# Heresies (December 1972) **URL:** **By** Jerome Tuccille **Published:** December 1, 1972 --- “The anarchy versus limited government argument has been with us for quite some time.” The anarchy versus limited government argument has been with us for quite some time. It is not my intention here to attempt to convert anyone away from classical liberalism to free market anarchism on philosophical principle. The positions on both sides have already been set down elsewhere in tedious detail, and there is little I can add to them at this point. What I would like to talk about, however, is the _practical_ side of the picture. Historically, anarchists have always been regarded as the impractical dreamers, while those attempting to structure a free society according to some democratic-republican format have assumed the mantle of clear-eyed realists. I maintain that the case is quite the opposite—anarchists will see at least an approximation of their ideal by the turn of the century while the so-called practical vision of a libertarian limited government will disintegrate in ruins before our very eyes. On the face of it, the idea that libertarians can ever achieve their goals through the electoral process should appear as nothing less than absurd. Theoretically, it is possible to convince the general population that libertarian principles are both moral and efficacious, and therefore in everyone’s best interests to adopt. This, briefly, is the educational theory espoused by the Foundation for Economic Education and several other organizations. I submit that this educational task is of Herculean proportions in a society where the intellectual climate is fit for lobotomized twelve-year-olds; but I do concede the outside possibility of its success. Assuming, then, that every wire-lather, tin-knocker, garbage man, insurance salesman, lavatory attendant and institutionalized mongoloid in the country has been converted to libertarianism—then what? I maintain that it would not make the smallest iota of difference in our governmental system if this were the case. The libertarian (and especially the Objectivist) code of ingrained selfishness works against it. Our entire system of government is based on patronage and lobby power. Do you really expect the millionaire farmer from Nebraska to stop lobbying for price supports once he has mastered the Byzantine intricacies of _Atlas Shrugged_; the oil czar from Texas to stop fighting for import quotas after he has read Mises and Rothbard; the textile barons of Seventh Avenue to end their unholy war against Japan once they have embraced the theories of free international trade? The naivete contained in this view approaches astronomical dimensions. These power blocs have grown rich and fat on the lobby system, and arguments for self-interest will only reinforce the entire structure. But you are going to teach them rational self-interest, you say. Here again you are whistling in the dark. What’s more “rational” for a group that has grown as rich as Midas on government largesse than to continue buying more favoritism with the wealth it has already acquired? The system has been mighty good to the farmers and industrialists and corporations and unions that are most adept at milking it for all they can get. Can you convince them that their bank accounts will not suffer under a purely competitive system? Their wealth depends on controls and regulations which limit competition. Do you then intend to show them that it is in their own “rational self-interest” to abandon their stranglehold on political power and take their lumps in the open market? You may as well attempt to make an abortionist of the Pope. So, while you may succeed in diverting the hordes from their wheeling and dealing for a moment, long enough even to impress an idea on the globs of tapioca most people use for brains, you will never convince them in a million years to stop using _every means at their disposal_ to further their own interests. As long as political lobbying is available to them, rest assured it will be used assiduously by all, regardless of their philosophical persuasion. It is, quite simply, all too easy to rationalize the morality of one’s behavior. But, you say, I have still not convinced you in any case that free market anarchism is a more realistic alternative to the present nightmare we call government. Let us make a few observations. We are witnessing in this country, right now, a phenomenon which might best be described as a Walt Disney revival. Once denounced as a debaser of American cultural standards, a right wing carny barker pandering to the lowest instincts of the general public, Disney is now being touted as one of the great visionaries of the twentieth century—along with Buckminster Fuller, Arthur C. Clarke and other futurists. What’s more, this re-evaluation has been initiated, not by Disney’s original supporters, who might be suspected of harboring a certain bias, but by sources as divergent as science fiction writer Ray Bradbury and _New York Times_ staff writer Paul Goldberger. What these gentlemen are saying, in very emphatic terms, is that the solution to many of the urban problems afflicting us today may already be available in Disneyland, California, and Disney World, Florida. Pollution-free environment, mass transportation that works, clean streets, protection against crime and violence, integrated and harmonious architecture— all of them, according to the Disney revisionists, have been in existence in Disney’s communities waiting to be discovered by the “experts.” Goldberger reports that condominiums are now being built in Disney World for those who want to move in lock, stock and barrel, and that Disney World already has its own “private government” setting pollution and housing standards and other wide-ranging policies. One may object to the use of the word “government” in this situation (it is, after all, a voluntary community), but, nonetheless, the prototype for private, self-contained, self-regulated communities is now in existence. In short, Disney’s organization has proven that a private community can provide the public with all the services heretofore provided only by government. The next step is all but inevitable. With housing being built, it is only a question of time before schools and panels of arbitration (a private judicial system) are also established. With its own police patrols and the availability of laser technology sometime in the next ten years, Disney’s private utopias will also be capable of defending themselves against outside aggression—thus relieving government of its remaining defense function. Disney World is only the beginning. Fuller, Safdi and Soleri also have plans afoot for erecting their own autonomous, fully-equipped societies that will be capable of supporting a million people in comfort and style. One hesitates to predict the future with too much certitude, but the trend indicates a proliferation of private cities sprouting across the land, and over the oceans, starting in the present decade. Utopia, a communistic concept through the ages from Plato to Dorothy Day, may soon be brought to us by private developers sometime by the end of the century. And so, I submit to the conservative or classical liberal wing of the libertarian movement, that the ideal of free market anarchism may not be so far-fetched as you think. Would you object to this brand of capitalist anarchism gaining prominence during the next thirty years because it negates your own concept of a “rational limited government?” I daresay you will be plowing your life savings into land development stock, raking in handsome profits by the fistfull. The “impracticality” of the anarchist has been mythologized long enough. Let us all take a closer look at what is actually going on—and let the chips fall where they may.