Healing Our World:
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
Healing Our World:The Other Piece of the Puzzle
The Other Piece of the Puzzle
So far, we've seen how our aggression, meant to protect us from selfish others, is a cure worse than the disease. Can we deter those who would aggress against us without becoming aggressors ourselves? We know what we'd do if we accidentally put a baseball through our neighbor's window. We'd go to George and offer to fix it. If George had been cut by flying glass from the window, we'd pay his doctor bills. We might even offer George something to make up for lost time and trauma. George would be unlikely to hold a grudge against us if we "made things right" again. If we didn't volunteer to pay for the window, George would probably be angry. If he had us arrested, we might spend a night in jail. George would still have a broken window to fix and perhaps doctor bills as well. In today's system, he'd pay taxes to cover the cost of apprehending, convicting, and imprisoning us. It's doubtful that George would feel very positive about dealing with us in the future. The situation becomes even more unbalanced if we actually gained from our "crime." Had we stolen George's valuable coin collection instead of breaking his window, we might actually gain from the transaction, even if we spent a few days in jail. We might decide that crime pays handsomely and continue our aggressive behavior. Apparently, many criminals are coming to the same conclusion. Of those imprisoned, one third will be convicted again within three years of their release.1 Professional criminals average more than 100 crimes per year.(2) Only one prison term is served for every 164 felonies committed.(3) Approximately $25,000 per year is spent to keep someone in prison.(2) Victims are robbed twice: not only are they raped, mugged, murdered, or robbed, but they must pay to bring the criminals to justice as well! Crime is on the rise. In 1960, two million felonies were reported in the United States. In 1988, almost 14 million had been committed,4 although the population had increased by only 30%. (5) We are at war with each other, and large amounts of our wealth are consumed in fighting. Perhaps we should not be surprised that outright aggression permeates our culture. As we saw in earlier chapters, we've condoned aggression of the majority against the minority. We've taught that a "good cause" can justify stealing George's wealth-at gunpoint, if necessary. Burglars, rapists, and murderers may rationalize that looking out for Number One is the best cause of all! Non-Aggression Wins the Game The first step in putting an end to aggres sion is to stop teaching it by example. We should not be casting stones when we ourselves are guilty. Next, we must respond to aggression in a way that will deter aggression in the future. A well-known psychological game, the "iterative (repetitive) Prisoner's Dilemma," gives us insight into how our goal might be accomplished. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, two individuals must decide, without prior communication, whether to deal honestly or fraudulently with one another. If they are both honest, each will benefit by receiving 3 points. If both are fraudulent, they receive only 1 point apiece. However, if each chooses differently, the cheater gets 5 points, while the honest victim gets nothing! The point system reflects the cynical view of human nature that is prevalent in our political culture today. If selfish others intend to defraud us, we can only lose by being honest. If they are honest, we still gain more by cheating! Doing unto others before they do unto us seems to work quite well. This viewpoint is reflected in the aggressive laws of our nation, as described previously in Part II. When players have to deal with each other repetitively, the situation changes dramatically. Instead of a single encounter, players enter a relationship. By remembering the way the other responded in each encounter, the players' next responses become predictable. If one player is always honest, it pays if the second is dishonest. If one player always cheats, an honest player will just be exploited. Most people are not so rigid, however. They adapt to the other's response. If one player frequently cheats, honesty is abandoned. The lose-lose scenario (1 point apiece) becomes the most likely outcome. Must it be this way? Can we give feedback that encourages others to deal honestly with us and achieve the win-win scenario? To answer this question, computers were programmed to play "Cooperation Games" instead of "War Games." Strategies of interaction were played against each other to give us insight into dealing with aggression. The winning strategy was called TIT FOR TAT. In its first interaction with another strategy, it dealt honestly. After that, TIT FOR TAT reflected exactly what the "other" had done during the last interaction. If the other program had been honest, TIT FOR TAT was too. If the other program had defrauded, so did TIT FOR TAT. Other computer strategies quickly learned how TIT FOR TAT worked and began to deal honestly to create a win-win scenario. (6) TIT FOR TAT practiced the first principle of non-aggression-and so did every program that scored in the top half of the games. TIT FOR TAT never was the first to defraud. When TIT FOR TAT encountered an aggressor, a program that defrauded first, it reflected exactly what the other gave it- nothing more, nothing less. When attacked, it defended. TIT FOR TAT did not try to deter aggression by becoming an aggressor itself. TIT FOR TAT converted aggressors to non-aggressors by (1) setting a good example and (2) allowing aggressors to experience the fruits of their actions. TIT FOR TAT's strategy differs in several important aspects from ourcurrent thoughts about how to relate to our neighbors. First, as we've seen in the preceding chapters, we try, unsuccessfully, to deter aggression with aggression. Just as in the computer games, aggression elicits retaliation, not cooperation. If we are to mimic TIT FOR TAT's success, we must first practice non-aggression ourselves. Second, we deter and rehabilitate aggressors when we allow them to experience the fruits of their actions. If we break George's window, we repair it. When we repair the damage we have done, we dissipate any hostility that may have arisen. We recreate the peace and wealth that we have destroyed. We right our wrongs. Unfortunately, in our society, aggressors rarely experience the fruits of their actions by making their victims whole again. Less than one-third of convicted burglars are imprisoned. (7) Usually, they are not required to repair the damage they've done by paying their victim for the stolen property or the taxpayers for the costs of apprehension and trial. The punishment does not fit the crime. Criminals do not right their wrongs. Victims continue to be exploited; criminals learn that crime pays. The Easy Way Out How could we implement TIT FOR TAT's strategy to deter aggression? Since 90% of all crimes involve theft or burglary,8 let's first examine how such aggressors might experience the fruits of their actions by righting their wrongs. Thieves would be billed by the court for the stolen property, the cost of apprehension and conviction, and any other losses resulting from their crime. Uninsured victims would receive payments, with interest, from the thief. If the victim was insured, the insurance company would pay the victim immediately and collect from the thief. If the thief refused or was unable to make suitable payments, he or she might be put in a prison factory. They could earn money to pay their debts as well as the low costs of their minimum-security imprisonment. The harder the inmates worked, the sooner they would be released. Obviously, imprisonment greatly increases the debt a thief would be required to pay. Most thieves would make regular payments to the victim or the victim's insurance company to avoid prison. Most thieves would be quite capable of creating wealth in a society where jobs were not destroyed by minimum wage and licensing laws. In such a society, those who truly could not support themselves would be better cared for as well (see The Easy Way Out in Chapter 11). Only individuals who refused to accept responsibility for their lives would likely end up in prison. Taxpayers would no longer have to support those who did not agree to right their wrongs. Since food and other commodities would have to be purchased from the prison store, criminals who refused to work would have to rely on charity for sustenance. Prisoners would be motivated to take responsibility for their lives. Inmates who refused to work would be unlikely to starve to death, however. Charitable individuals or groups could support prisoners if they felt circumstances warranted such compassion. Repentant young offenders facing a lifetime of payments for a single mistake might find charitablesponsors to shoulder part of their debt. Some uninsured victims might never be fully compensated. Partial payment, however, would be better than nothing, which is what they usually receive today. Our society currently views prison work as cruel and unusual punishment. Forcing victims to support both themselves and those who steal from them is even less humane! When we try to protect aggressors from reaping as they have sown, we do them no favors. Until they have truly realized that aggression is a lose-lose game, ignoring their debt only enables them to continue their "addiction" to aggression. As the probability and severity of punishment rise, the incidence of crime goes down. (9) The most successful substance abuse programs encourage people to take responsibility for their choices. If addicts break promises or behave destructively, they are allowed to experience the effects that they have caused. Without this "tough love," those who abuse never realize that to reap differently, they must sow differently. The best protection we can ever give others is not to shield them from reality, but to teach them how it works. Are prisoners capable of creating wealth even when imprisoned? At the turn of the century, my great-grandfather's saddle tree factory provided employment for the inmates of the Missouri State Penitentiary. The prison was not only self-supporting, it made a small profit! (10) The inmates grew their own food and manufactured brooms and men's clothing. The prison prided itself on the health of the prisoners, noting that epidemics were rare and the death rate "less than that of the average village." In recent years, more than 70 companies have employed inmates in 16 states. (11) In Arizona, Best Western International uses prisoners to operate the hotel's telephone reservation system. Trans World Airlines hires young offenders in California to handle its telephone reservations. A private corporation, Prison Rehabilitative Industries & Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE) of Clearwater, Florida, manages 53 prison work programs. Wages are used to pay taxes, costs of imprisonment, restitution, and family support. (12) Some individuals on probation contribute to the cost of their supervision while working at regular jobs. (13) Before 1980, inmates of Maine State Prison manufactured arts and crafts, which were sold through the prison store. Individuals made as much as $30,000 per year. Some even found that their business was successful enough that crime no longer held its former attraction for them. (14) Obviously, prisoners are capable of creating considerable wealth for themselves and their victims. They can right their wrongs by experiencing the costs of their actions. They can learn to live differently. Restitution through productive work is the most successful rehabilitation known. (15) In such an environment, inmates without work experience could gain some. Unskilled prisoners could participate in training programs to raise their hourly earnings if they agreed to pay for it as well. Instead of learning better ways to steal, they would learn alternatives to stealing. Those wholearned to steal before they learned to create wealth would be given another option. Today, it's difficult for young people to learn how to create wealth. When we destroy jobs with minimum wages and licensing laws, unemployment and criminal activity rise. (16) These findings should hardly surprise us. When aggression keeps the disadvantaged from creating wealth, stealing becomes a more attractive option, especially if the probability of being caught is low. When we destroy jobs with aggression, we increase the chances that we will be the victims of theft. Once again, we reap as we sow. A Win-Win Scenario When aggressors right their wrongs, every one benefits. Victims are made whole again. Thus, they have more incentive to report crimes. Even the thieves benefit from this win-win scenario. Practicing wealth-creating skills should reduce future theft. When their victims are made whole, they have truly paid their debt. The innocent would no longer be taxed-at gunpoint, if necessary-to imprison the guilty. Work prisons would be owned and operated by private firms with suitable expertise. Inmates could choose the facility that offered them the working conditions most conducive to the repayment of their debt. The ability of the prisoner to choose between competing institutions would provide incentive for the prisons to provide the most pleasant and productive conditions possible. If wardens beat or abuse inmates, the prison where they worked could be sued. Few prisoners would choose to go there. Business-and profits-would suffer. Each prison would reap as it sowed. Contrast this self-regulation of the marketplace ecosystem with our current situation. Although 150 county governments and 39 states were charged with violating prison regulations in 1984, prisoners are unlikely to receive any compensation for their mistreatment. (17) The prisoners cannot transfer to a more humane institution. Insisting that aggressors repay their victims could require the use of retaliatory force. Retaliatory force, by definition, is not first strike force, but a response to first strike force. Retaliatory force stops aggressors or makes sure they compensate their victims. Retaliatory force can become aggression if it goes beyond what is needed to accomplish these goals. Punishing aggressors makes us aggressors too. In the computer games, the strategies that punished by defrauding twice for every time that the other cheated did not do as well as TIT FOR TAT. Turning the other cheek can discourage aggression when those who practice it are not aware of what they are really doing. Most people do not think of most government enforcement activity as aggression, because few dare to disobey. Just like a plantation of obedient slaves, everything looks peaceful on the surface. When the slaves try to choose for themselves instead of obeying their owner, out comes the whip. The situation is seen for what it really is. India's Mahatma Gandhi understood this principle well. He and hisfollowers engaged in non-violent civil disobedience, allowing themselves to be imprisoned, beaten, and even killed to demonstrate the true nature of an aggressive colonial government. The British, who did not wish to be thought of as aggressors, changed their ways. Most individuals who harm others recognize the aggressive nature of their actions but believe that crime pays. When aggressors must right their wrongs, we take the profit out of crime. Of course, aggressors can harm others in ways that cannot be totally undone. Monetary compensation to a person who has been raped or maimed, or to families whose loved ones have been killed, does not make things right again. In some cases, the victims, their family, or their insurance company might accept a monetary settlement as the best compensation available. The victims, their family, or their insurance company might insist that a repeat offender be imprisoned permanently so he or she could not strike again. In a self-supporting prison system, victims would not have to clothe and feed those who had harmed them as they do now. What Might Have Been Instead of becoming aggressors them selves, Americans could have insisted that aggressors right their wrongs. Many of the problems outlined in Part II would never have occurred. Instead of licensing laws, physicians who deceived their patients about their training and experience or a pharmaceutical firm that made false claims about drug testing would have compensated those who were harmed. However, individuals and businesses would not be held liable for risks that the consumer agreed to take. People who chose to take a drug, even though the manufacturer warned that its side effects were unpredictable, would be unlikely to collect in case of injury. A person who hired a surgeon who freely admitted that he had no training could not successfully sue. Frivolous lawsuits would be discouraged if a false accuser had to repair the damage done to an innocent defendant's reputation and pocketbook. The trauma of false accusation and waste of the defendant's time might be judged worthy of compensation as well. Bank owners and managers who promised their customers that their money would be available on demand could be held personally liable for lost deposits. Few bankers would wish to risk their life earnings by making risky loans. Banks would likely insure themselves and their decision makers against such liability. Insurance premiums would be high for banks with careless management, thereby encouraging prudence. Wise consumers would put their money in banks that carried such insurance. If the banks failed, depositors would not be taxed-as they are today-to make their own deposits good! Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) charges all banks the same rate. Well-managed banks subsidize poorly managed ones-at gunpoint, if necessary. As a result, the careless bankscontinue to make risky loans. When these banks lose their double-or-nothing gamble, American taxpayers are forced-at gunpoint, if necessary-to pay taxes to make their own deposits good! Crime just doesn't pay if aggressors must right their wrongs. One of the most important applications of this principle is the "pollution solution," described in the next chapter.  |
A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. - THE HOLY BIBLE, Exodus 22:3
...the one who struck the blow... must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. - THE HOLY BIBLE, Exodus 21:19 |
Righting our wrongs is the perfect solution to pollution. When dealing one-to-one, we practice this second principle of non- aggression naturally. If we accidentally dump trash on George's lawn, we clean it up. George is unlikely to hold a grudge if we fix what we have broken. If we refuse to clean up our mess, George will probably allow us to experience the fruits of our actions in other ways. He may arrange to have the trash picked up and take us to court if we don't pay the bill. Perhaps he will dump trash on our lawn. Unless we are willing to right our wrongs, we will forfeit harmonious relationships with our neighbors. We gain nothing by dumping trash in George's lawn if we are the ones who will have to clean it up. Therefore, we have no reason to pollute in the first place. Righting our wrongs is the best deterrent of all! Unfortunately, the "pollution solution" is seldom used. If we listen to a conversation between our mayor and an industrial polluter, we find out why. "Mr. Mayor, it's true we dump chemicals in the river, but that's a small price to pay for the many jobs we provide in your district. If we had to take these 'toxic wastes' as you call them and dispose of them 'properly,' it'd cost a lot of money. We'd have to lay off people or move our business to a more accommodating community. Either way, you'd be mighty unpopular. Your opponent won't be, though. She wants to see her constituents employed. That's more important to everyone than a few dead fish." The mayor sighs in defeat. The chemicals are killing the fish. Local residents have complained, but they are unlikely to do anything about it. They might be able to convince a judge to stop the polluter, but the lawsuit would be expensive. The entire city would benefit from a clean river, but few citizens would voluntarily contribute to such a suit if the polluter would not be required to pay these clean-up costs. Since no one really owns the river, few are willing to pay to protect it. The company has a lot to lose if it can't use the river for dumping. The company will certainly back the mayor's opponent if he doesn't cooperate. "I appreciate your perspective," the mayor explains to the polluter. "People's jobs are more important than a few fish." He hopes he has done the right thing. He can't help thinking that there must be a better way. The mayor is right. There is a better way. The British have been using it for decades. Individuals were permitted to homestead many of the British waterways. When a polluter kills their fish, the owners have every incentive to take the polluter to court and they do! The owners of Britain's rivers have successfully sued hundreds of polluters, individual ly and collectively, for the past century. (1) The owners are willing to pay the court costs to protect their valuable property. When we encourage homesteading, we put the environment in the hands of those who profit by caring for it. Ownership is rewarded by long-term planning. When private ownership is forbidden, our government "managers" profit only when they allow the environment to be exploited. Short-term planning is encouraged. Sovereign Immunity Creates Love Canal The Love Canal incident illustrates the different incentives of private ownership and public management. Until 1953, Hooker Electrochemical Company and several federal agencies dumped toxic wastes into a clay trench (2) under conditions that would probably meet Environmental Protection AgencysingA) approval even today. (3) As the population of Niagara Falls grew, the local school board tried to persuade Hooker to sell this cheap, undeveloped land to the city for a new school. The company felt that it was unwise to build on such a site and refused to sell. The school board simply threatened to take it over with the guns of government through "eminent domain." Eminent domain allows a government agency to force a person at gunpoint, if necessary to give up his or her land if the project is "for the common good." Hooker finally gave in to aggression- through- government. The school board bought the property for $1. Hooker brought the board members tothe canal site to see the stored chemicals (2) in an effort to convince them to avoid building underground facilities of any kind. In spite of these warnings, the city began construction of sanitary and storm sewers in 1957. In 1958, children playing in the area came into contact with the exposed chemicals and developed skin irritation. Hooker again warned the board to stop excavation and to cover the exposed area. The school board did not heed the warnings. By 1978 reports of chemical toxicity began surfacing. The EPA filed suit, not against the school board, but against Hooker Chemical! Taxpayers paid $30 million to relocate residents. (4) Thankfully, extensive testing of the residents found no significant long-term differences between their health and the health of the general population. (5,6) The Love Canal incident is a classic case of the role of aggression in polluting our environment. The officers of Hooker Chemical took respon sibility for their toxic waste by disposing of it carefully. They did not want to harm others. Hooker did not want to turn the property over to the school board for fear that the new owners would not be as careful. Thecom pany's fears were well-founded. The school board was protected by sovereign immunity, which holds government officials blameless for whatever damage they cause. Public officials are no different from you or I_they work for incentives. Anyone who is held responsible for mistakes or miscalculations will strive to avoid making them. The school board members knew they would not be personally liable for poisoning the public. Instead, they were under pressure to find cheap land for the school. If they excavated Love Canal and nothing went wrong, they'd be heroes; if the chemicals caused problems, Hooker would take the heat. The board had everything to gain and nothing to lose. How different things would have been if school board members could have been prosecuted for the damage they had caused! The Fox in the Hen House Sovereign immunity is probably responsible for more pollution in this country than any other single cause. For example, in 1984, a Utah court ruled that negligence in nuclear testing was responsible for health problems in 10 out of 24 cases brought before the court. The court of appeals, however, claimed that sovereign immunity applied; therefore, the victims received nothing. (7) In 1988, the Department of Energy indicated that 17 weapons plants were leaking radioactive and toxic chemicals that would cost $100 billion and 50 years to clean up! The Departments of Energy and Defense refused to comply with EPA orders to do so. (8,9) Meanwhile, taxpayers are expected to "Superfund" toxic waste cleanup. (6) Sovereign immunity violates the second principle of non-aggression. It allows government officials to do what individuals cannot. We would not claim sovereign immunity if we dumped trash on George's lawn nor could we expect to enjoy a prosperous and peaceful neighborhood. Somehow we think our country can be bountiful and harmonious even if our gov ernment officials can poison the property or body of our neighbors without having to undo the harm they have done. We go along with this sleight of hand because we think that we benefit when our government hurts others in seeking the common good. As usual, our aggression backfires. Our lawmakers have extended the concept of sovereign immunity to include favored private monopolies. For example, in 1957, a study by the Atomic Energy Commission predicted that a major accident at a nuclear power plant could cause up to $7 billion in property damage and several thousand deaths. The marketplace ecosystem protected the consumer from such events naturally: no company would insure the nuclear installa tions, so power companies were hesitant to proceed. Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act to limit the liability of the power plants to $560 million. In the event of an accident, the insurance companies would have to pay only $60 million; the other $500 million would be paid through the further aggression of taxation!10 If the damage were more extensive, the victims would just have to suffer. Sovereign immunity is a way of hiding the true cost of aggression- through-government. If our taxes reflected the cost of cleaning up pollution caused by the defense industry, we might not be so eager to give it free rein. If we had to compensate those whose loved ones died from nuclear testing, we might demand that such testing stop. If the price tag for insuring nuclear power plants were reflected in our electric bills, we might prefer alternative fuel. If we saw the true cost of our aggression, we might not choose to support it. Our aggression boomerangs back to us. When polluters are not required to restore what they have harmed, they have no incentive to stop. As our earth becomes more and more polluted, we reap as we sow. Likewise, private corporations are not always required to undo the damage they have done. As a result, the aggression of taxation is used to Superfund the cleanup. (6) If polluters don't restore the earth, we will be forced to. Cancer from Chemicals? We all want an environment safe from toxic chemicals that could cause cancer. Unfortunately for our peace of mind, half of all chemicals, both natural and synthetic, are carcinogenic when tested at high doses in animals. Plants make natural, carcinogenic insecticides to protect them from attack. Americans eat approximately 1,500 mg per day of these natu ral pesticides. The FDA estimates we consume 0.15 mg per day of the synthetics. (11) Fortunately, these levels are well below established acceptable daily intakes. (12) Our liver is easily able to destroy small amounts of cancer- causing agents. When rats are given large quantities of potential carcino gens, this protective mechanism is overwhelmed. Many compounds that are quite safe may appear to be carcinogenic in such tests. One such chemical, ethylene dibromide (EDB) was banned by the EPA in 1984. Although EDB can cause cancer when given to animals in large amounts, 50 years of human experience did not show increased cancer incidence among manufacturing personnel who are exposed to many thousand times more EDB than consumers over long periods. EDB had been used as a grain pesticide, preventing the growth of molds that produce aflatoxin, the most carcinogenic substance known. Naturally, farmers didn't want their grain contaminated with a potent cancer-causing substance, so they turned to the only other effective substitutes for EDB: a mixture of methyl bromide, phosphine, and carbon tetrachloride/carbon disulfide. Carbon tetrachloride and methyl bromide are both potent carcinogens in animals; phosphine and methyl bromide must be handled by specially skilled workers because they are so dangerous to work with. (13) By using the aggression of prohibitive licensing, the EPA left us to choose between moldy grain with highly toxic natural carcinogens or more dangerous mold-controlling pesticides! One of these bans affected our overseas neighbors dramatically. By 1946, the insecticide DDT had been recognized as one of the most important disease-preventing agents known to humans. Used extensively in the tropics, it irradiated the insects that carried malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, typhus, and encephalitis. Crop yields were increased as the larva that devoured them were destroyed. Human side effects from DDT were rare even though thousands of individuals had their skin and clothing dusted with 10% DDT powder or lived in dwellings that were sprayed repeatedly. Some individuals didn't use the pesticide as directed and applied vast quantities to land and water. Claims that the bird population was being harmed, that DDT remained too long in the environment, and that it might cause cancer led Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) to abandon its spraying in 1964. The incidence of malaria, down to 17 cases per year, rose to pre-DDT levels (2.5 million cases) by 1969 as a result. (14) Morepeople died from withdrawing DDT than were harmed by it. In some cases, banning additives and useful chemicals might actually increase our risk of dying from cancer. Pesticides make fresh fruits and vegetables more affordable, thereby increasing consumption, which is one of the best ways to fight cancer according to the National Research Council. (15) Even the EPA admits that cancer from pesticides is less likely than being killed in an auto accident. (16) Is banning pesticides more sensible than banning automobiles? Obviously, people must choose for themselves the extent to which they are willing to risk their lives and honor the choices of their neighbors. Pesticides can be largely avoided by buying organic produce; automobile accidents can be avoided by walking instead of driving. Pesticides are relatively harmless when compared to the natural carcinogens from tobacco smoke. These deadly carcinogens are believed to be responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths. (17) Lung cancer in the United States is on the rise; other types of cancers may actually be on the decline when the statistics are adjusted for the increasing age of the American public. (18) Convincing people not to smoke would seem to be the best way to lower the incidence of cancer in the United States. Instead, our EPA focuses on asbestos. Although asbestos can promote lung cancer during manufacturing, it appears to be quite safe when placed in buildings and left undisturbed. When it is removed, however, the fibers break, releasing the asbestos. As a result, workers removing the asbestos at the mandate of the EPA are at risk. Because of release during removal, asbestos levels in schools and other public buildings are higher after removal. (19) Money that could have gone to educate people about the dangers of smoking is instead used to in crease the risk of cancer from asbestos! If lives are endangered, sovereign immunity will protect the guilty. Congress has great incentive to promote such programs, especially if the dangers will not be evident for many years. Imagine the conversation that takes place between your local congresswoman and a lobbyist from the asbestos removal companies. "Ms. Congresswoman, if you don't vote for asbestos removal, we'll let your constituents know that you don't care about their safety. We'll give our support to your opponent in the next election. He cares about those schoolchildren who are exposed to all that asbestos." "I'm concerned about those children too!" exclaims the congresswoman defensively. "That's why I'll vote against it. The scientific evidence showsthat asbestos levels are higher after removal than before. The workers who remove the asbestos will be at greater risk as well." "That may very well be," admits the lobbyist, "but you know politics. What are you going to do when your constituents ask what you've done to help protect them from pollution? You'll say you didn't need to do any thing; they'll wonder why they should pay you to do nothing." "I will have done something! I'll have voted against the environmental hazard of asbestos removal!" exclaimed the congresswoman. "Voters will remember that when somebody starts suing the asbestos manufacturers because he or she got cancer. Even if that person is a crackpot, the publicity will give you a bad time. If people are harmed from asbestos removal, however, no one will blame you you have sovereign immunity! If you wish to be re-elected, you must vote for this bill." "I don't want to get re-elected if I have to kill people to do it!" the congresswoman says angrily. "That's just as well," returns the lobbyist sadly, "because if you don't vote for this bill, you probably won't be reelected. We need conscientious people like you in the legislature. Sometimes compromise is necessary. Vote for this bill and keep up the good work that you were elected to do!" Eventually the congresswoman will vote for the asbestos removal bill or lose her seat to someone more willing to do so. As voters, we control this situation. When we do not insist that polluters right their wrongs, they will continue to pollute. The Easy Way Out Accidents do happen. If we inadvertently spilled acid on George's arm, we'd probably offer to pay for his hospital bills. We'd also make sure that whatever caused the accidentdidn't happen again. If a company puts something in the air, water, or soil that makes people ill, it needs to restore, as much as possible, those it has harmed. Today, some polluters simply claim bankruptcy. Victims are left to suffer, while the polluters just start over. We could do things differently. Those responsible for the decision to pollute could compensate a victim through time payments or could be sent to a work prison if they did not voluntarily make amends. Victims who were insured against such injury would get immediate payment from their insurance companies, whichwould, in turn, collect from polluters. Naturally, many companies would want to insure themselves against poor decisions by their corporate officers. The premium for such insurance would probably depend on the company's record for environmental pollution as well as the reputation of the individual manager. To protect its interests, the insurance company would examine its clients' policies concerning pollution and suggest changes that would lower their risk and their premiums. Companies with the potential to pollute would be effectively regulated by the marketplace ecosystem, free from aggression. The high cost of paying for cleanup simply would be so great that few would dare to pollute. No tax dollars would be required to fund this effective program. The practice of non-aggression is economical and effective. If a particular food additive or pesticide has adverse effects that didn't show up in animal testing, publicity will enable consumers to boycott the product. In 1990, a news program questioning the safety of Alar caused a dramatic drop in apple sales virtually overnight. (15) However, if such charges are false, those who propagate them could be sued for fraud. Manufacturers and farmers who had used Alar lost hundreds of thousands of dollars whenconsumers refused to buy Alar- treated apples. Evidence for the safety of Alar, including a study by the National Cancer Institute, was presumably ignored by those putting the "exposé" together. (15) Businesses need not fear irresponsible journalism if they too are required to right their wrongs. Pollution or environmental damage often comes from a small number of vendors who can be easily confronted with the fruits of their actions. In some cases, however, almost everyone contributes to the pollution, such as automobile exhaust. How can we be protected from this type of pollution in a country practicing non-aggression? Air pollution is a local problem. Rural areas dissipate car exhaust rapidly, while enclosed locations, such as the Los Angeles area, trap it. Concerned citizens in such places might take the local road companies to court, since pollution emanates from roads. Currently, governments control most of the roads and would claim sovereign immunity. Without the aggression of taxation, all roads would be private. Since people would not be eager to face toll booths at every interconnection, road companies would undoubtedly devise a system of annual fees or electronic monitoring. For example, your annual license payment might give you access to all roads in your area. The road companies would divide your payment in proportion to the number of miles each firm maintained. Instead of annual payments, you might be given anelectronic monitor that registered the number of miles you drive on each road. Every month you would be billed accordingly. When residents of a particular locale sued the road companies, they would have to undo whatever damage they had done and prevent future pollution. They would raise their rates to compensate the victims. Since 10% of the cars cause 50% of the pollution because they are not regularly tuned, (20) rates might be lower for those who passed an emissions test. When polluters have to pay for the damage they do, most will decide against it. The few who continue to pollute will have to pay dearly for the privilege of doing so. The solution to pollution is to require those who damage the property, body, or reputation of another to restore it. Making aggressors right their wrongs teaches that pollution doesn't pay. For polluters to undo the damage they have done, they must first be caught and sentenced. As we learned earlier, criminals of all kinds are brought to justice infrequently in today's world. In the next few chapters, we'll learn why. |
You can't eat a meal that doesn't have carcinogens... Human blood wouldn't pass the Toxic Substances Initiative if it got into a stream. - Dr. Bruce Ames, inventor of the Ames test for carcinogenicity
DDT has had a tremendous impact on the health of the world... Few drugs can claim to have done so much for mankind in so short a period of time as DDT did. - George Claus and Kad 19Bolander, ECOLOGICAL SANITY
We should rename the EPA the Tobacco Protection Agency, because it focuses public attention away from the biggest risk of all to some of the very smallest. - Rosalyn Yalow, Nobel Prize winner, Medicine |
If we honored our neighbor's choice, the people now enforcing
the minimum wage and licensing laws would be available to go after the real
criminals. In 1987, drug offenders made up 36% of the federal prison population.
(1) As the War on Drugs escalates, more of our law enforcement dollar will
be spent on drug-related crimes and less on rapists, murderers, and thieves.
Is this the best way to deal with the drug problem? In the early 1900s, many people supported aggression through-government to stop the consumption of alcoholic beverages. As we all know, Prohibition was tried, but it just didn't work. People still drank, but they had to settle for home-brews, which were not always safe. Some people even died from drinking them. (2) Since business people could no longer sell alcohol, organized crime did. Turf battles killed innocent bystanders, and law enforcement officials found they could make more money taking bribes than jailing the bootleggers. Aggression was ineffective - and expensive, both in terms of dollars and lives. When Prohibition was repealed, people bought their alcohol
from professional brewers instead of criminals. As a result, they stopped
dying from bathtub gin. The turf fighting subsided, since there was no turf
to fight about. The murder and assault rate that had skyrocketed during
Prohibition fell steadily after its repeal. (3) For example, approximately 80% of the 7,000 deaths attributed to drug overdose would probably not have occurred if the recreational drugs had been marketed legally. (11) Legal drugs are tested for safety, while street drugs are sold even when they are highly toxic. They are frequently cut with other substances, such as quinine, caffeine, and amphetamines, which makes them even more dangerous. The user seldom knows how much drug is actually being administered, making overdose - death - much more likely. Once again, prohibition puts more people at risk. Street drugs are 100 times more expensive than their legal counterparts. (12) The safer oral route is shunned by drug users, because much more drug is needed to get the desired effects. Instead, users take the expensive drugs intravenously, sometimes producing fatally high blood levels. When users get in trouble, they delay seeking medical help for fear of arrest. The basketball player Len Bias had three seizures before his friends finally called the medics. By then, it was too late. (13) If the estimate is correct that 80% of drug overdose deaths are needless, the true U.S. death toll caused by the inherent toxicity of recreational drugs would be closer to 1400 per year. In Amsterdam, where the drug user is not criminalized, there are only 60 drug-induced deaths per year, in a population 20 times smaller than that of the United States. (6) Thus, the estimate of an 80% overkill caused by drug prohibition appears to be very close. In addition, prohibition causes some indirect deaths. Each year, approximately 3,500 drug users contract AIDS from sharing nee-dles. (14) In Hong Kong, where needles can be bought without a prescription, AIDS is not spread by contaminated needles. (15) Approximately 750 people are killed annually during black market turf fighting. (16) Each year 1,600 innocent individuals are killed while being robbed by users. (16) These robberyrelated deaths would be unlikely if recreational substances could be sold legally, just as alcohol is. How many alcoholics need to steal to support their habit? More than 11,000 people die each year because we succumb to the temptation to use aggression to control others. If we honored our neighbor's choice, fewer people would die each year, unless drug use increased eightfold. Given the current estimates of drug use, almost the entire U.S. population would have to take drugs for this level to be reached. The War on Drugs kill more people than the drugs themselves! Who profits from these deaths? The money goes directly to the people in organized crime, just as it did during Prohibition. Our Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sometimes protects and aids these people to get information or to pay for activities that Congress won't fund! (17) Our eagerness to control our neighbors creates and sustains those with motives more sinister than just getting high! Our own choices are compromised when we refuse to honor the choices of others. Recent changes in our laws allow the police to confiscate the property of presumed drug dealers before they are proven guilty. (18) In the Pittsburgh Press' 10-month study of such confiscations, 80% of the people subjected to seizure were never even charged with a crime! (19) A vindictive neighbor could falsely accuse us of drug trafficking, and we could lose everything even though we were innocent. Our desire to control our neighbors gives them power over us. We create a world that sustains the Mafia, unauthorized CIA projects, punishment without a trial, and false accusations. How much of the drug traffic do we stop after paying this
enormous price? Estimates suggest that only 10% of the street drugs are
interdicted before sale.20 Clearly, our aggression hasn't solved the problem
- it simply has created a more deadly one! To get drugs out of our schools, we need to take aggression out of our legal code. The excessive profit that comes from prohibitive licensing would not exist in the self-regulating marketplace ecosystem. Alcohol and cigarettes, which are illegal for minors, are less of a problem because they are less profitable. If recreational drugs were legal, their medicinal properties could be more easily studied and employed. Today, red tape discourages physicians from giving marijuana to their patients, even though it can slow the progress of glaucoma, keep cancer patients from being nauseated by chemotherapy, and help treat multiple sclerosis. (23) Until it became illegal, marijuana was listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia for some of these purposes. (24) Instead, our enforcement agents seized the marijuana plants of a retired postal worker suffering from cancer. Robert Brewser had used them to control the pain and nausea from his radiation therapy. The agents also took - without trial- the van his wife used to take him to the hospital for treatment! (19). How much universal love do we show our neighbors when we support laws that make this possible? Without the aggression of prohibitive licensing, scientists would study how they work and find out why people take them. The money now spent on aggression could be directed toward education and research. We would have a chance at really winning the war on drugs, just as we are now winning the war on alcohol, not by Prohibition, but by the only method that really works - convincing people that drug abuse is not in their best interest. For the most part, drug abusers hurt only themselves. If they threaten to harm others, they should be held responsible for their actions. Cravings for illegal recreational drugs may have both physiological and emotional components. Alcoholism is a disease. Dependence on drugs is a medical problem as well. People who are willing to sacrifice their health, wealth, and social standing for chemical highs require our help, not our condemnation, especially when we may inadvertently contributed to their distress. Aggression-through-government sets the stage for drug problems. When we discriminate against disadvantaged workers through minimum wage and licensing laws, we frustrate their economic goals. Getting high is certainly more attractive when other parts of one's life don't seem to be working. Selling drugs certainly seems like a lucrative career for a ghetto youth banned from legitimate paths of creating wealth. In addition to the other deleterious effects of licensing laws, they may well contribute to the drug problem. Drug prohibition is counterproductive. We resist this conclusion, however, because we want to control other people's choices. Some people will indeed make what we consider to be poor choices for themselves. People who overeat, drink heavily, or engage in dangerous activities may prefer a shorter, more exciting, and intense life to a longer one with different rewards. They may prefer gratification over longevity. It is their life and their choice - if only we would honor it. We cannot protect people from themselves. When we honor their choice of food, drink, drugs, or activities, we free our police to focus on individuals who would directly and purposefully harm us through force, theft, or fraud. When we stop trying to control others, we can more readily prevent aggressors from controlling us, as described in the following chapter.  |
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in search after his own happiness. In vices, the very essence of crime-that is, the design to injure the person or property of another-is wanting. - Lysander Spooner
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be... Try to make people moral, and you lay the groundwork for vice. - Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
Prohibition ended in 1933 because the nation's most influential people, as well as the general public, acknowledged that it had failed. It had increased lawlessness and drinking and aggravated alcohol abuse. - Thomas M. Coffey, author of THE LONG THIRST-PROHIBITION IN AMERICA: 1920-1933
If the government cannot stop people from using drugs in the prisons over which it has total control, why should Americans forfeit any of their traditional civil rights in the hope of reducing the drug problem? - Inmate, Federal Correctional Institution, El Reno, Oklahoma, Time Magazine, October 16, 1989
Elvy Musikka... was arrested last month for possession of 4 marijuana plants. "I can't think of any crime that should be punished by blindness," Elvy said.... Doctors at Bascome Palmer Eye Clinic in Miami have said that without marijuana, her glaucoma is getting worse. - On The Freedom Trail, May 1988
If even a small fraction of the money we now spend on trying to enforce drug prohibition were devoted to treatment and drug rehabilitation, in an atmosphere of compassion not punishment, the reduction in drug usage and in the harm done to users could be dramatic. - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winner, Economics
The real question is why are millions of people so unhappy, so bored, so unfulfilled, that they are willing to drink, snort, inject or inhale any substance that might blot out reality and give them a bit of temporary relief. - Ann Landers, syndicated columnist |
In the past few chapters, we've seen how we create and encourage crime. First, disadvantaged workers are forbidden by law to create wealth through minimum wage and licensing laws. If they turn to theft, they find that they are not required to right their wrongs. Crime pays. When prohibitive licensing prevents legitimate businesses from selling recreational drugs, organized crime and youth gangs spring into action. The disadvantaged turn to theft once again to buy drugs that give them, for a time, a high that their reality does not. Polluters find it profitable to poison the environment when they are not required to undo the damage they have done. If we practiced non-aggression, we'd have much less crime to deal with. We create crime and then blame our overworked police for
not controlling it. Our local police are handicapped by being exclusive,
subsidized government monopolies (Third Layer aggression). As always, the
incentive structure of such monopolies results in high-cost, low-quality
service with minimal innovation. As a result, we pay more money for less.
The private company saved its customers money with used cars and equipment. (2) The private police officers enforced the law, while clerical personnel took care of the "social-worker, caretaker, baby-sitter, errand-boy" activities that can amount to 80% of public police work. (3) Oro Valley, Arizona, enjoyed similar savings when the town contracted out its police work to Rural/Metro in 1975. However, the Arizona Law Enforcement Officers' Advisory Council took the matter to court, arguing that an employee of a private company could not be a municipal police officer. The Council wanted the guns of government to give state troopers an exclusive monopoly on providing police service. Ironically, the public police wanted to use collective aggression against the very people they were supposed to protect from individual aggression! The court expenses were too much for Rural/Metro. They withdrew from Oro Valley. In 1975, the city had paid $35,000 to Rural/Metro; by 1982, it needed $241,000 to subsidize the public police. (4) The police that were hired to protect the public used the guns of government to exploit them! The Oro Valley community lost more than money, however. Rural/Metro could charge less and profit more by preventing crime instead of fighting it. Rural/Metro did things the public police had no incentive to do, such as checking homes twice a day when residents went out of town. These measures had cut burglary rates 95%! (4) The private police had to please their customers, or the
community would hire a company that would. Rather than trying to offer to
serve Oro Valley residents better, the public police used the guns of government
against them. The blame cannot be laid at the feet of public police, however.
Like most American communities, local voters had not honored their neighbor's
choice when they established the public police as an exclusive, subsidized
monopoly in the first place. In trying to control others, voters found themselves
controlled. When a community such as Reminderville contracts with a private police company instead of hiring its own employees, local taxes are still used to pay for the service. Our enforcement agents take our money - at gunpoint, if necessary - to protect us from others who wish to take our money at gunpoint! As usual, poor people are hurt the most by the aggression of taxation. The poor pay a large portion of their income for rent, which reflects the property taxes that support the local police. As a percentage of their income, the poor may pay more for police protection than their middle income neighbors. Most crime occurs in low-income neighborhoods; nevertheless, the poor are largely ignored. My mother and sister came out of a drug store one day to find their bikes had been stolen. They silently followed the thieves to a ghetto apartment, where my mother and sister could see their bikes just inside the open door. The police officer they called told the two women that the police just didn't go into that apartment complex because it was far too dangerous! He advised my mother and sister t If my mother and sister couldn't get the police to rescue their bikes that were in plain sight, what chance would a person dwelling in that complex have of police support? If the poor could threaten to take their tax dollars elsewhere, they would at least have some leverage. Without having the option to vote with their dollars, poor people are largely ignored. When individuals have sued unresponsive police, the courts have ruled that "the police do not exist to provide personal protection to individual citizens."(5) The individuals who get the least protection of all are the poor. As a result, they are forced to provide their own, in addition to supporting a police force that favors other segments of the population over them. Only by giving poor people their economic vote back can we hope to achieve equality. Leaving the Poor Defenseless The poor pay taxes to subsidize a police force that discriminates
against them. Left to their own resources, the poor patrol their own neighborhoods
and rely on inexpensive handguns. Sophisticated alarm systems or trained
dogs are beyond their economic reach. As if their plight were not bad enough,
society attempts to disable the poor further by stopping them- at gunpoint
- if necessary - from purchasing handguns. Defending oneself with a handgun makes sense: a victim who submits is twice as likely to be injured as a victim who resists with a gun. Defending oneself without a gun, however, results in injury more often than submission. (9) By the late 1970s, armed citizens were killing more criminals in self-defense than the police. (10) Handgun ownership acts as a deterrent to crime. In October 1966, the Orlando police began a highly publicized program designed to train women in the use of firearms. The program was prompted by an increase in rape in the months preceding its implementation. The rape rate dropped from 34 incidents for every 100,000 inhabitants in 1966 to 4 incidents per 100,000 in 1967, even though the surrounding areas showed no drop at all. Burglary fell by 25%. No woman ever had to use her gun; the deterrent effect sufficed. Even five years later, Orlando's rape rate was 13% below the 1966 level, although the surrounding area was 308% higher.11,12 In Albuquerque, New Mexico; (13) Highland Park, Michigan;8 New Orleans, Louisiana;8 and Detroit, Michigan;8 crime rates, especially burglaries, plummeted when shopkeepers publicized their acquisition of handguns. When the city council of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring each household to keep a firearm, crime dropped 74% the following year. (14) Surveys of convicted felons indicate that when the risk of confronting an armed victim increases, robberies are abandoned. (15) Among police officers, 90% believe that banning ownership of firearms would make ordinary citizens even more likely to be targets of armed violence. (16) Criminals do respond to incentives. (17) When they think they will have their own actions reflected back to them, they choose cooperation instead of exploitation. The TIT FOR TAT strategy makes sure that crime doesn't pay. Few criminals are affected by handgun bans anyway, since five-sixths of them don't purchase their guns legally. (18) Gun bans harm only the innocent. Do handguns encourage domestic violence? After all, 81% of handgun victims are relatives or acquaintances of the killer. (19) However, two thirds to four-fifths of the killers have prior arrest records, frequently for crimes of violence. (20) Thus, the average domestic killer is not a model citizen corrupted by gun possession, but a person continuing a life of violence. A gun does not make one predisposed to kill any more than a functioning sex organ makes a man predisposed to rape. How one uses what one has determines its value. A gun can protect or kill. A man can violate or cherish. To castrate a man or disarm a person - at gunpoint, if necessary - is aggression. Indeed, many of the domestic killings are acts of self-defense. Among murdered spouses, 50% are husbands of abused wives. (21) These women might be dead today if they had not had access to the family handgun. Guns give weaker victims equality with their attackers. Women are quite capable of handling firearms. Some studies suggest that women learn how to handle guns more quickly than men! (22) New Zealand, Switzerland, and Israel have more gun ownership
than the United States, yet in all these countries, homicides are less frequent.
(23) On the other hand, the District of Columbia has the toughest antigun
laws in the nation, yet it has become the murder capital of the United States.
(24) Clearly, stopping people from owning guns - at gunpoint, if necessary
- does not stop people from killing. As a result of our aggression, crime runs rampant. We lock ourselves inside our houses and take care when we walk through our world. We do not dare to give hitchhikers a ride for fear they will attack us. We live in the unfriendly world that we have created by our willingness to do unto others before they do unto us. When we abandon our aggression, we will eliminate the crime we have encouraged. We will also set the stage for better protection against those who would trespass against us. Eliminating the aggression of taxation would allow individuals or neighborhoods to hire the police service of their choice. If the private police didn't do the job they were hired to do, individuals could contract with someone else. Today, of course, consumers have no choice. They must subsidize police service without any guarantee of service. Customers hiring private police might elect to make an annual payment that includes patrolling, apprehending criminals, or any other items mutually agreed upon. Since preventing burglaries and assaults would keep costs down and profits up, police officers would advise their clients of ways to prevent crime. Prevention might also include house checks when the client is out of town. A protection agency with a reputation for effective capture of criminals might deter criminals just by posting its logo on the insured's building. The very poor could pay for police services by participating in neighborhood patrols organized by the neighborhood's protection agency. Today, in spite of paying taxes through their rent, the poor must patrol without compensation. In 1977, 55% of the citizen patrols were found in low-income neighborhoods, while only 35% and 10% were in middle- and high-income neighborhoods, respectively. Approximately 63% of the patrols were volunteers, (25) suggesting again that the poor pay both their taxes and their time for their inadequate protection. Without the aggression of handgun bans, the poor could be armed if they chose to be. Police brutality, often directed at the lower classes,
would also be curtailed. Private police would not only be liable if they
failed to live up to their contract with their client, but they could also
be held personally liable for any brutality toward those they apprehended.
Law-abiding citizens would shun a firm with a reputation for viciousness
and would effectively put such a company out of business. Even when criminals are captured, they seldom go to prison. The courts are so crowded that plea bargaining is a regular practice. (28) The criminal gets a suspended sentence; the prosecutor tallies up another conviction. The victims have nothing to say about it - even though their taxes pay the prosecuter's salery. Victims cannot even take criminal charges elsewhere if the prosecutor decides not to take their case. The prosecutor has an exclusive, subsidized government monopoly on bringing criminal charges. Without this exclusive license, victims could hire the lawyers of their choice to prosecute - or could prosecute the case personally if they chose. Since a convicted criminal would have to pay the trial costs - in a work prison, if necessary - even a poor victim would be able to attract competent counsel on contingency. No taxes would have to be collected for justice to be served. No victims would have to pay for a prosecuter who would not help them. Today, the guilty have everything to gain and nothing to lose by dragging out the court proceedings. If they had to pay all the costs associated with their conviction, however, they would not be so eager to appeal repeatedly. Instead, many would choose to settle with the victim out of court to avoid such costs. With fewer cases coming to trial, justice would be swifter than it is today. If the disputing parties could not reach an agreement, they could hire a judge or arbitrator. In California and several other states, justice has been deregulated. Aggression to enforce an exclusive, subsidized government monopoly on judgeship has been abandoned. Anyone who is qualified for jury duty can render a legal judgment. (29) In addition to California's independent judges, companies such as Civicourt; Washington Arbitration Services, Inc.; Judicial Mediation, Inc.; Resolution, Inc.; and EnDispute, Inc., offer quick, inexpensive justice. Judicate, founded in Philadelphia, has been referred to as the "national private court," with offices in 45 states as of 1987. (30) The rapid and reasonably priced trials these private courts provide are obviously considered a good deal by both parties, since mutual agreement is required to take the case from the public courts to a private one. Although most of the private courts currently deal with property disputes, there is no reason that litigants in a criminal case should not be able to choose their judges as well. With the criminal routinely paying for the costs of the trial, no taxes would be needed to support these courts. Would such a system of multiple courts promote different codes of justice in different areas of the country? Probably not. Today, we have several layers of jurisdiction between city, county, state, and federal courts. Judgments, laws, and penalties differ from state to state, for example, without causing undue hardship. History suggests that in the marketplace ecosystem, free from aggression, justice tends to be consistent. When the Western states were only territories, as many as four courts shared a jurisdiction. Those who observed such systems in action noted that "appeals were taken from one to the other, papers certified up or down and over, and recognized, criminals delivered and judgments accepted from one court by another."31 The judges had the best motive in the world for making their decisions clear and consistent - litigants would not hire them if they didn't give clear, consistent judgments. To improve our domestic security, all we need to do is abandon aggression. If we were successful in doing this, what would our country be like?  |
How We Went Astray The second principle of non-aggression was not so well established, however. When individuals stole, defrauded, or attacked an innocent neighbor, they were not usually required to right their wrongs. The focus was on punishing the criminal without necessarily restoring the victim. When wrongs were not righted, crime paid, so it grew and flourished. In frustration, Americans tried to fight fire with fire, but they only increased the size of the blaze. Those who lied about their medical credentials were not required to make their victims whole again. Instead, the guns of government were used to enforce licensing laws for medical practitioners. Those who sold untested medicines while claiming they were safe paid fines to the government, but rarely compensated their victims fully. Trying to make up for a breadwinner's death might take a lifetime. Such a penalty would effectively deter those who would harm others. Instead of requiring aggressors to experience the fruits of their actions, Americans tried to deter aggression by becoming aggressors themselves. Aggression- through- government was instituted in an attempt to deter aggression by individuals. As always, more aggression only made a bad situation worse. In the field of health care, medical practi-tioners became expensive and less available, innovation was stymied, and the introduction of new pharmaceuticals was delayed or prevented. Licensing laws in other areas had the same adverse affects. The guns of government were used to prevent homesteading over vast areas of the country. The Pyramid of Power grew, giving control of our destinies to a powerful elite. Wealth creation slowed. Naturally, the poor were most adversely affected as the Wealth Pie shrank. Aggression- through- government limited wealth-creating options of the poor. If they could not gain a foothold on the Ladder of Affluence, they more frequently turned to stealing or drug dealing. Still others surrendered themselves to the elusive pleasures of mind-altering drugs. The justice system focused on enforcing aggression- through- government instead of defending against individual aggressors. Consequently, fewer thieves, murderers, and rapists were apprehended. Because taxpayers, not criminals, had to pay for the prisons, victims were robbed twice. Prisons became overcrowded and reduced sentences became common. Crime paid and so it flourished. As crime grew, the police and court systems were unable
to cope. As an exclusive, subsidized government monopoly, the justice system
was less efficient and more costly than it otherwise would have been. When
justice was slow, criminal activity became more profitable and widespread.
Fear of others permeated our culture. Once we have rejected aggression, we make it easier for others to do so. When we allow the disadvantaged to create wealth for themselves, they don't need to steal. As the Wealth Pie grows, more is available to help the truly needy. Fewer people choose a life of crime when they can get ahead without it. Those who do seek to exploit others would be brought to justice more rapidly in a country that practiced non-aggression. With more wealth available and fewer criminals to apprehend, capture would be more likely. When criminals pay the costs of their trial, capture, and imprisonment, justice would not be limited by the amount of money that the innocent were able to pay. Righting our wrongs is less expensive than trying to control anyone who might harm us. We focus on the guilty few instead of the innocent many. Crime is effectively deterred when the probability of being caught and made to pay the full costs of one's crime is high. Deterrents are especially important for polluters. When people know they will pay for the harm done to another's body or property, they are more careful. When criminals fully compensate their victims, they have
truly paid their debt. A restored victim is a victim no longer. Bygones
can truly be bygones when the damage is fully undone. By practicing both
aspects of non-aggression, we take responsibility for our choices and allow
others to do the same. We treat all people as equals - equally free to chose
and equally responsible for their choices - and ourselves! Type C victim personalities are susceptible to cancer. They feel that they are helpless to acquire whatever they associate with happiness.1 In a socioeconomic context, Type C people may believe themselves incapable of creating enough wealth to sustain themselves and their loved ones. They feel that they are victims of the system. Sometimes they might use this feeling of victimization as a justification for stealing and harming others. These unhealthy attitudes fuel each other in a positive feedback, A/C Loop. Type A beliefs lead to the aggression of licensing laws, which prevent the disadvantaged from creating wealth for themselves and their loved ones. Type C people who can't reach the first rung of the Ladder of Affluence feel helpless to control their own destiny. Type A's then blame the plight of Type C individuals on the selfishness of others and propose the aggression of taxation to provide for these unfortunates. Charity by aggression ensnares more people in the Poverty Trap, reaffirming in the poor a Type C belief in their own helplessness. Could this be why cancer is our Number 2 killer2 and why the poor are more susceptible to it? (3) People who tend to live the longest ("Type S," for self-actualized) believe that their happiness (or unhappiness) results from their own choices.1 Because Type S people do not blame selfish others for their plight, they focus on doing whatever they can to help themselves. Since this attitude is most likely to result in accomplishing their goals, self-actualized people feel competent rather than helpless. In a political context, Type S personalities honor their
neighbor's choice, because they do not see selfish others as the cause of
their woes. In a society where aggressors right their wrongs, victims are
restored. Consequently, there is little reason to feel like a helpless victim.
Non aggression sets the stage for the evolution of the healthy Type S societal
personality. Can a nation that practices non-aggression long survive in a world that does not? Once again, the computer games suggest that TIT FOR TAT (non aggression) is highly likely to spread in a population of aggressors. Even a cluster of non-aggressors that make up only 5% of the population is able to accomplish this.4 If the aggressors can't be converted, those people who practice non-aggression do so well with each other that they still come out ahead! Aggressors end up teaching aggression. In the computer games, the best the aggressors can do after teaching aggression to those they interact with is one point each round. TIT FOR TAT practitioners, however, get three points apiece. To the extent that real life has similar payoffs, non aggression is many times more profitable than aggression. Selfish others will be converted to non-aggression because it pays off on an individual level; altruists will practice non-aggression because it brings widespread peace and plenty. No matter how you look at it, non-aggression wins the game! Makes A Win-Win World!  |
Center your country in the Tao and evil will have no power. Not that it isn't there, but you'll be able to step out of its way. - Lao-tsu, TAO TE CHING
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. - THE HOLY BIBLE, John 8:32
...mutual cooperation can emerge in a world of egoists without central control by starting with a cluster of individuals who rely on reciprocity. - Robert Axelrod, THE EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION |