But it stinks if you want people to engage - to think big or give the world something it didn't know it was missing. For creative, complex, conceptual challenges - i.e, what most of us now do for a living - 40 years of research in behavioral science and human motivation says that self-direction works better. And that requires autonomy. Lots of it.

If we want engagement, and the mediocrity-busting results it produces, we have to make sure people have autonomy over the four most important aspects of their work:

Task - What they do

Time - When they do it

Technique - How they do it

Team - Whom they do it with.

After a decade of truly spectacular underachievement, what we need now is less management and more freedom - fewer individual automatons and more autonomous individuals.

I read an article in the 6 Jan 2010 Wall Street Journal about how the proposed national health insurance had a marriage penalty, costing a married couple up to an additional $2,000 more per year than if they were single. I wrote the journalist, Martin Vaughan, this response: (slightly edited)

I appreciate the fact you are covering an issue that gets little exposure. But every time I see such an article, or one on similar problems from IRS treatment, state problems with mixed marriages, or the homosexual debate I can only think of one question.

Why is the government involved with marriage?

It is a pact between individuals, and placing the government between them seems obscene. Notice I say individuals, not limiting them by beliefs, nationality, numbers, etc. If the government steps back and treats people as individuals, the parties can arrange their own ceremonies as they wish -- or skip them altogether. Currently, specific people are allowed to wed in an afternoon, but need six months to sever the union. We end up with costly serial marriages with grave penalties for both entry and dissolution. We also devalue the sanctity of marriage for those that believe in it.

Let people develop their own pacts on their own terms with whomever they wish; and let the government ignore the pacts, unless those involved chose to fall under contract law. We don't need a government that believes itself our Mommy, Daddy, or Nanny. We need a government that treats us as adults.

"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken

The government considers us wed to it due to an accident of birth. Maybe they are jealous.

Or, as one hero of the cyberhug.me trilogy put it in his hacktivist creed:

"Without consistent ethics: Thousands of laws create theater portraying protection of the weak, while covertly rewarding the powerful.

With consistent ethics: Ten commandments are enough.

Most laws are enacted, most agencies and departments created; to legally legitimize immoral, unjust, and unethical practices.

I will pursue freedom instead. By placing human rights above law, freedom blesses all free people through complicit simplicity."

Hey, that's part of my creed.

I know you love your country - so this must be for all the other countries out there. You know, the ones your country refuses to deal with.

A natural basis of relationship is family and tribe - a tribe acting as an extended family. Normally these relationships operate under known rules that are accepted by the group's members.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead

As group size increases, rules are created to support the dominance of the few. An early stage might be a city state - we can use Rome or Washington D. C. as examples. Some families or cliques will soon dominate - rules to support and perpetuate their dominance are then put into effect.

"The gentle government that promises to hold your hand as you cross the street refuses to let go on the other side." - Theodore J. Forstmann


When Rome (Washington is now like Rome - ruling both country and empire) first conquered local cities it offered survivors an opportunity to join Rome under their rules. As growth continued oppression increased in new territories with each victory. The increasingly harsh rules at the boundaries of empire enshrined the ruling elite in Rome.

Beyond a certain size groups will be inherently unequal. Democracy changes the structure but does not change the facts, manipulators of the majority become the ruling class -- bureaucrats making rules for their own benefit. Consider lions and sheep voting on what's for dinner; if the lions have the majority.

The early American form of government lasted almost a century because there were laws restraining lions, and sheep had military grade weapons. The founding fathers had designed the republic with those guarantees. According to our congress, judicial system, and executive branch - the guarantees have now expired.

"The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it - once you can say 'I don't know,' then it becomes possible to get at the truth."
Robert A. Heinlein


Governments originally sprang from roving tribes that looted early agrarians. These criminal bands eventually settled down and stole in one convenient location - offering "protection" from other thieves in exchange for support. A government would then be the first form of organized crime, one reason it resists all other organized criminals that try to muscle into its territory.

Into this admittedly extreme position I will, with apologies to the author, insert a quote by a brilliant man - who I am reasonably sure did not expect to have this quote applied in this manner.

"Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits"
Mark Twain


I regard the above as what it appears to be - a condemnation of ignorantly and automatically supporting your vastly extended political tribe in elections.

But since Samuel Langhorne Clemens is no longer here to defend his thoughts, I will paraphrase it and put it to my own uses.

Look at the tyranny of country--at what is called patriotic allegiance, patriotic loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns citizens into chattles, slaves, rabbits.


allegiance can be a virtue.

Supporting and defending yourself, your family, and your friends when they are in the right is both natural and to be applauded.

Commitment to a just cause is a hallmark of rational beings.

Connection with a local team or institution can enrich your life. Cheering for a local team is a harmless identity projection.


However -- following a faction, group, or party of loosely defined causes without reservation is grossly extended and ignorant tribalism.

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements" - Theodore Roosevelt

Roving criminals still exist, and will settle into any group that folks follow blindly. From a position of authority they will then abuse power and seek to perpetuate their dominance.


The good news is that society is changing - technology is empowering thoughtful individuals to reclaim their personal freedom.

It may not happen soon enough for you, unless you take control of your own life. Use the expanding personal power of technology to create a better society, for you and yours, and by extension for all of us.

"Let others lead small lives, but not you. Let others argue over small things, but not you. Let others cry over small hurts, but not you. Let others leave their future in someone else's hands, but not you." - Jim Rohn


And what does this have to do with the future?

The future that will be most important to you is your own future. Don't decide on your actions based on what you have been taught or allowed to experience.

It is a big world, there are many cultures to choose from.


It is your life - live your own life in the manner you feel is most important.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
P.J. O'Rourke

Many arguments over government, aside from the loud and senseless ones by those cheering for their political team, end up about how much government is the right amount of government.

Socialists, be they communist or fascist, think the government should control just about everything. Communists run the government and their countries with political party elites, fascists run it with a few political elites and large business leaders. Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists by contrast think little or no government is just about right.

We have seen socialist extremes in our life time, Russia collapsed under a huge central government. The American Revolution came close to a libertarian society, a limited and weak central government with free and separate states competing for free and mobile citizens. There have been no extreme anarcho-capitalist states since the Industrial revolution. Prior to that the Hansa League for one was a type of very loose capitalist alliance, for centuries there was no real central authority structure.

States in transition to watch include China, now capitalist in structure with a strong central government growing weaker. The United States is also in transition, it was once capitalist in structure with distributed power and since the start of the last depression has steadily been socialized and centralized. Russia, stuck in the spin cycle. Russia has never had a strong small business class, the closest it has come to capitalism is fairly primitive. Russia is floundering about with half measures and over reactions. India is the unnoticed but potentially powerful dark horse, a large number of literate people strangled by regulation and tradition, but they are emerging quickly.


The oldest democracy in the world is Switzerland, with over 500 years of successful decentralized government among diverse citizens. As a capitalist country surrounded by a heavily socialist Europe, Switzerland too is under great pressure. With the emerging information and miniaturization age all countries are under the pressure of societal change.

When folk talk of programs they feel absolutely need government, they usually mention at least roads, courts, and police.

Roads we can envision privatized because we have seen toll roads. Courts are tougher, but we have seen Judge Judy. JJ is really just binding arbitration, both parties guarantee they will abide by her decision, a quick presentation and the case is settled. Most civil matters can be privatized, and then we can look at criminal trials.

Police, here we can consider small private teams of Cops looking for a few year contract. Their reputation for lack of unnecessary force and fair action may get their contract renewed, otherwise they can get booted. The threat of the boot, and the extra pay from competition for the better teams, will encourage fair and balanced enforcement. Police as short term mercenaries under civil authority is very doable. Think of it as term limits for power.

Think of the huge outpouring from the private sector for Katrina, private charity is much more efficient than government programs, and would be larger still if government did not take half of everyone's income.


It can be done; it has been done. The difficulty is keeping government limited over time. The US constitution did that for almost a century, before it started getting ignored - can we do as well?

With our changing society will it be done? The next question is which nation will attempt it first? There will be liberty and wealth for the people of countries that succeed.

This next 50 years will be very interesting.

Judge Judy, one way to avoid slow and unjust courts.

When folks talk about why we need government - one of the first arguments is - to provide services.

In reality there is no less efficient way to meet needs than give money and power to a bureaucracy. Regardless of the rhetoric used when created, a bureaucracies main goal will always be to perpetuate itself and grow.

We have seen over and over again how private enterprise solutions are less expensive and produce better results. Of course in the case of education or the post office, bureaucrats are not willing to give up their power and profiteering just to benefit students and the nation.

It is the same with other services. Arbitration works better and cheaper in many cases than the court system - yet remains under used.


In many cases private solutions would work better, but are so subject to regulation that they end up even more inefficient than government. Electrical service is one example. I just received a letter from my congresswoman about expected blackouts this summer - and how I need to conserve energy. I've heard this from her every year for a decade. Obviously government can't meet the needs and please enough voters - so they blame citizens.

In California the government had screwed up power supply so badly they pretended to privatize it. They left power under so many impossible rules and regulations they could claim privatization failed and then take it back after some private sector fixes were applied. Private enterprise never had a chance.

Officials don't care about electrical power. Open market solutions would save money and provide better service; but then politicos would have less power over other's lives. That is the power they are concerned about.

"The state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says, it lies; and whatever it has, it has stolen. Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth." Nietzsche


Here is a privatization which is sorely needed:

competition for policemen and police forces.

The pressure to provide good service, and not use excessive force, would impel competing teams to provide balanced protection. The best teams would get the best contracts, and seek to be even better.

Poor police teams, violent teams, and arrogant teams would not keep their jobs. The best officers would be sought for competing teams - and without tenure would strive to stay the best.

The biggest problem would be in who gets to choose and oversee the teams. Politics is a corrupting influence. There are remedies for political corruption, such as term limits, that go beyond this discussion.

Of course politics is corrupt without police team competition already. Over time many police departments develop their own subculture of corruption. It would be nice to be able to toss them both out and start over.


There are answers out there - most begin with less regulation and smaller government. Private solutions can be created to keep control out of the hands of the four bigs.

To stand this argument on end I will quote Harry Browne - a hero of the efficient government battle. Read Harry Browne's books such as How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World. Maybe your library has a copy.

Harry asked a question that went something like this:

"Would you give up your favorite government program to pay no taxes?"

I doubt if big police departments are many people's favorite government program.

The Federal Reserve itself is part of the problem.

The Fed was created in 1913 (contributing to the first great depression) as a private, bank owned, institution (it is less government controlled than Federal Express) to "smooth out the business cycles and ensure steady growth." The Federal Reserve (the third try at a US national bank) is an example of our imprecise understanding of chaotic, complex systems; and the difficulty of manipulating what is not fully understood.

Go to a beach and watch the waves, a natural phenomenon. The incoming waves are undercut, amplified, diminished, and infinitively changed as preceding waves return out to sea. Measuring the height of a wave as it reaches shore does not allow you to counter it effects in real time, as the following wave is already adjusting in the complex interactions of other waves and the shore line.

The levers used to control natural financial volatility; interest rates, money supply, direct intervention, and tax relief all shift problems to the future, and exacerbate the normal emotional swings within a social community. The next wave of volatility is approaching, while we are still dealing with the one pulling out to sea.

"If government were a product, selling it would be illegal."
P. J. O'Rourke


Governments use taxes, fees, inflation, penalties, etc. to steal from everyone, then give back a portion to justify their existence. This silent partner in labor's rewards but not their effort, affixed itself as a parasite to any enterprise except those favored by quid-pro-quo legislation. Monopolies flourished, individual efforts were minimized and eliminated.

Prior to the Federal Reserve, recessions were called financial panics, and their short effects were largely limited to financial markets. With the Fed, adjustments made to interest rates and money supply dull short term panics, but in turn fuel illogical investment and get rich quick schemes. These schemes are not based on business principles, but on arbitrage of money imbalances. The products of those schemes is what we are facing today.

Government policies create a crises, the cry than arises to expand government to handle the disaster. Government keeps expanding to meet the needs of an expanding government.

We are in effect throwing rocks and logs into the ocean hoping to eliminate wave action. We will get wet, we will lose valuable timber, we will have no permanent results except in misdirection of effort from policies that might have a salubrious effect.


It is time to quit building sand castles below the tide line and calling ourselves princes.

The only real long term effect of the Federal Reserve has been the destruction of the dollar. In 1912 a dollar bought about the same amount of product, purchasing parity if you will, as it would have in 1800. Today it will buy less than a nickels worth of a similar product.

Inflation is a hidden tax, theft from everyone, created by increasing money supply, and thereby diminishing the value of existing money. That is what the bailouts - just tossing bigger logs and rocks - are doing, creating money that will diminish the value of whatever has been saved or earned. There will still be waves in the sea, many will now be larger when they reach the shore.

By the Federal reserve, and the US government, attempting to ban waves on the beach, they have caused the sea to pull back. We are now facing a tsunami. "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


The tsunami will come. But we can allow natural enterprise back in after the impact, and we will watch as they dissolve the Federal Reserve. A distributed network of independent banks, as we had before the Fed, worked well -- with open technology they will work even better this time.

It would be best to disassemble doomed structures before they fall and cause even more damage. It will take a committed people to accomplish that, a parasite does not willingly curtail it's claim on the life force of another.

Go to the next post and you will see it all worked out well for the Pot Pie Girl, and us.


The problem with central control is that you formalize corruption and add many new costs. You can not regulate away scams and dirty dealing, they still exist even in prisons where inmates are under (almost) total control.

In the real world it is still up to the individual to protect themselves by dealing with folks they know to be honorable, backing up their data, and diversifying their risks.

There are sites on-line that do a good job of exposing scams. There are many existing laws that thieves dance around and are arrested for breaking. There are thousands of organizations that police us already. Another layer of bureaucrats will not protect those that do not protect themselves.

If this had been a real vendetta, it would have been found out and exposed. Perhaps Jennifer would have taken her data and led us to new sites - that was not required this time. We currently have freedom to select who we work with; and an effective, informal reputation based system for selecting on-line relationships.


What is subsidized increases - over protecting fools leads to more fools (look at the highly regulated finance industry).

With high regulation and central controls you can still be scammed or assaulted; at school, in a paper or magazine, from your government, on a street corner, or at any juncture where you deal with fellow humans.

If you are wise and not greedy you can minimize your own risks; even when working with lawyers, bureaucrats, or at an auto dealership.


It is hard to believe, but prior to the last depression, America had hundreds of automobile producing companies. Today we have 2 1/2, and soon perhaps one centrally controlled company. Regulation and taxes have destroyed quality, innovation, value, and choice - and still do not protect consumers. It is as if our leaders decided three couples are enough of any species - "ensuring their survival" - and neutered all others.

"When governments intervene and regulate - they decrease the diversity of the economic ecosystem, resulting in a limiting of natural selection within commerce." - Allan Wallace

Other enterprises, large and small, have suffered similar fates. We will never know how much has not been attempted, how much innovation died early, how often a better future has been crushed by - regulation, taxes, and catering to entrenched special interests.

Regulators do not exist for the benefit of the regulated or their clients. Once created a regulatory body gains life, and exists to perpetuate itself and grow. The already over regulated members of our societies will function best if freed to relate in self regulating and adaptable relationships.

Or; we can settle for evolving a controlled economy (and internet) that has few options - like driving a Yugo till the next breakdown. "A traffic jam is a collision between free enterprise and socialism. Free enterprise produces automobiles faster than socialism can build roads and road capacity." - Andrew Galambos

Banksters, congress, and the white house have found a solution to the above definition by Andrew Galambos - socialize the auto industry: few operating cars = no traffic jams.


Wouldn't it be nice to allow natural enterprise to develop a real solution instead?

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win" - Ghandi

(If you want to start an internet business, The blog I wrote this on is owned by the Pot Pie Girl, Jennifer. I have found Jennifer to be honorable; and I can think of no better guide to lead you in your quest for a home based income. Her One Week Marketing is a solid entry into your own web based, portable business.)

A Quick History Lesson

"The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. So they've had 234 years to make it work. It is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. They've had 74 years to make it work. It is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They've had 71 years to make it work. It is broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They've had 39 years to make it work. It is broke.

The War on Poverty started in 1964. They've had 45 years to make it work. About $1 trillion of taxpayer money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor." It hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They've had 44 years to make it work. They are both broke.

AMTRAK was established in 1970. They've had 39 years to make it work. Last year it had to be bailed out and today continues running at a loss.

$700 billion bailout of 2008. It has yet to create a single new private-sector job.
Cash for Clunkers in 2009 went broke after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies.

The U.S. government has a 100% failure rate.

Is it any wonder why we are in favor of less, not more, government? "



By the way, if the US government was you, it would be broke. When you can print money you don't go bankrupt, you just keep printing money, People will keep wanting more of it in exchange for their things, until they finally quit taking it altogether.

Anarchy is defined as no government.

Just how bad is that?

Anarchy can be horrible, that is true - but is it always horrible? No more consistently true than belief that despotism can be benevolent. Some anarchists may be Marxist anti-bureaucratic, bomb tossing extremists; but most are rational free-thinkers. Anarchy has worked in the past, and worked well - mostly in well armed and hence polite societies. Benevolent dictators have existed in the past, mostly noticeable by their limited societal intervention complimented by organizing of defense against aggression directed toward their subjects.

There are some that believe the term limited government is an oxymoron. Political Science students are taught that a benevolent dictator is the best of governments. This springs of course from a world view of bureaucrats that want to manage others - and love to cast themselves in the role of benevolence.

"Bureaucracies are inherently unjust. But bureaucrats are like weeds, pull one and tomorrow there will be two. Leave them alone and there will soon be a walled compound with administrative tower buildings and perimeter signs proclaiming that this invaluable sanctuary is off limits - except to more weeds." - Allan R. Wallace

We have been taught that anarchy is a great evil.

So how does Anarchy get any support at all? Think of the common picture you were taught about anarchy. A government fails - anarchy results - disaster follows. That is not anarchy, that is failed government. All the bureaucrats and enforcers of the prior government are loosed upon society, seeking to recover the security of power they once had. It would be better to open the prisons than have an open season on society by self-aggrandizing, power hungry, unleashed bureaucrats. Frequently you get both at "government fail," criminals both internal and external released.

Society and government are two totally different things. Society functions best when it is self ordering, government is most efficient at controlling society when it approaches despotism and makes civilians, slaves. Slaves are not at all inventive, don't expect advances against existing problems. Slaves are barely productive, but they can be paid with ideas such as "free" healthcare, mealy bread, and circuses.

Anarchy was approached at the founding of America, somewhat based on fellow intellectual's insights, the reality of many Native American tribal anarchies, and the foundations laid by William Penn. This partial anarchy was existing and working well until the structure of the constitution was applied. The Constitution, and even more so the Bill of Rights, were written to limit government; but disingenuous interpretations became an excuse to start government's expansion.

Yes, the state constitutions and local governments were created to apply order, and they also heavily emphasized the supremacy of individuals. There might be requirements for all citizens to join and be trained by local Militias, or to serve on a jury; but government interventions in other areas were mostly viewed as a foundation for tyrants, and opposed.

Consider the intent behind this definition of Tyranny: "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." - Thomas Jefferson

Anarchy does not exist when a government collapses, it must be carefully planned and implemented to be a success, or already be part of smaller tribal groups and grow with society. Back when the world was much warmer, and Iceland was settled as farming communities, Iceland functioned well as a natural anarchy. Today it would not be tolerated as such, and other nations would invade to install a leadership they could control or count as almost an equal.

Governments act as if they must grow or die, and governments continue to grow until they kill the society host they are bleeding. At society death comes government death - but surviving secondary rulers rush to rule - creating chaos.

As we privatize government, let us re-train the bureaucrats for productive work. Bureaucrats may be small minded and limited in abilities; but they can handle simple tasks that keep them, and us, safe from their depredations.

return to top of page

100% of direct income from my lenses goes to micro-finance solutions for world poverty provided by the Grameen Foundation. The Grameen Foundation is creating a rising tide of positive influence upon our world. Help decrease poverty, by enabling the poor to support themselves.

Will YOUR life be based on what you want to use it to accomplish, or by random urges of what you want to do?

We elect government officials to referee a game; they have come to believe this means they own the teams, the stadiums, and the sport." - Allan R. Wallace