It's the first week of fall in the northern hemisphere. And the first week of spring down south. And, here in Acapulco, it's just the same as every other day of the year, 90F and sunny with a light breeze coming off the bay. Here the terms "summer" or "spring" aren't even known. But, in most parts of the world, the weather is a changin'. In the north, summer is gone, the leaves are changing, but are the times? Judging by your feedback, they are not, and if they are, they are changing for the worse. At least the MSM can keep the sheeple distracted with Justin Bieber, iPhone 5s, and the fall TV season. But, dear TDV reader, you know where to come for all your needs in the quest for a life of true liberty. And for that, as always, we thank you.
On to the feedback…
SILVER CUSTODY IN MEXICO
This question is for Jeff:
I have just moved to Mexico and want to open a silver custody account with Banco Azteca. Have you heard of any concerns or problems regarding these allocated accounts?
Gracias!
Michele
Jeff’s Response:
Hola Michele,
The owner of Banco Azteca, Hugo Salinas Price (14th richest man on Earth), is a TDV subscriber and a good personal friend of ours so we may be a bit biased. But, he is a silver bug and offers this service mostly just because he is passionate about trying to bring back silver coins into circulation in Mexico. I don’t have an account with them, which is a major oversight on my part and something that I intend to rectify very soon, but it looks like a great service. I have heard, however, that depending on which branch you go to, the people who work there might not even be aware the program exists… so you may find yourself teaching them about their own product. As for storage, Hugo told me that the silver is stored in a vault they rent in Mexico City. Also, just FYI, you have to be a “resident” of Mexico to open an account. They’ll ask for some sort of utility bill with a Mexican address on it to show proof that you live there.
If you do go and open an account please let us know how it goes! We haven't added in Hugo's service to our compendium of worldwide storage options, Getting Your Gold Out Of Dodge, because we were waiting on some info back from Azteca but if you can give us some first hand info that would be great.
ANARCHY IS CHAOS BECAUSE THE DICTIONARY TELLS ME SO
Gary; Your 'anarchy' piece in the "Parting Shot" for "It's Already Anarchy" is useless mental gymnastics. It is always better to stick with the dictionary (anarchy is the absence of order) than just play with words or invent new meanings. Again, useless.
Best regards,
Dave R
Gary's Response:
Dave, thanks for the kind note, but you are wrong.
I took a look at what the dictionary had to say about this. Here's what I found…
an·ar·chy [an-er-kee]
noun
1.a state of society without government or law.
2.political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by ayear of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.anarchism ( def. 1 ) .
4.lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: theanarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I waslooking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms:chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization,disintegration.
Anarchy’s first few definitions are about LACK OF GOVERNMENT, not a lack of order or chaos. While "chaos" is listed among the synonyms (particularly for the fifth definition), it is not part of the primary definitions. Anarchy does not have to mean a lack of order as you've said… in fact, that's way down there on the list. Anarchy has been conflated over time by the ruling classes who want desperately for you to believe that without them there would be non-stop looting and rape in the streets. It's the nature of language to have definitions of some words shift over time. Consider the adjective "virtual" and the adverb "virtually" which used to mean "truly", but which now means "not quite the real thing". Or consider the word "politics" in the image below…
WHY NO "WE" IN "ANARCHY"?
Dear Jeff, Gary et al:
You know I love you guys, right? You're the warm sea breeze wafting into the room daily carrying away the mental pollution of the boob tube and newspaper. Lovely. Congrats on "Homegrown" the newest TDV value-added service. I am certain you will be providing a lot of actionable suggestions which will in turn create some relief and comfort to those trapped in the homeland.
I am trying my very best to be an anarchist. I really am. I read "Atlas Shrugged:" and "The Fountainhead" many many years ago and pretty much have been living life as a "rugged individual" without being aware it was anarchistic (I haven't voted for decades, etc.). I find anarchy as I'm learning it from people like you, very appealing. But "try" implies a struggle and I am aware I'm struggling, so I reckon other readers of yours must be feeling it too. I want my move into total anarchy to be a natural but sure progression. In fact, it can only be that way. All of the puzzle pieces have to fit or it's a no-go. Above all else, any ideology must work really well (emphasis on "well") in the real world or it's not worth a pinch of raccoon shit. Do you agree?
The reason I am "trying" is because there's a glitch in anarchy as I understand it that's been buggin' me for some time now and that glitch is y'alls take on "we". Menno Troyer took quite a run at "we" last week; Jeff took a run at it yesterday, and I've noticed it's a recurring theme throughout the anarchist community to the point where "We" is now the "N-word" of the anarchists. The dreaded "we". For me, it's starting to get really really annoying. Lately I've been feeling that if I don't somehow purge "we" from my vocabulary as soon as possible I will face zee conseqvences!
Therefore, I am bringing my distress (and probably many others') to your attention requesting clarity so I can uncross my eyes about this word. I'll just jump in with both feet: It appears to me that the anarchist desire to remove "we" is unrealistic and unachievable and unrealistic because it goes against the very nature of humans. Again, I am on your side, so I'm just making an observation that requires clarity, and am not making a criticism.
It appears many anarchists are trying to will the spots off the leopard when that's a sheer impossibility in nature. Or thinking the spots simply aren't there (saying there is no "we" when there in fact is "we" everywhere in life) is just ….. denial and that always ends in misery for the denier.
It is simply fact that if humans are anything, we (oooops, sorry!) are social/herd/tribal animals. It is in our DNA. The vast majority of humans do not like being alone, so we (again!) naturally and organically organize into, first of all, familial groups, then into groups with others who have the same interests. Fact is, as soon as you have two or more people, you will soon hear the "we" word.
A man and a woman dating for more than, say, a dozen times, start using the "we" word. Companies use it to describe their activities both verbally and in their corporate communications. You never hear a CEO saying, "I'm doing this or that". They always say, "We're doing this or that". You guys use the "we" word all the time when describing TDV's activities. Right? In fact, humans unconsciously strive to be and love being "we"! Basically, we (sorry, again!) feel accepted and at home in the "we" – in the company of other like-minded individuals.. It is not correct to deny this facet of human nature. We (oh God!) like to join others in a common goal. We (arrggghhh!) have an innate need to be "we". Right now, I am an "I", but as soon as I start dating that dumb but extremely cute young hunk at the Beer Store, you can bet yer booty I'm going to become a "we" as fast as freaking possible!!
Here's a scenario i would very much appreciate your addressing. If there's a group of employees that are being abused by their employer, they're going to naturally and obviously group together to negotiate or force better pay/conditions. It's just human nature. That tendency underscores the original primary historical reason for humans grouping into the "we" – safety/power in numbers. Being in a group increased the chances of sheer survival of the individuals within it. (It was determined that groups moving to the new world had to be comprised of at least 200 people, or the entire group would not survive.) Don't get me wrong – I hate unions as much as I hate the incredibly deplorable conditions some companies foist on their employees. Absent a union, then, what are those employees to do in real life? Really. I'm not just playing silly bugger here, trying to bust your chops, or being argumentative – I would honestly sincerely like to know how employee contracts would work well for all of them without a union.
In the anarchistic, free market world, would they individually march into the management offices one by one to negotiate a better deal for themselves? That just isn't practical or efficient and is crazy, even though creating a union is dysfunctional at best. And hasn't the elite who run the world now actually formed their own collective in a way?
Best,
Samantha G
Gary's Response:
Thanks very much for the kind words and comments Samantha,
As preface, you may wish to read one of Jeff's greatest treatise, "The Most Dangerous Word In The World". It's short, but sweet!
But, aside from that, hold on there! Who says we anarchist don't believe in voluntary collective effort? We just recognize that rights and responsibilities are applicable only to individuals. (By the way, this is why we hate the state-backed fiction of corporate personhood behind which individuals can do horrible things for which they never have to answer.)
Anarcho-capitalists can give to charity or leave money on their steps for strangers to come take away, contract to form partnerships or to obey orders as one of a body of employees. They can attempt to form unions or coalitions in their work place. They can congregate in any manner they wish with like-minded people.
What they cannot expect is some politically governing body to protect them from the consequences of their actions or to force others to fund or participate in their actions. If, for example, an employer wishes to dismiss any and all employees attempting to form a coalition against him, then the employer is within his rights to dismiss those employees and work out any possible contract violations inherent in the dismissal by means of an agreed upon and privately-funded arbitrator.
Collaboration is great. It's often necessary to maximize efforts and it's entirely natural. Coercive collectivist inclusion, however, is wrong and it's destructive (though sadly coercion also seems to be natural…but then again so does murder and theft…doesn't make it right). When I write "we" in these pages I'm speaking of a handful of individuals who of their own free will have contracted with Jeff to help him serve TDV readers better. When a politician says "we", however, she is pretending to speak for a bunch of people who may or may not agree. Same thing with your statist neighbor. Imagine when people like this use "we":
"WE should go to war with Iran/Iraq/China/Russia!"
"WE should always pay whatever taxes our politicians say WE should pay! WE should never complain about it either."
"WE should forbid homosexuals from forming domestic contracts."
When voluntaryist free market anarchists say "we", we only mean the people who have made it clear that they agree with what we're saying. When I speak of "we here at TDV", I can say with confidence that everyone at TDV stands behind whatever it is I say next. I would never say something like "we here at TDV think everyone should raise their own animals for food"…because not everyone here at this consensual collaboration agrees on that point. I can say with confidence, "We here at TDV think the state is inherently immoral", however!
Do you see the difference? It's that statist, forced collective "we" that we really can't stand. We understand the power of voluntary collaboration both in solving problems and in making our time in the world enjoyable.
To answer your specific example of how to create a tolerable work enviornment: the same way you create a tolerable social enviroment. Stay away from people who make you miserable. If your work conditions are too miserable for the money you are being paid…then leave! It's a simple as that. Shunning or withholding the benefit of your presence and contributions is a market force. It will drive employers to treat employees better. Employers who pay too little to put up with them will simply either have to pay more, have to learn to treat employees better, some combination of the two, or go out of business. It's the same market forces that would limit racism in commercial dealings as well.
("What about when people are so poor and desperate that they'll be willing to work under horrible conditions?" Well, I would point out that complaining about past horrible industrial work conditions is a little like complaining about how pre-Industrial Age parents didn't provide their kids with air conditioning in the summer. That is to say that it is growing wealth, expanding technologies and lower prices — all brought about by free market capitalism — that result in better and safer conditions in workplaces. Not legislation and unions. Like goverments, unions come in later and take credit for trends and progress that were already taking place.)
I'd also argue, by the way, that any "collective" the elite has formed has been state-enabled. The very first of the state-enabled, elite-benefitting collectives is the central banking system itself whose monopoly on the definition and issuance of money and credit steals purchasing power from the savers, those on fixed income and the poor and gives it to government, members of the banking system itself and to the well-connected.
"We" can work together in anarchism as voluntary collaboration. "We" can't work as a coercive grouping or as a means of dodging personal liability. "We" can't excuse bad behavior (theft and killing) because you happen to be in a mob. It doesn't excuse corporate directors of complicit employees, army soldiers or concentration camp guards. "We" doesn't allow you to take money from me to fund your bombing of innocents a world away, or prevent willing parties from associating with each other…or force you and your politician's will on someone else.
Left-leaning early anarchist Benjamin Tucker (who called himself a "socialist" back when the term had a broader meaning, even as he opposed state socialism) thought that the ideal society would be so anti-authoritarian that there wouldn't even be many people classed as employees! His ideal society was one of entrepreneurs and independent contractors. I would say that employees ought to think of themselves as independent contractors no matter what. It's the state that creates the distinction between "employee" (a commerical "child" dependent on the employer "parent" for medical, dental and vision and unemployment insurance) and "independent contractor".
(Note: Another problem I have with Benjamin Tucker was that he suffered from the "labor fetish." His anarchist society would have no one idle or collecting rents. My own vision of free market capitalism is that it constantly moves us more toward a higher quality of life, ever freer from hard labor. Who is Tucker or anyone else to say what a correct amount of work is for the human race? Personally, I'm glad that capitalism moves us towards more idle time, less worry and more abundance.)
So, dear budding anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists, grow your social circles as large as you want. Join commercial companies large or small. Even become part of a hippie gardening co-operative. Help your housemate with the chores! Specialize. Divide the labor. Scale the economies. It all works and it all can and will happen naturally in a voluntary, anarchist society.
And, remember, we… meaning all humans… are all in this together. Anarchy is the best possible system for us all to be happy and prosper. The catch is that we… again, meaning all humans, can't change. Only each of us individually can live a life bereft of violence and theft. We here at TDV wish you the best in your quest!
This bring us to the end of another Feedback Friday. As always, it's our great pleasure to carry on these discussions with you here (and keep those questions and comments coming!), but don't forget that we also have no-nonsense macroeconomic analysis and advice avaiable from our TDV newsletter. You can find out more and sign up here.
We hope you have a fantastic weekend!
