The background of anarcho-capitalists

The following is in response to "Isn't anarcho-capitalism a contradiction?"  However, I found I was answering a different issue so I decided not to post it.

Thanks to /u/AnCom9 and /u/figgycal for some recognition of potentially murky waters with respect to the term "property".  I'd like to expand this a bit, because even Proudhon used "property" in a positive way:

"Where shall we find a power capable of counter-balancing the... State? There is none other than property..." (found at http://www.anarchy.no/proudhon.html )

"Property" rights in (my US) culture may be looked at either way:

1) It is a weapon of control or self-centered accumulation.

2) It is a foundation of respect for the possessions of others.

This second viewpoint is the viewpoint of most ("good") people around me; our education system expands property to an unnatural application in social organizations, so it's hard to get people to draw the appropriate lines and value that idea of possession rather than the absolute ownership of shared resources, but that foundation isn't a bad start.  It's very hard for me to understand and apply... it takes real focus to adjust our conceptual models.

BTW, one thought on that education: it's thought-provoking to fight property in private conversations, but it's mostly unhelpful to just declare that property is totally evil in a one-sided forum without the back-and-forth.  (... for people with my background, of course.  Always a caveat!)

I work in the computer-programming arena where there is a strong sentiment that we should all be rewarded for our contributions (as opposed to rent-seeking).  This even extends into the community (of makers) where we want to share freely the fruits of our labor so that others can benefit.  So I believe the underlying sentiment is there, and people just need the extended education about the problems extending these ideas to capital.

In short: anarcho-capitalism has many things wrong, but most anarcho-capitalists (with whom I interact) are, at heart, sympathetic to the the large-scale capitalist problems while dedicated to a respect for the small-scale freedoms... and motivated to help find solutions.

Another scheme for control -- from the winner of this year's TED Prize

Summary: To fight corruption, she is proposing even more draconian control of free trade, targeted at companies instead of government... and she just won the TED Prize for it.

I'm scared.

I saw the blurb about this TED talk on "openness" in business by Charmian Gooch, and I avoided it until I was in the right frame of mind for something political and inflammatory... and I finally watched it this morning and my fear was confirmed.  She claims it's much too easy to set up a company right now, so people can do it at-will and then hide behind layers of companies when doing nefarious things; the solution is a global (!) requirement that requires that we know exactly who is the responsible party behind each and every corporation created.

It looks like Charmian has done some impressive work on tough problems happening in some of the most unstable and poor places in the world, and furthermore she has founded an organization Global Witness which now has 80 people who are investigating these situations and all the surrounding corruption.  Magnificent!  I've just added their RSS to my watchdog list.

But let's look at why her plan is wrong-headed.  She's right that people can use these structures to hide; however, how can anyone believe that someone using it for this purpose is not going to find another way?  If this were ever implemented, I have a simple solution for anyone wanting to avoid responsibility: find someone you can pay to be the responsible party.  There are always people willing to do this kind of work... heck, TaskRabbit has created a business where you can hire people do do things for you like stand in line for the new iPhone... and even in the halls of Congress you'll find people who are paid by lobbyists to stand in line on their behalf.

So, let's talk about all the additional rules and regulations that need to be added (and enforced) to ensure that this scheme accomplishes her goal of stamping out corruption...

No way.  It makes me tired just thinking about it.

So let's skip ahead to the evils if we were ever to just take the first step she proposes.

• It leaves the fundamental corruption in place: without the support of people in state institutions (eg. lawmakers, police, bureaucrats) these kinds of abuses would be much fewer, much less heinous, and much harder to instigate.  This fundamental oversight makes her message sound like the RootStrikers initiative, which is focused all on a single issue of campaign finance while ignoring all the other spheres of power operating in government; at least they recognize the origin of the problem in the state institutions, but neither Charmian's talk nor the Global Witness issues say anything about that problem, so they're not even touching the core of the problem.

• Her proposal restricts trade and personal liberty.  Hong Kong has had phenomenal growth in prosperity primarily due to to the economic freedom there, where it's even easier to create a company that in the US.  Again, crooks will always game the system; however, it hurts society much more when more restrictions are thrown onto small-time operators who are trying to create prosperity.  As a small business owner, I can tell you how onerous it is to try and run a legitimate business while trying to understand the requirements, much less try to comply and force others to comply; I can also tell you the uses of creating multiple companies, so more requirements would definitely compound the burden.  Add to that the ways that incorrect filings and incompetence can affect you (with no repercussions to the responsible bureaucrats), and you've got a high bar to clear before you can prove that the costs outweigh the benefits.

• As I've pointed out, it'd be easy for criminals to get around this... meaning that the next step will be yet more regulations and barriers added.  Maybe everyone has to go into an office and talk face-to-face with a screener before getting approved to start any organization dealing with money; many already know where I'm going with this: it's a real burden to be forced to report in to a bureaucracy.  And of course this opens the door to even more interlocking requirements with agencies like the Treasury or the DMV where you cannot accept electronic money for work or your company car will be impounded if any of the responsible parties owes something to another bureaucratic arm.

• Even in "free" countries, state workers have proven their tendency to pursue individuals (eg. Catherine Engelbrecht) and whole industries (eg. payday lenders) that the governing party or leader just doesn't like.  I'm sure they would like nothing better than even easier access to every one of our business relationships.

• That last point shows how evil it would to give the state institutions even more access to our relationships; now let's point to some good reasons for anonymity.  The easy answer is as a counter the authority of a rogue state apparatus who can crack down on all individuals they deem as competition.  Come to think of it, most of the cases I can imagine are to avoid malicious state activity... and I personally distrust most states in the world today!  But another valid case is a truly democratic advocacy organization (eg. a DAC) where the individuals don't want everyone to know their membership for any number of reasons.  (I happen to believe the future belongs to more democratic and decentralized organizations.)

I believe we can get to a world where most of this information is open because it truly fosters trust and humanity, and I am an optimist.  However, when we entrust the state to enforce this kind of behavior, it's misplaced trust... and very dangerous.

How about this: let's make every single state relationship and transaction 100% transparent.  Once we have that, we'll great progress with the issues she described... and then we can talk about businesses.  Once we get rid of the politics-based influence and make all businesses more accountable to us the people, most of the large-scale evil simply cannot be supported; take a look and see how many of these abuses are obviously supported the state, and then ask me sometime about examples where those companies leverage their state influence more insidiously and secretly.

And now we get to why I'm so sad: she was awarded the TED Prize this year... and she got a standing ovation.  People really have so much faith in government that they applaud this power-grab.  Is that really the opinion in the world today?

Our kids are in trouble.

"I just do not trust other people."

• Synopsis: If you believe we need government to watch the other people you don't trust, you're giving extra authority to exactly those other people... and, worse, their bureaucratic organization.

Talking with my brother about getting rid of the state, he said he just couldn't go along because "I just do not trust other people."  (Or maybe he said that "people are stupid and selfish"... yeah, that sounds more like him.)  I have a typical response but forgot to use it: I'm much the same as you, and that's exactly why I don't want to give extra authority to other people... specifically lawmakers, and the military and police they control.  To me, it is much scarier to have a small set of people who have monopoly power over a police force and taxing authority and water management.

Isn't it much safer to have everyone watching out for everyone else?  It goes against many of our cherished ideals of a benevolent leadership.  We should be able to make the right kinds of laws and put the right kind of people in charge to make good decisions!  Everyone (including myself) believes that we know some of the right things to do and we have good ideas about things that should work well for everyone, and I think that leads us to have faith in rulers.  But the fact is that absolute, codified laws cannot cover all situations and human conditions... and the intended beneficial consequences that are claimed by politicians mask an iceberg of costs and unintended consequences that are hard to see but which drag down so many other parts of our communities.

And history has shown us how even the American government with the most noble of founders and foundational concepts can easily be corrupted, in every generation... and not only do we give improper power over our lives to corruptible people, but more critically we see how the system becomes self-serving to the point where bureaucratic incentives do not serve the public good.

Jefferson: "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing"

A friend of mine saw this note from Thomas Jefferson and thought I may have something to say about it:

"Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

I think the American Experiment has shown that even a well-defined, limited set of powers will be expanded and abused by those who gain power (whether in a republic or a democracy).  This country has become become oppressive and violent.  So it's good to see that Jefferson recognized the need for a little rebellion.

But dismissing anarchy (ie. no government, option #1) shows a lack of imagination.  I might actually agree with him that it may not support the kind of society we have... I don't think we'd have atomic energy (or bombs) nor would we have the space technology we have today, and maybe we couldn't support such a large population, either.  However, I see that as an upside: power would not be concentrated in so few people's hands, families and communities would be more connected (out of necessity), and lives would be richer (in the spiritual sense, not an economic/comfortable sense).

It can be hard to see how to apply it, and it requires a massive rework of our social conventions.  For example, how can we get to where people will not be driven by fear to hire mercenaries to "protect our interests" in other people's lands (or states or even nearby cities)?  I'm afraid it'll require massive education before it'll work... probably spanning generations.  But it's really cool to think about it all... for example, the basis of possession as opposed to private property: http://dbzer0.com/blog/private-property-vs-possession/

Anyway, back to Jefferson's point: a little rebellion is a good thing.  I wholeheartedly agree.  And I think we're overdue for one.

How do we get a voluntary society?

In my previous post, I put the word "let's" in the title, as if the achievement of anarchy were something that we could do in any of our lifetimes.  However, when I think of the two routes for our future, the outlook is grim:

• If we have a quick collapse, I imagine people are going to want to set up local governments and gather armies to preemptively "defend" their homeland and rights (eg. to water) because they're afraid for their future.  (In contrast, members of a voluntary society will depend on persuasion rather than force to get what they want.)
• If we have a gradual decline in central authority, the outlook could be better because people will slowly have to get used to working out their own solutions, but as I look at the trend in America (and other nations) it seems that people are choosing more authoritarianism the more they feel uncertain, so they spiral down the whirlpool of feeding the beast.

Basically, people's biggest argument to me is that "people cannot handle it," and I think they're not far off, but not for the reasons they think: people would do better than we suppose, but most are afraid of the idea that someone's not "in charge" or "doing something" and so they'll try to put up another government... even the ones that are self-sufficient would join the gang -- not because people wouldn't handle it but because of their fear that other people wouldn't handle it.

So maybe we'll never get there.  But I've gotta try.

Basically, it'll be a lot of work to show examples and change the majority mindset over time.  (Hm... I wonder if society will stay stable enough for these ideas to propagate!  Well, I've got to act as if they will.)  Seems I've got company in this opinion: here are calls for "gradualism" and for "methodology (not creeds)".  (Although I, like Rothbard, would gladly jump to the final goal if given the chance.)

So let's get pragmatic: let's spread around the activities that'll help us get there.  Join me there, and I'll join with you.

Let's Achieve Anarchy. (Seriously!)

OK, I'm just going to come out and say that I'm an anarchist.  I don't know that we'll be able to get to a stateless (ie. governmentless) society in my lifetime, but I'm now convinced that it's not only possible but actually desirable: I believe that a world of anarchy -- meaning a world where there is no hierarchy of government force and all associations are voluntary -- will be overall a better world for us.  This conclusion has been a long time coming; many of you know that I've been pretty libertarian for many years now... I didn't seriously think that a society was possible without a government... but the more I study and look around the more I see that most everyone would benefit.  It may require smart people with good plans to pave the way, plus a lot of dedication and attention to the cause and a ton of luck... so I'm going to do all I can to help everyone see the benefits of voluntarism and the evils of "the state".

Let me reiterate something: anarchy doesn't mean chaos or no social order; political anarchy just means no enforced political hierarchy.  We'll still have police, courts, roads, welfare and all kinds of other things that government currently does... they just won't be owned by government and backed by aggression... they'll be done they way they've always evolved: naturally, and appropriate to the societal conditions.  I know, you may be worried that those with the biggest guns will own everything and the environment will be trashed, so read on.

Let me give the best argument I have for anarchy: "look around."

In addition to the philosophy (and there's to plenty to study), I will continually gather arguments:

• There are more and more P2P, voluntary, contractual, community, distributed solutions popping up all over the world: use RSS to subscribe to my bookmarks (see past ones here) or follow my future posts
• There is plenty of evidence every day that governments at every level oppress 99.99% of the people for the benefit of the politically well-connected: use RSS to subscribe to my bookmarks (see past ones here)

Just a quick note to my friends who may lean toward one side or other of the major US political parties:

• Republicans: I believe most of you value liberty, so keep your eyes open for evidence that the large corporations and large bureaucracies have the most access and favors from our politicians, so they are creating a system that weakens individual and small-scale power.
• Democrats: Since you value civil liberties, watch for how government force and policy can be changed at a whim; and since you value social good, watch for how the big corporate, political, and military players are always getting their own policies injected into the process.

Government is actually our enemy.  My hope is to kindly but directly demonstrate it to everyone, with philosophy, with real solutions, and by living it more and more in my life.

Cheers!

I'm outraged at Turing's treatment, but it seems many haven't learned from it.

Most everyone agrees that the persecution of Alan Turing (for homosexual activity) was wrong.  However, I want to point out a mindset that I consider dangerous, and which will lead to more of this kind of oppression.  In explaining the House of Lords' rejection of a posthumous pardon, Lord McNally stated on Feb 2 that:

Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.

Improper laws should not be supported.  We should not only abolish them, but also decry their creators and enforcers and declare that it was never right to support them in the first place.  Lord McNally's statement shows an opinion I see all too often: the support for laws just for the reason that they're laws.  I'm sorry, but I reject the idea that it is good to uphold oppression just to maintain order or just because it was decided by a group of so-called representatives; there is no virtue in unquestioning support of government rules.

Let's make it more popular to disobey bad laws (especially when done openly!).

Financial Collapse: It's both Wall Street AND Main Street

Lawrence Lessig is promoting the film Inside Job.  I'm glad; it looks like it'll be informative (and hopefully not just emotional).

However, Lawrence says, '... it is crazy—literally crazy—to point to "the losers" as the cause,' where "the losers" are everyday people being bailed out by government programs.  No, it's not crazy: a large part of our financial mess is due to a culture of greed in America, one where people are looking for quick, high returns without looking at the underlying process.  Stocks, securities, banks, and even government bonds all have some kind of risk.  It is unreasonable (an unsustainable) for our society to expect to close their eyes and give their money without understanding the businesses.  There is no guarantee of the future in any aspect of life, and there is definitely no way for everyone to get rich quick.

The only way to build a stable life is to work hard, be committed, and learn constantly.

OK, so not everyone who has lost is guilty.  But it is the prevailing culture in America... or it has been of late.  Let's hope we put that period behind us, rather than blaming some easily-identified targets and leaving it at that.

I'd love to have a local museum! But I'd rather it be voluntary.

A friend of mine just wrote encouraging me to participate in an event that will help raise money and awareness of a local museum. I asked if the museum would be built or supported with taxpare funds. They wrote back:

"For your information, it is mandated in the Bountiful City code that we, yes the people, we have a right and responsibility to record, archive, preserve, and disseminate the history of our community. It is not only proper that we use tax payer money for this purpose, but it is our duty and our heritage to let our children and grandchildren know where we came from and how we got here. All across America we have buildings and lands bought and paid for by tax dollars that tells of the sacrifices of each generation in making America what it is today. If you don't believe this, then don't take your children to a National Park, museum, National Cemetery, or monument, because all of these were and are funded by tax dollars."

My response:

"You are absolutely right: we have many, many buildings, museums, monuments, and lands that are funded with taxpayer money, and I agree that these add to our heritage.

"However, I think even you must admit that our government (especially at the federal level) has frequently spent our money on these things inappropriately. For the sake of one goal (eg. "building heritage"), they benefit the few at the cost of many, and they use government force to do beneficial things which weakens the efforts of those who do good work on a voluntary basis. We can build a much stronger, more resilient community through projects that accomplish these things without force.

"For example, the South Davis Recreational Center and the Rogers Memorial Theater are good examples of burdens that our local Davis county government(s) have imposed or might impose on taxpayers and local businesses, affecting either the free use of their income or the freedom to compete fairly for people's attention.

"Feel free to keep me in the loop. I would love to be part of any voluntary initiative that improves our community like this!"

FYI: I promised to contribute to the next local, voluntary project my friend brings to my attention. Hold me to that. :-) I can't promise that to everyone, but I'll appreciate knowing any of these you send my way!

Why is mandated health a bad thing?

A friend was telling me how they like this health care bill because the insurance companies "can no longer deny anyone with preexisting conditions insurance, something myself and multiple friends have had to deal with. In my eyes, it's completely unfair."

I'm confused... why is that unfair? It's saying we all have the right to force someone else to insure us no matter what our condition. Living is risky and it can be expensive. Government can pass a law for anything, but it doesn't automatically mean there's suddenly enough resources to cover everyone... unless it tries to simply print money, which has it's own set of consequences.

Let's imagine a politician suddenly says, "Everyone has a right to look good," and then passing a bill requiring everyone to go to salons, and requiring every salon to provide a basic cut to everyone who asks. By ignoring the actual needs of consumers and salons, we get imbalance in the stylist economy. Some clients will be happy that they get subsidized cuts; some clients will be overjoyed because a salon is forced to work with them; and some salons will even be happy because they'll give basic cuts at an effective price.

But we can see how the majority of clients as well as most salons will lose out in the long run. We get things like fewer great stylists because there are so many basic cuts required; less salon business innovation for the same reason; and customers who don't even want cuts must still spend time and money for something they don't want. Will we enjoy that society if we're the ones forced to cut people's hair and we cannot control our own business (how much to charge, who to accept as clients, etc)?

The economics of this (ie. forcing all companies to cover everyone or forcing people to buy insurance) skew the reality of supply and demand; in the end they create bigger booms and busts. So we'll be like a friend from New Zealand explained: everyone has basic insurance, but it takes a year to see a doctor... except for the super rich (and politicians) who can afford to pay extra (or get them into elite circles).

Actually, I believe many people would appreciate that kind of society.

Doc Searls' talk about "The Intention Economy" at Kynetx 2009

We're trapped into thinking that a "free market" means "your choice of captivity (vendor)".

Even with social media, each site is a silo. So how do we get to personal, and "prove that a free customer is more valuable than a captive one?"

VRM (vendor relationship management) is one approach for us consumers, the reciprocal of and complimentary to CRM.

• manage our own health care data, eg. PHR (personal health records)
• "personal RFP" for my personal needs
• assert our own terms of service
• "Have governance of and by - and not just for - the people"

Take a look at Public Radio Player, where the VRM "CD" logo gives their VRM compliance level.

See projectvrm.org

Need a "4th-party": someone who helps the buyer relate to the sellers (and their 3rd-parties).

Quote of the day: "We're all climbing up the volcano of Google and allowing their free software to wash over us." There is currently an advertising bubble, because it's all guesswork; we need this infrastructure to empower customers, and Google will take a hit when it crashes.

(Doc recommends the online comic "Gaping Point.")

(BTW, Doc never answered the question: "How do we prove that a free customer is more valuable than a captive one?")

Following Your Passion is Better than Doing Good

"Do good."

"Make a difference."

"Make the world a better place."

You can't go long in today's America without receiving a plea to do good or hearing a claim that some group is making the world a better place. I love to hear that. As a matter of fact, my next career step will be something that more directly impacts people's lives for the better. I expect to spend my full time doing something even more directly constructive (in my mind) than what I'm doing.

However, I feel that "doing good" is not the best end-goal. Nope. Sorry.

Sure, whatever we do should have a productive purpose. But, for example, being good isn't always enough to motivate us; in fact, I've found (after years of looking) that there are actually very few philanthropic projects that inspire me. In addition , I feel that it's important to preach what I practice, and it is not practical advice (nor good for society) to tell everyone to spend full time in charity.

So I say: follow your passion!

It may not align with what you've done before. Who cares?

It may not meet the approval of others. Who cares?

It may not make much money. Is that really more important to you?

It may be something destructive. OK, you got me. Find a different passion.

It may not be possible right now due to current commitments. Don't give up your dream: you'll be rewarded as you work toward your passion...

When I was finishing my bachelor's degree, I'd done some job interviews and had been offered a position with IBM. That was fine, but what I really wanted was to go to graduate school and go as far as I could with computer science and maybe even teach it. It seemed almost a fantasy, and part of me thought I should be practical and go with the job. I went with graduate school, stayed poor a while longer, and I've never been happier. I think even Lynnette would agree that it turned out to be a good decision. I believe it's turned out so well because that was my passion at the time.

My desires have changed, and I'm currently considering my next step in my "career" (meaning the way I spend my working hours). I have some ideas and I've done some small things that match my new-found passions. I'm not yet able to spend my full time on it, and I suspect most people are in the same boat. But I'm getting to know myself better and I'm finding things that may make it all possible.

So it's already been worth the effort. And I'm not giving up.

As great as it is to do charitable work, I believe the world will be better served if we all focus first on our greatest passions, because those passions are the things that bring the most joy to our lives. Some might say that the world would be a terrible place if we all did that; I would say that they are misconstruing the idea of true passion. If we're all brutally honest with ourselves and those around us, we'll find that by pursuing our greatest passions (while keeping the long-term point-of-view) we will arrive at the best possible world.

Good luck to us all!

---

Lately, I've been seeing some messages emerge from other sources that emphasize passion over "doing good".

The Boys And Girls Clubs of America put up a billboard that had the word "Passion" on it. It pointed here: http://begreatamerica.org/sheen (Click on Martin Sheen to see more details.)

The Utah Dairy Council has put the following phrase on billboards, next to a picture of farmers and their farms:

Our earth
Our product
My passion

Of course, there are many who have written about following their passion. Two specific writings have stood out to me recently. One is by Fred Brooks, a computer scientist quoted frequently when it comes to project management:

"To only a fraction of the human race does God give the privilege of earning one’s bread doing what one would have gladly pursued free, for passion. I am very thankful." - The Mythical Man Month, p. 291

Finally, I've been following the progress of Phil Windley, my PhD advisor, as he's been starting a new company. I thought there was one post where he explained his reasons for being involved in another startup, but I couldn't find one and I'm starting to think that I've gathered his enthusiasm from multiple posts over time. For example, in 2007 he says how you can impress people when you "express the level of your commitment"; in 2008 he says that this is what he's "passionate" about.

government charity... why not?

Read this story (from Davy Crockett's life as retold in a book quoted by Ron Paul) for reasons why a rule-of-law government should not get involved in charitable pursuits.

PS: I believe in verifying sources; I understand "The Register of Debates (which covers Davy Crockett's first two terms in Congress from 1827-1831) and the Congressional Globe (which covers his last term in Congress from 1833-1835) do not provide verbatim transcripts of speeches made on the House floor", so we cannot be sure, but you can see some support for it on the bottom-right hand side of this congressional record.

what really changes hearts and minds

It's worthwhile to take on big projects like Oprah's Big Give, and I encourage everyone to try; they sure inspire me. But also pay attention to the small opportunities in everyday life. I firmly believe that it's the small, consistent contributions we make in our day-to-day lives that really change the world for good.

Can government do any good?

Yesterday, I implied that government cannot do good, because I really believe that to be true. The reason is that the truly good things in this world are love, peace, forgiveness, genuineness, and good character (to name a few), and these are human-oriented qualities that can only be communicated between individuals.

But I had to think this through yesterday: is it true that government cannot do good in the world? Actually, in a loose sense, it can do good because it can establish peace or lift someone from the pressures of a difficult life or even make fine arts more available, and these are definitely good things.

What I'm really concerned with, though, is those truly good things listed earlier. So let's imagine how a government might make this happen: let's say some benevolent politicians create a program to increase love in people. The only way I can imagine is with some kind of group learning, directed by someone who is known and respected as a loving person. So I suppose it could take action to increase love for the students in that group. Then we have to figure the indirect consequences of setting up such a program: of course, there's the money taken in taxes to pay the teacher (which is always a negative drag), and the overhead of running it (which doesn't directly go toward the result). So is it worth the cost? It may be. So can government do good? Well, even in this example, the government is initiating the program but it is not what is really creating the love: that only comes by way of the teacher(s) through their creativity and example. Government is paving the way, but it requires dedicated individuals to help others get to the destination.

In addition, I maintain that even if such a program were possible, there's no guarantee that it can stay effective due to changes in bureaucratic procedure, social priorities, or funding. But of course the program would still continue. Wouldn't it be better to allow this kind of thing to occur spontaneously by people who are free to create this kind of program and people who choose which of the programs are worthwhile?

But the socialist counter-argument is that there should be a way for everyone to afford to participate in such things. Hm. I cannot see how governments will ever be more effective at providing such life lessons, and indeed it requires effort for us to seek out and learn those lessons; my opponents cannot see how everyone has the best opportunity to learn these lessons in the course of their own lives, regardless of their situation. I can't see how to convince them otherwise. Frustrating!