Recovering Lawns, Failed States, and Reasons for Hope
by
William Norman Grigg
by William Norman Grigg
DIGG THIS
Here in western
Idaho, amid the waning days of August, summer still announces its
presence in afternoon temperatures that retreat just short of the
century mark.
But the first
signs of an overeager autumn can be felt in the odd, lingering morning
chill and seen in the subtle golden mellowness that colors the early
evening sunshine.
The unfortunate
resumption of government schooling has closed the too-brief parenthesis
of liberty each summer provides to the inmates of that system. And
I find that much of what little spare time I have is consumed by
efforts to rehabilitate our yard, which takes up more than an acre
in total area.
Owing to the
vagaries of the weather, an abortive attempt to start a garden two
years ago, the damage inflicted by a young but vigorous canine,
and neglect reflecting circumstances beyond my control, the yard
became a frightful and mysterious place.
Over the past
month or so, as a welcome but unfamiliar normalcy has taken hold
of our domestic affairs, I have been ministering to our yard with
various landscaping implements, and doing what I can to aid the
grass in its noble effort to reclaim the territory usurped by weeds.
And I've found
myself impressed, once again, by how little it takes to restore
a lawn. There are sections I've had to re-seed, and a few really
tenacious clusters of weeds that will require some particular attention.
But to my surprise, new grass now adorns a few isolated sections
of the yard where no seeds had been sown.
From the time
we moved here nearly three years ago, those sections were barren
except for a dense overgrowth of weeds. Those once-drab areas are
now blanketed in green. The grass seeds were dormant beneath the
weeds, and resilient enough to take possession of the ground once
it had been cleared with a weed-eater, mowed, and watered.
Quite naturally,
the resurrection of our neglected yard prompted me to ponder the
prospects for the recovery of liberty in our society, which is invaded
in every conceivable way by the choking tendrils of state power.
This overgrowth has happened not merely by neglect – as is the case
when a yard becomes ragged with weeds – but more importantly by
invitation.
People have
been seduced into believing that they can live in symbiosis with
the State that is killing what little liberty and prosperity we
still enjoy. We have succumbed to the lure of what Bastiat called
"institutionalized plunder," fallen prey to the temptation to employ
the State's coercive power to live at the expense of others. And
now we've reached a point where a simple weeding, even a thorough
one, won't suffice.
Something much
more invasive, more catastrophic, will be required to beat down
the State's overgrowth and clear the field so that freedom can flourish
and genuinely civilized life can recover.
The unfolding
economic collapse – which implicates every significant institution
of the evil system that rules us – could be a providential catastrophe,
if it is dealt with correctly. To put the matter simply, for our
civilization to recover, the United States of America needs to become
a "failed state."
That term conjures
images of Somalia in the early 1990s, as tribal wolf-packs headed
by small-bore thugs grandly calling themselves "warlords" plundered
famine relief deliveries, leaving thousands to starve. But as we'll
shortly see, there is more to what we might call the "Somali Model"
than warlords and famine victims, and much of it could apply to
reconstructing free society following the overdue collapse of the
American State.
Between the
1960s and the early 1990s, Somalia was the "beneficiary" of huge
loans from the World Bank; by 1987, 37 percent of the country’s
GNP was derived directly from such loans. Siad Barre, the Marxist
kleptocrat on whom the World Bank bestowed that beneficence, lived
in opulent splendor even as the nation’s infrastructure rotted away.
Barre's regime
collapsed in 1991, triggering a brief but bloody civil war among
rival aspirants to succeed the tyrant. Starving Somalis offered
irresistible opportunities for the purveyors of victim pornography,
and saturation media coverage of the famine led to a US-led, UN-mandated
"humanitarian" intervention in December 1992. That mission was soon
redefined as a "nation-building" exercise – that is, an effort to
re-impose a standard-issue centralized regime on a fissiparous tribe-based
society.
As it happens,
the famine was under control before the military intervention began,
and the effort to inflict a government on the Somalis led to a great
deal of entirely gratuitous bloodshed. So the UN mission folded
its tents and left the Somalis to muddle through without a government.
And Somalis did more than merely muddle: After suffering horribly
under a World Bank-subsidized central government, they flourished
in a state-less society precisely because of the "neglect" of the
"international community."
In Somalia,
"the very absence of a government may have helped nurture an African
oddity a lean and efficient business sector that does not feed
at a public trough controlled by corrupt officials," wrote
Peter Maas in the May 2001 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
Without the
instruments of state coercion to misdirect investments and suppress
initiative, private businesses sprang up like blades of grass suddenly
freed from an oppressive overgrowth of weeds. This in turn encouraged
the development of telecommunications, transportation, and shipping
companies to serve the needs of the newly liberated private sector.
Internet cafes
began to sprout in Mogadishu, which just a decade earlier had been
the scene of astonishing bloodshed. Rather than re-building a state-controlled,
taxpayer-financed police force, Somali businessmen hired private
security firms to protect their investments and property.
"Mogadishu
has the closest thing to an Ayn Rand-style economy that the world
has ever seen – no bureaucracy or regulation at all," wrote Maass
in astonishment. "The city has had no government since 1991....
Somali investors are making things happen, not waiting for them
to happen." In the stateless Somali economy, everything "is based
on trust, and so far it has worked, owing to Somalia's tightly woven
clan networks: everyone knows everyone else, so it's less likely
that an unknown con man will pull off a scam."
"If the business
community succeeds in returning Mogadishu to something resembling
normalcy," concluded Maass, "it will have shown that a failed state,
or at least its capital city, can get back on its feet without much
help from the outside world."
Maass understates
the case: Somalia's transformation would illustrate the ability
of a stateless society to overcome the pernicious legacy left by
decades of "help" from the so-called international community.
A World Bank
study grudgingly admitted: "Somalia boasts lower rates of extreme
poverty and, in some cases, better infrastructure than richer countries
in Africa." This is almost certainly because it was not cursed with
a World Bank-subsidized central government to poach the wealth created
by Somalia's productive class.
Now, you just
knew that the architects of international order simply couldn't
allow that state of affairs to continue.
And sure enough,
under the all-exculpating rationale provided by the "War on Terror,"
the Regime ruling us from Washington arranged
for Somalia to be invaded by the vile government ruling the neighboring
country, Ethiopia.
This crime
was carried out in the name of "stabilizing " Somalia, with invading
foreign troops deployed "in support of Somalia's fledgling transitional
government,"
slaughtering thousands of civilians at a throw and driving the
business community into exile.
New
York Times correspondent Jeffrey Gettleman, who apparently
fills that paper's Walter Duranty Chair for Collectivist Apologetics,
did his considerable best in a seminal April 2007 report to depict
Washington's surrogate aggression in Somalia as a necessary measure
to beat down "raw antigovernment defiance."
As if that
were, in some sense, a bad thing.
"They do not
pay taxes, their businesses are totally unregulated, and they have
skills that are not necessarily geared toward a peaceful society,"
wrote Gettleman in an all-but-audible tone of alarmed disapproval.
His prose is drenched in scorn when describing Somalis seeking to
profit in the private sector, but maintains his composure when describing
how the transitional government arbitrarily closed and confiscated
profitable businesses and hiked some taxes by as much as 300 percent.
Gettleman uncritically quoted Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, the puppet
ruler grandly calling himself Somalia's "transitional president,"
who described his political critics as "the guys bringing in expired
medicine, selling arms, [and] harboring terrorists."
Gettleman buttressed
that self-serving accusation with supposedly authoritative assessments
from conveniently anonymous "Western security officials" – you know,
the kind people who arranged for Somalia to descend, once again,
into murderous chaos, rather than permitting it to enjoy the benefits
of state-less, spontaneous order.
By late 2007,
thanks to the attention of Washington and its allies, Somalia's
fledgling market economy was gone, and the country was once
again on the brink of famine This is typical of the misery inflicted
on much of the world by the Regime that rules us from Washington,
and it is a small but potent illustration of why that Regime must
die.
No, I'm not
talking about tearing up the Constitution, although that document
has no documented influence on the people who rule us. In fact,
it can be plausibly argued that it is only through the death of
the incumbent Regime that the constitutional republic that once
existed here could be reborn. I am saying that the recovery and
survival of human freedom is much more important than "saving" our
present government or any of the collectivist institutions engrafted
into the body of our constitutional system.
Somalia may
not seem to have a whole lot in common with the USA. One key similarity
is found in the fact that the government ruling us, like that of
pre-1991 Somalia, is propped up by foreign creditors who simply
cannot continue to subsidize Washington forever.
Ending those
subsidies would mean the immediate collapse of the Washington-centric
system. Indeed, that is just one of many ways that collapse could
come about.
Yes,
that would be a terrifying thing. But no, it is not the worst thing
that could happen: Such a collapse could clear the way for the seeds
of freedom to take root and flourish. The worst thing would be for
the current system to continue ripening in corruption and aggression
until it finally brings about a catastrophic war that would, in
societal terms, act like a particularly aggressive forest fire –
annihilating the seeds and sterilizing the soil, leaving behind
a barren, lifeless moonscape.
Should that
collapse come, Americans would have to adjust our living habits
in some dramatic ways. We'd have to become re-acquainted with the
virtues of local living, and find anew the kind of patriotism that
is genuine love of a country, rather than an adolescent pride
in the power of a government's killing apparatus. For American Christians
this would probably mean abandoning the comfortable, consumerist
religion peddled by mega-churches and learning the hard discipline
of unconditional faith in God.
We would have
to develop a species of toughness not presently in abundant supply.
Many of our ancestors lived in state-less frontier communities,
and Somalis were experiencing that blessing until they once again
fell prey to Washington's murderous humanitarianism.
"Rugged individualism"
is a phrase that falls easily from the fleshy lips of overfed, morally
dissolute Republican talk radio shills. We may be given the opportunity
to put that much-admired but seldom-exercised virtue in practice
in order to rebuild a state-less – which is to say, a genuinely
civil – society.
August
28, 2008
William
Norman Grigg [send him mail]
writes the Pro Libertate
blog.
Copyright
© 2008 William Norman Grigg
William
Norman Grigg Archives
|