V-50 Session 9

Well good evening ladies and gentlemen.  Welcome again to a continuation of the V-50 Lectures.  This is Lecture #9.  The first question I will ask you is what is the connection between this man that I introduced you to last week, namely, Giordano Bruno, what is the connection between Bruno and the ultimate termination of, for example, poverty, the termination of crime, and even the termination of war?  The character and integrity of Bruno was a source of inspiration that led Galambos himself to develop a new strategy to obtain a victory for freedom.  This strategy is called the Ideological Program.

What has been the historical strategy of the past to obtain freedom?  I’ve discussed the strategy of the past.  The entire historical strategy can be summarized in one word – fight.  In other words, fight tyrants, fight the king, fight the dictator, fight the president, fight the party in power.  And so, fighting is always a negative action.  It leads to political action which is always negative.  All political action is always coercive.

Alright now, let’s again at some of the accepted views just a century before the publication of this magnificent work, Prinicipia Mathematica.  Newton published Prinicipia in 1687.  But what were the views on the solar system, let’s say, a century earlier in the year 1587?  Well, the view was that the planet Earth, of course, was the fixed, immoveable center of what?  The entire universe.  Was this the wrong view in 1587, that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe?  Was this the wrong view in 1587?   What do you think?  What’s wrong?  That which is what? Irrational, and, if applied, immoral.  Alright, was this the wrong view in 1587?  Yes, certainly.

And who held this wrong view?  Well, the two principal classes.  Exactly – those who went to school and those who didn’t.  And furthermore, with those who went to school and were “educated”, were just as ignorant and wrong on the subject as those who did not go to school and presumably were not educated.  Was one of these groups just as wrong as the other on this subject?  Hm-mm.

Alright, who held the right view at this time that the sun was the center, at least the center of our planetary system?  Well, Bruno accepted the view of Copernicus that the sun was the center of our planetary system.  That was his position.  At the same time, Bruno rejected the Copernican view that said that the sun was the center of the universe.  Bruno says the universe is infinite and therefore it has no center.  Of course, in science, as I’m sure many of you know, we have not answered this question: is the universe finite or infinite?  But we do know, for example, that our star, called the sun, is not even anywhere near the center of our own galaxy.  Our sun is a good distance from the center of the galaxy, out on one of the spiral arms.

Well, Bruno was murdered in 1600 for holding the view, the right view, that the sun was the center and publishing the right view.  Alright, it is now the year 1977, 377 years after the execution of this giant philosopher, Bruno.  Alright, who holds the right view today, the right view being the sun is the center, not the Earth?  Who holds the right view today in 1977, at least in the western world?  Does the question answer itself?  The right view is held by the two principal classes, those who did and those who didn’t go to school.  Do both classes hold the right view?  Yes. In fact, the right view has been accepted, for what, some two centuries.

Why is it important to understand this?  Well, changing the subject from the right view versus the wrong view with respect to which is the center, the Earth of the sun, of our planetary system, let’s turn to a discussion of right view versus wrong view in the volitional sciences.  Alright, it is now 1977, two centuries after the American Revolution.  What is the accepted wrong view of today?  Well, one is, for example, the superstitious myth that you can actually help a man by stealing his property.  Alright, what people believe this myth?  Exactly.  The two principal classes – those who went to school and those who didn’t.  And what do they all advocate?  Stealing.  The taking of a man’s property without his consent.

For example, if you know anyone who advocates any of the following: Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, public schools, public libraries, public utilities, public roads, Public Utilities Commission, Federal Reserve System, Department of Defense, foreign aid, the United Nations, city-state-federal police, city-state-federal fire departments, municipal-state-federal courts, anti-trust, Federal Reserve notes, contract enforcement – then, if you know anyone who advocates any of these, then you know someone who is an advocate of stealing.

Since I brought in the subject of contract enforcement, at this point, I want to make it very clear that it is essential we build a structure where contracts are honored.  However, I’m indicating here there is something wrong with the concept of contract enforcement because that implies an enforcer; that implies a state.  So there has to be some way to solve this problem without a state.  If no one honors his contract, of course, all production ceases and you have total chaos.

I could have listed, of course, much more than this but I assume you got the message.  How then are these state programs financed?  Through theft, without the permission of the owner, without the permission of the generator of the property.  The acceptance of this as being right or proper is the wrong view.  The right view?  There is no such thing as a small interference with property.

Now, today, who believes this right view?  Just a few.  Alright.  Who believed the right view in 1600 that the sun was the center of our planetary system and not the Earth?  Who believed that in 1600?  Same answer, isn’t it?  Just a few.  But in just two centuries, almost everyone in the western world believes the right view, that the sun is the center.  And that’s occurred in just two centuries.  Well, maybe I better stop right here.  Is there anyone in the room who believes that the Earth is the center of our planetary system?  How many of you, if you really did believe this, would not raise your hand?  Let me see a show of hands.

Alright, the problem we find ourselves confronted with today, ladies and gentlemen is, although it took two centuries to get the right view across to both classes, which is the center, the sun or the Earth, the bigger problem we have today is we don’t have that much time.  We don’t have two centuries to get the right view across, one of which is you cannot help a man by stealing his property.  We may not have a quarter of a century.

Alright, what does it mean then if we are going to be successful?  It means we must find a method of accelerating the time in which it takes to get the right view across to those who have gone to school and those who have not.  And this will require a new strategy.  The new strategy must also provide a new approach to the problem.  The old approach, when the people think, of course, something is wrong, they riot, they strike, they rebel, they agitate.  Opposition to what is wrong not only does not tell you what is right, it does not even tell you what’s wrong.

Opposition, per se then, will never solve a single problem.  As I’ve indicated many times, but it must be repeated for purposes of emphasis and to increase your sensitivity on the subject, you cannot riot, rebel, agitate, or march your way to the moon.  What’s missing?  What’s missing is a new product.  And where do all new products come from?  They come from the first step of the Ideological Program.  The “I” stands for innovation.  The innovations useful to man don’t grow on trees.  They do not exist in nature.  You do not walk into a forest and find innovations hanging from an innovation tree.  All useful products can be called rational products.  And a rational product is simply any product that does what it’s supposed to do.  The purpose of this tape recorder is to record sound and then play it back.  Does it do what it’s supposed to do?  Yes.  At each lecture, I give a title to the lecture and then I play it back to make sure that the equipment is working properly.  That’s another corroboration that it does what it’s supposed to do.

We’ve tried, as I’ve indicated, the gun as a technique of solving problems for some six thousand years.  The results?  Read the newspaper.  And so, as painful as it may be to many, I presume none of you hopefully in this class, but maybe painful to some, we are going to obsolete the world’s most dangerous cliché: “There ought to be a law”.  And when they say there ought to be a law, generally that does not mean there ought to be a law of nature that we can understand and enable us to solve a particular problem.  What that means, of course, is there ought to be another political law or another mechanism to coerce.

And yet, of course, the question still arises can we, on a practical basis, solve man’s many problems without guns, without stealing, without kidnapping, without murder, without any coercion whatsoever?  And so, I’m going to be demonstrating moral alternatives to coercion.  In this lecture, and the next three, I’m going to attempt to convince you that the most efficient solution to every problem, and the most rational solution, the most practical solution, the most successful solution to any problem will be, without exception, the moral solution.

And we are coming now to what is called the solutions part of this course, Sessions 9, 10, 11 and 12.  I’ll be discussing alternatives to the problem of coercion in principle.  However, I might ask you this question as of the beginning of Lecture #9.  Have I given you any solutions up to this point in time?  Have you heard anything that you might call a solution to any problem?  Anyone?  Have you heard anything you might call a solution?

Well, I claim that you have already heard more solutions to more problems, more of man’s problems, in the first nine sessions of this course, before I begin the solutions part, I claim you’ve already heard more solutions than you’ve heard from all other inputs combined in your entire life, regardless of how much you’ve read or how many courses you’ve taken.  As a matter of fact, I would say that would be true even if you had read everything ever written on all subjects, extant or non-extant.  Essentially, that’s another way of saying there have not been solutions external to this theory.  There have been some people who have had some understanding of the problem, but not a complete understanding of the problem.  Before I took this course myself, I would say I had, at best, a partial understanding of the problem and I had no solution.  I didn’t have the foggiest idea what would have been involved to achieve a solution.  And what I thought would have achieved a solution would not have, in light of greater knowledge, I recognize.

However, I don’t bring this up to admonish you because, through no fault of your own, you have not heard enough exposure to the theory to recognize the solutions that have already been presented, in particular, in the first three sessions of this course.  In the first three sessions of this course is the integration of the third science called volition.  The effect of that on the social structure will be comparable to the effect of Newton’s integration of the physical sciences upon everything.  In fact, it will be even greater.

Well, let’s take a look at this concept of the Ideological Program in greater depth because I said, when I presented it to you at the time, let’s look at it again, it’s already on the screen, I said this is one of the biggest solutions of all time.  And then I flashed it on the screen briefly, but I obviously didn’t expect you to understand it.  You will get a greater and greater number of inputs on the significance of this as this course continues.  And, if you go beyond V-50, and I hope you  will be motivated to do so, you will still learn even more and more about this.  Without going into an explanation, this is a thermodynamics analogy that has something to do with what’s called the hot end and the cold end.  But I’ll come back to this later.

The Ideological Program, as I said, is among other things, a strategy.  You might call it a plan of action that, when followed, enables you to put new products into the market, to put new ideas into the market, ideas being intangible products, and obtain their acceptance by the members of society.  The Ideological Program is a program which, when implemented, will result in the attainment of this particular product – the attainment of freedom and the maintenance of freedom.  And the attainment of this product, freedom, will be accomplished without any form of coercion whatsoever.  That means that freedom will be achieved without the employment of any political action whatsoever.  This means we have another break with all past tradition in terms of strategy.

The first step of the Ideological Program, then, for example, if one of the goals with this program is to build and maintain freedom, the first step is innovation, the discovery of new ideas.  One might ask, however, why is innovation the first step towards getting new ideas or new products accepted by the market?  Why start with innovation?  Do all of you see why we start with innovation?  Can this table exist without innovation?  No. Can any property exist without innovation?  Well, we’re talking about primary property and secondary property, in terms of a useful concept, it requires always innovation first.  Primary property is always antecedent to secondary property.

Alright, we begin with step one, innovation, simply because, for a very practical reason, there is no other place to begin.  Products begin with innovation, whether they’re tangible or intangible.  Now, once a new idea is innovated, if the only one who is knowledgeable of that innovation is the innovator himself, and he never gets this idea across to anyone else, what will become of his idea?  Nothing.  The innovation will die with the innovator.  Therefore, can you see, step two must take place.  Education involves, again, the successful transmission of rational knowledge, rational ideas to a rational receiver.  That process is called education.

However, we have another problem.  There aren’t very many educable people.  The number of people who are rational and excited about the acquisition of knowledge, the number of people is few.  How many of you have begun to recognize this?  You’ll get a good dosage of this when you try to tell people about V-50 and get them interested in this course as to the magnitude of their intellectual curiosity.

And so, in order to get the product into the hands of the masses, whether it’s an automobile or a tape recorder or what have you, you can’t stop at step two.  You have to have a way of reaching the man in the street with your product.  This involves the third step of the Ideological Program, image transmission, image building, which is what it is actually called except, because image transmission starts with an “i”, it might be confusing with step one that starts with an “i”, innovation.  So it’s called advertising which is what image transmission is all about.  And you essentially, for example, one of the things we’ll be doing is advertising the product freedom to the masses.  Because when you successfully advertise, or transmit these images, what you’re doing is you’re getting the masses to accept conclusions, ideas, products, in whatever form they make take, that are not in any way related in the minds of the masses to accept them.  They’re not related in any way to the premises or the intellectual thought processes upon which those ideas were built.  And so, proper advertising then involves obtaining mass acceptance of ideas, of products, without any knowledge whatsoever of how the product was built, how it was reached.  There is no knowledge of the intellectual foundation.

And just to give you an illustration of this, a very common product you’re familiar with.  Would you say that the majority of American housewives own refrigerators?  I never looked up the statistics on this.  However, I think a safe guess would be that the majority of American housewives either own refrigerators or have access to one.  You rent an apartment and the refrigerator may come as a part of the package.  You pay a little extra but you have access to it.  Alright.  Do the majority of these housewives, or their husbands, or the majority of the people of the two classes, do these people understand the principles of refrigeration who daily benefit from a refrigerator?  What percentage of the people do you think understand the principles of refrigeration?  Ten percent?  You think one out of ten people understand this?  How many think one percent, one out of a hundred people, understand the principles of refrigeration?  Do any of you think it’s less than one percent?

Considerably less than one percent.  It’s not zero.  Do you realize that the refrigerator repairman does not understand the principles of refrigeration?  As a matter of fact, the refrigerator repairman probably doesn’t even know how to repair the refrigerator.  And this is not an exaggeration.  For example, any more than the automobile mechanic is a mechanic.  Essentially what these people are, are replacers of parts.  Now the refrigerator repairman, if the compressor fails, he takes out the old compressor and he puts in a new one or a rebuilt one.  But that doesn’t mean that he knows how to rebuild the compressor.  That would take more knowledge, wouldn’t it?  In a like manner, the garage mechanic, so-called, he may say your alternator has failed.  And what does he do?  He undoes a few bolts, loosens the fan belt, takes out the bolts, takes off the old alternator, gets a new one or a rebuilt one, slaps it on, adjusts the fan belt and so forth.  But does he know how to repair the alternator?  That takes a higher level of knowledge.  And hopefully, the automobile garage man has identified correctly what actually has failed.  Because maybe you’ve had the experience of having your alternator replaced, only to find out it really wasn’t the alternator at all.  The problem was the battery had failed.  And then you get a new battery, only to find out that the battery is now failing again.  But why is a new battery failing?  Well, it turns out it really was the voltage regulator that had failed.  And this goes on and on and on at your expense.  Have any of you run into this problem?  It’s common, isn’t it?  Hopefully, you do not have the same problem when you’re going to your medical doctor to find out what’s wrong with you because there it could be a total disaster.

Alright, in order to – I would say the number of professional refrigerator repairmen who understand the principles of refrigeration is probably zero.  The reason I say this is, to understand the principles of refrigeration, you must understand the principles, or what are called the laws of thermodynamics.  It would be helpful if you know, for example, what a heat exchange engine is because a refrigerator is nothing more than a backward heat exchange engine.  Well, in order to know what a backward heat exchange engine is, it would be useful to know what a forward one is.  In other words, understand the laws of thermodynamics which represent the foundation of the physical sciences.

And I’m not here to reprimand you or insult you if you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.  I don’t expect you necessarily to know this unless you’re interested in the subject.  But I am making this point, that all these people get benefit from a product, a rational product called a refrigerator.  How do you know it’s rational?  Because it does what it’s supposed to do – get things colder than they otherwise would have been, etcetera, but not too cold.  You don’t want to freeze everything in there.  There’s a freezing compartment for freezing but you don’t want everything to be frozen.  So you have another compartment for that.  In any event, in physics, there isn’t even such a thing as cold anyhow.  It’s just degrees of heat.  But we won’t go into that now.  So I’m saying that there’s probably not one refrigerator repairman who even understands the principles.

When the masses put water into an ice tray, in goes water.  They have expectations, if they wait long enough, out will come what?  Ice cubes.  Is that right?  Alright.  On what basis do they accept the fact that if you put in the water and you wait long enough, out will come cubes?  On what basis do they accept this?  Well, to be sure, they may have witnessed this before, but, essentially, they’re accepting this on faith.  They have faith that if you wait long enough, out will come cubes, but they do not understand the principles.  That’s the point I’m making.

What else do the masses accept on faith?  Again, so there’s no question on what I mean by that, faith simply means acceptance of a conclusion or a product without examining the premises and testing them for truth, the thought processes for validity, without integrating this with the four steps of the scientific method, without semantic precision.  Alright.  What else do the masses accept upon faith besides ice cubes?  That’s easy.  Do you know the answer?  Everything.  Everything.  The masses, then, accept two kinds of conclusions on faith.  One, right conclusions.  And, two, guess what?  Everything else.  Wrong conclusions.

Alright.  Can you in any way be harmed – this is a major point.  Now watch carefully, or listen carefully.  Do both, watch and listen, both.  Can you in any way be coerced, harmed by the acceptance of a right conclusion on faith?  No, you cannot.  In other words, the fact that you don’t understand how a refrigerator operates, in terms of the physical laws of nature and the principles behind it, that’s not harmful to you.  You accept it on faith.  It’s a useful product that provides you value.  It can even add to the maintenance of your health by diminishing the probability you will eat spoiled food and so forth.  Acceptance of a tape recorder.  The fact you don’t know how it operates and you accept this on faith.  That does not harm you.  You are not coerced by this.

Alright, what about the acceptance of wrong conclusions on faith?  Can that harm you?  For example, what if somebody in Germany accepts the conclusion that Adolf Hitler will be the greatest thing that has ever happened to Germany?  Could he be harmed by this?  Could he be coerced by this?  What if you accept, for example, the Social Security system on faith?  Can you be harmed or swindled by this?  Alright, did I make a point?  This is a major point.  The masses accept everything on faith, but the only time you are harmed when you accept something on faith is when what you have accepted is a wrong product.  National Socialism is a wrong product.  It’s both irrational and immoral.  Social Security is a part of this.  It is a wrong product, both irrational and immoral.

But in the end, the masses will also accept a right product called freedom on faith without understanding how it was built, how it was achieved, the intellectual foundation, the epistemological foundation, the scientific method.  They won’t understand these things.  And the beautiful thing about it is they don’t have to because, if they did, we would never have freedom or any useful product.  If the masses have to understand how a tape recorder operates before you can have them, a simple majority have to understand this, there won’t be any for anyone.  And that applies to every major product.  So I’ve given you some good news.

Alright.  We’re concerned here with the maintenance of a product called freedom.  We’re dealing with the fourth step of the Ideological Program.  If one of the products we want to build and market is freedom, then obviously we will want to maintain it.  What is necessary for the maintenance of freedom?  Alright, let’s go back to freedom.  Freedom exists where everyone has liberty, or everyone has control of his property and there’s not one slave.  Of course, here’s the formal definition: the condition exists when every individual has full, one hundred percent control over his own property.  Which is another way of saying what?  Everyone has liberty.

How do you maintain this structure where every individual has a hundred percent control over his property?  Well, freedom is a derivative of the successful protection of property.  In order to maintain freedom, we must have a successful means of protecting property.  We cannot afford a relapse.  Remember the American Revolution got off to a great start.  It was founded upon principles that are basically right.  But, as you know, we suffered a relapse.  Well, you have to prevent such a relapse.  You have to have a maintenance mechanism.  Well, any mechanism that is successful in the protection of property will maintain freedom.

And this brings us to the entrance of a rational and moral concept of government.  What is the function of government?  I said it has one function.  Its function is not to build roads.  Its function is not to steal property and give handouts to bums.  Its function is not to erect schools.  It has a singular function and that is to protect property.  That makes it an Ockham’s Razor concept.  It has one function: to protect property – primordial, primary, and secondary.

Why am I beginning, in this lecture and the next three lectures, a discussion of the fourth step of the Ideological Program, maintenance?  Why do I begin here?  The second step, education, is Lecture 14.  The third step, advertising, is Lecture 15.  Why am I beginning with the fourth step, maintenance?  Because, before I can effectively launch into a discussion on the lectures called “The Bridge to Freedom”, or, in other words, how can you cross the bridge from a political republic to a right republic, how can you cross the bridge, for example, from what we call flatland to space land, space land must appear feasible, practical, desirable, attainable.  Therefore, in these four lectures on maintenance, I’m going to attempt to convince you, as I said at the beginning of this lecture, that the practical, rewarding, profitable solution to every problem that has ever existed or ever will exist anywhere, at any time, will always be, without exception, the moral solution.  There’s no such thing as an immoral solution to any problem.  There never was and there never will be.

I’m going to attempt to convince you in these lectures that, if it can be built, private enterprise can build it faster, better, and cheaper.  No exceptions.  No exceptions.  Zero exceptions.  And so, before I can effectively convince you that private enterprise can achieve it faster, better and cheaper, I must, before that, convince you of something else: that the state cannot build anything faster, better and cheaper.  Why must you be convinced of this?  And maybe you’re not fully convinced at this point but I’ll have more to say on it.

The reason it’s important to be convinced of this is because, if you still believe that the state has a means of solving a problem, if you believe that problems can be solved with coercive, immoral mechanisms, if you believe that, than when I disclose the moral mechanism, you’re not interested because your attitude will be, well, what’s wrong with what we’ve got?  What’s wrong with the way they’ve been doing it?  I hope at this point I’ve begun to convince you that coercion is always destructive.  Of course, there’s only three positions you can take:

  1. Coercion is always constructive.
  2. Coercion is always destructive.
  3. Coercion is sometimes constructive and sometimes destructive.

You, of course, know my position.  Coercion is always destructive.  Well now, if that is also the position that you’ve reached at this point, then, on that point, we are in agreement.  On the other hand, if your position is coercion is always constructive, then I would say, at this point, we are so far appoint I see no hope of any intellectual reconciliation.  Incidentally, does anyone take the position that coercion is always constructive?  No. Even Hitler would not.  Hitler would not even say coercion is always constructive, especially if he’s the victim of coercion.  Are some of his goons, down at the Gestapo or other members of his goon squads, which is what they were, goons wearing fancy uniforms.

Of course, the only other position is coercion is sometimes constructive and sometimes destructive.  Alright, then, the next question is can you demonstrate constructive, useful examples of coercion?  Can you give an example of, for example, a rewarding crime?  A useful theft?  And if so, which?

Alright, the structure of what is called here a right republic will be built upon law, but what kind of law?  It will not be built upon political law.  If you ask me are there going to be any political laws, the answer is emphatically no.  The only laws that have any utility are what are called natural laws.  It is the discovery of the laws of nature.  This is what enables man to understand what’s going on in the universe, in physics and biology and volition.  But I have this question for you.  Since our understanding of the laws of nature are derivatives of the scientific method, observation, truth and validity, I have this question for you.  We know, first of all, that a political law can fail.  They all fail in the end.  But can what is believed by people to be a law of nature, an absolute law of nature, can it fail?  Can a law of nature be overturned?  If it is an absolute, can it fail?  Can an absolute, meaning what, that which is the same for all subjective observers, can an absolute be demoted to a mere relative?

Well, this brings me once again to a discussion of the scientific method.  And that means I have to put out more warning flags, the red flag, to get your attention because many will be thinking perhaps, well, we’ve already discussed the scientific method.  Let’s get on with something new.  I’d like to emphasize that there’s not one person in this room, regardless of the extent of his intelligence or his professional competence or the extent even of his training in the physical sciences who cannot learn still more about the significance and importance of the scientific method.  And I’m the first to include myself in this category and I’ve been teaching the concept for over thirteen years.

Alright, the first question is what do you do when a law of nature fails in the physical sciences?  In other words, what do you do when a law that everyone in the physical sciences thinks is a law, fails?  And what does fail mean?  Alright.   I meant to put up the four steps of the scientific method here, but I think you know what they are at this point anyhow.  I think we don’t have that.  Maybe you can find that slide for me.  Oh, yes, we do have it here.  I’m sorry.  That’s what I want.  Alright.  Fail means either the prediction made in the third step did not come true in the fourth step or the generalization in the second step failed.  There was an exception, in other words, to the generalization that could not be rationally explained to fit the established theory or the established law.  When this happens, you clearly have a failure.  Then what do you do?  You commit suicide?  You say it’s hopeless.  I give up.  How do you handle this problem in the physical sciences?

In contrast, before I discuss that, how do you handle a failure problem in the political arena?  What is the political approach to political failure?  Sure.  When a political law fails due to the law of bureaucracy, what does the politician do?  Exactly as you said.  There ought to be a law.  What we need is stronger legislation.

Does the politician who introduced the political law, does he ever say, does he ever appear, for example, on national television and he says something like this: “My fellow Americans, I’m very happy to be with you this evening.  I would like to make this observation.  It would appear to me that the law that I introduced some years ago in Congress has totally failed.  Therefore, I firmly believe the only honest thing to do now is get this law repealed.  As a matter of fact, I notice that every time I introduce a law, it always fails to get the desired results.  As a matter of fact, I noticed that every time my colleagues in the Congress got a new law passed, they all failed.  You know, I wonder, could it be? You know, sometimes I actually think I don’t know what I’m doing.  And the more that I’m convinced that I don’t know what I’m doing, the more I’m convinced that my colleagues in the Congress and other parts of the state, they don’t know what they’re doing either”.

Alright, is this the posture of any politician you’ve ever heard of?  “Well, we really blew that one, didn’t we”?  No.  It is almost inconceivable to a politician that one of his laws could fail, let alone all of them fail without exception because they all catch what’s called Acton’s Disease.  Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  We call it Acton’s Disease.  In fact, we’ve even printed up a little stamp that you stamp on the envelopes that you send out when you mail out and the stamp says “Fight Acton’s Disease”.  We actually even got a donation to fight Acton’s Disease.  We sent it back.  We don’t take donations.

Therefore, from the political mind, since the political law could not be a failure, there’s only one other possibility.  The people are a failure.  They are failing to obey the law.  They’ve escaped through a loophole.  We’re going to close that one up.  There ought to be a law.  And that’s his attitude.  It’s clear what’s required here is stronger legislation, more legislation.  We’re going to close up all of the loopholes.  And that is the function of the bureaucracy, to close up all the loopholes.  And when all the loopholes are closed up, what you have is called tyranny.  There are no loopholes left.  And so the political solution is always the gun run solution.  That’s exactly why it is never a solution because you can’t solve problems with guns.  There’s one solution to all of man’s problems.  It’s rational and moral action, hence right action.

And so, what is the bureaucratic means to the rectification of political failure?  One answer in the end, the gun.  The gun, of course, symbolic of any form of coercion.  In other words, they resort to one of two things: plunder or blunder.  And that’s what you get.  Plunder and/or blunder.  And take a very hard look at the difference between the method employed in the political arena to rectify errors versus the method employed in the scientific arena to rectify errors.  A true scientist does not use a political method.  He uses a scientific method.  And therein lies the difference, the distinction, between failure and success.  Here is the whole difference between politics and science.  A scientist uses the scientific method to rectify errors.  There’s nothing coercive about any of these steps.  Observation – you don’t have to, for example, resort to any crime to observe, to formulate a hypothesis in the second step.  You don’t have to steal property.  You make extrapolations.  You don’t have to murder people to corroborate all of this.  You don’t have to swindle anyone.  But, in contrast, in the political arena, the rectification of error is more coercion.  And there is an explanation of the difference between success and failure.

What is the business of politicians?  What are they always doing?  Introducing what?  More coercive legislation.  Isn’t that what they’re doing?  As a matter of fact, a politician is criticized if he doesn’t get even coercive legislation introduced.  He will be known as a do nothing politician.  Is that not true? What have you done?  The best thing he could be doing is nothing.  Other politicians are criticized because they’re not doing their job.  They’re always on vacation or taking trips around the world.  That’s tremendous.  I wish they’d all take a permanent trip around the world and never come back.  You see, even when they’re criticized, they’re criticized for the wrong thing.

You see, within the entire framework of the state mechanism, there is not one tool capable to identifying a political or bureaucratic error.  The bureaucrat cannot identify the error per se.  He cannot pinpoint the source of the error.  But remember, everyone makes errors.  That includes physicists, biologists, medical doctors, engineers, businessmen, politicians and bureaucrats.  Everyone makes errors.  The critical question is what method does one employ to correct the error and how do you identify the error in the first place?  And so, if the political law fails, that means somebody is not cooperating.  If a law of nature fails, that simply means this: we don’t quite yet know everything.  Of course we will never know everything.  It means we have failed to corroborate in the fourth step of the scientific method.  What do you do then?

In order to scrap a failing law of nature, do you have to go out and campaign against the law?  Do you attempt outlaw the fallen law?  Do you attempt to vote it out?  Do you assassinate the developer of the law?  Do you have to blow up banks, burn down schools, march in the street, march to the capitol, write your Congressman, lick envelopes?  If you cannot corroborate the law of nature, that’s the end of it.  Goodbye and good luck.

Now because a law of nature falls, this does not mean there are no absolutes.  It means we don’t know everything.  An absolute is that which is the same for all observers.  I’ve given you examples of this: velocity of light, Galileo’s law of falling bodies.  Every observer – you can test that law and it always comes out the same.  Heavy and light objects will fall at the same rate.    Could there be an exception?  Perhaps.  Have we found one yet?  No.  When we do find an exception to Galileo’s law of falling bodies, then you can say, well, alright, we don’t know everything and the law does not always hold true.  Here’s an exception.

Alright, one of the first things that we must recognize with respect to what is called the right republic is that in a right republic, or a natural republic, all laws are natural laws.  In this connection, the word natural is used in two senses.  One, natural law prevails.  And secondly, natural means pertaining to nature.  I stated then that a right republic, or if you want to call it a natural republic, however, I want to make this point clear, and that is, that although this concept of a natural republic will be consistent with the laws of nature, it is not something that exists in nature.  You have to build it.

And you may wonder why the word republic is retained.  For one thing, the word republic has a very good image in the minds of most people.  Republic comes from the Latin respublica which means “thing of the public”.   And public means open to the use of all people.  Public means people.  Open to the use of all people.  Public does not mean state ownership.  That is another perversion of an otherwise good word.  A good illustration of the use of the word public is the expression public telephone.  A public telephone, that’s not one you find in your living room.  That’s called a private telephone.  A public telephone, as you know, is in some outside location, perhaps at a corner, near a gas station.  It’s open to the use of anyone.

Public does not mean, incidentally, that the service is free.  That’s another misconception.  It means open to the use of all.  And there’s no discrimination on the part of the telephone company.  Does AT&T care what age you are?  Do they care if a six year old uses their telephone to make a call, to call home?  No.  Do they care what your ethnic origin is?  Do they care what your religious preference or non-preference is?  Sex?  Are they concerned about any of these things?  No.  All they care about is one thing.  The only thing they care about is this, that you accept the terms of the offer, one of which includes pay for the service.  That doesn’t mean putting a slug in the slot which, if you do that, you swindle the telephone company.  That doesn’t mean you should carve your initials in the side of the phone booth.  Because if you’ve done that, you’ve attacked the property of the telephone company.   It doesn’t mean that you should use it as a urinal because it wasn’t intended for that purpose.  For example, a seven-year-old carves his initial, although phones booths are not made out of wood these days in general, at least the more recent ones, but I noticed when they were wooden, it was common to see people’s initials carved in the phone booth.  But deface it in some other way, write on it, what have you.  This involves an interference with property. This is coercion.  And the fact that the one doing it is seven years old is irrelevant.  You have a seven-year-old criminal.  We’re dealing with absolutes.  Tearing pages out of a phone book.  That’s a crime because that’s not the purpose of this.

Have you ever had the experience, you’re looking up something in the phonebook, only to find out the pages where you have to look for it have been ripped out by some jerk.  Has this ever happened to you?  It’s pretty annoying, isn’t it?  Or the whole phone booth has been ripped out or the whole phone has been ripped out.  Alright, so it’s open to the use.  The contract is essentially this: the public telephone is open to the use of all people who accept the terms of the offer which includes respecting the property.  If you accept the terms of the offer and you don’t abuse the property and don’t try to swindle them, everyone is welcome.  And it has nothing to do with age, ethnic origin, religion or what have you.  It’s all irrelevant.  It was a 10¢ call and pay for it.  Fine.

And so, in a like manner, the right republic, or natural republic, is open to the use of all people who guess what?  Respect property.  What about those who do not respect property?  Would you like to know what will happen to them?  I’m going to explain this in Lecture 12 but I’ll give you a little clue.  Those who do not respect property – well, let’s put it this way.  They won’t do too well.  As a matter of fact, that statement is a gross understatement.  But that will be explained in a lecture on justice, Lecture 12.

And also don’t make the mistake of condoning, especially the immoral behavior of young people who might be carving things up or writing on somebody’s else’s…you know, all this graffiti and so forth.  And to show you the magnitude of intellectual lightweightism that permeates our society, there are some jokers claiming this is a very elementary form of art.  This is sort of like the petroglyphs in the old days when the cavemen would write on their caves.  It’s kind of the same thing.  Is it?  And if it isn’t, what’s the difference?  You know what the difference is? Whose cave was the caveman writing upon?  His cave.  That’s the difference.  And when is a so-called graffiti, when does that involve the property of the one who is doing it?  Would you agree seldom?  These involve criminal actions, defacement of property without the permission of the owner.  And I can assure you, if you ask the owner, “Well, is it alright with you if I write all over the side of your building with a spray can”?  What do you think the probability is the owner will say yes?  Remote.  That would be a lifeboat case.

One of the major errors instituted by the Constitution of the United States, which I discussed briefly last week, involves the concept of representation.  Now this political concept of representation is going to be completely replaced with a superior concept of representation in the right republic.  What is called representation today in the political arena is, of course, wrong.  It’s irrational.  It’s immoral.  It’s based upon majority rule concepts.  Now that does not mean that representation per se is of itself wrong.  Representation can either be moral or immoral, depending on how it takes place.  If I, for example, let’s say, delegate authority to another individual to take an action, let’s say, with respect to a given piece of my property, that individual becomes my agent or representative.  If I deposit money in a bank, the banker becomes my representative.  If I should decide for some reason I’ve chosen the wrong representative, then I can withdraw my money from the bank and the banker is no longer my representative.

If I retain an attorney, for example, to handle a particular transaction for me, the attorney becomes my representative.  I delegate authority to the attorney.  I specify the extent and the latitude of this authority.  And so, in every instance, these relationships are mutually voluntary.  I voluntarily seek a representative to represent me.  And he, in turn, decides whether or not he wants to represent me.

On the other hand, please note, to represent society as a whole, is impossible.  How can a single man represent everyone, for example, in a given geographical area?  You know, your Congressman is supposed to be your representative.  Well now, some people have voted for him.  Some people have not.  But when he is elected, he becomes everyone’s representative.  I might point out, even those who voted for him are not necessarily satisfied with every action that he takes.  They simply did not recognize they had been given a false alternative.  They really don’t have a choice.  They’re told, “You are going to have someone representing you and so you make the choice.  It’s between Dwiddle Dee and Dwiddle Dumb”.

Well, recognize the basic choice has been taken away from you and that is, and they never even asked you this question, is do you want to be represented at all?  And if you do wish to be represented, then on what basis can you revoke the representation?  Did they ever asked you that question?  Do you want to be represented at all?  How many were ever asked this question in school?  No, they didn’t bring that one up.

Well, suppose after some reflection, you vote for Dwiddle Dee.  And then subsequently you change your mind.  Dwiddle Dee is no sooner in office and you realize, oh, what a fiasco.  What a blunder.  What a blockhead I am.  How did I ever vote for that jerk?  Any of you ever have this experience?  I have. Well, what do you do then?  The guy…I have one guy that I voted for, I even campaigned for enthusiastically.  And on the first day he was in office, he held a news conference and he started talking.  And I said, “Oh no.  Oh no.  You’ve got to be kidding.  What have I done”?  On the first day he was in office I suddenly realized I blew it.  Alright.

Well, in any event, the point is what do you do then?  Is there a difference between, let’s say, putting your money in a bank and then suddenly realizing, gee, I really made a mistake here versus voting for a politician and finding out you made a mistake?  Is there a difference?  Yeah.  What do you do now?  Well now you got to convince everybody else that they, too, made a mistake and you try to get them to change their minds and you wait for the next election, hoping to get enough people to turn this guy out.  In other words, you’re stuck with him until you can convince enough people that they, too, made a mistake.

Let’s look at this from a very simple point of view.  Assume that you and I are engaged in, let’s say, a dispute over property.  What if we both retain the same attorney to represent us in this dispute?  Can our representative, the same attorney, can he do us both justice?  Not really.  We haven’t hired him as an adjudicator or judge.  Now that would be different if we hired him as a judge and agreed to be bound by his decision, contractually.  But he cannot, essentially, serve both your interests and my interests at the same time.  To be a representative, you must have a proprietary relationship between the one being represented and the one doing the representing.  In other words, if you wish to be represented in a particular matter, than you seek the services of someone whom you believe qualified to represent you.  If he chooses to represent you, he will do so for a fee.  And his profit depends upon his ability to properly represent you.

If he does not represent you at all times in the manner that you choose to be represented, then what should you do?  Get rid of him.  Fire him.  Or you give him the all military admonition: Look buster, shape up or what?  Ship out.  You’ve heard this expression.  Alright.  Let me ask you this.  If your representative does not represent you in the manner that you choose to be represented, is it moral to fire him?  Yes. Is it rational to fire him, in your own self-interest?  Yes.  Therefore, if it’s both rational and moral to fire him, it must be what?  The right thing to do.  And if you understand this principle of rightness and its absolute nature, there should be zero reservation in your mind.  It is the right thing to do.  It is absolutely right.  Good-bye and good luck.  Or just good-bye.  To hell with you.

And please note, you do not have to go around the neighborhood knocking on doors, trying to get other people, sending out brochures and having a big campaign or some big smear campaign to put a black mark on the person’s character.  None of this.  Not that, of course, any honest person would do this, but this is what occurs in political campaigns, smearing someone’s character.  It’s very simple.  He’s fired.

Well, the fact is, when your representative always follows your instructions to the letter, then that is called representation.  On the other hand, when your representative does not follow your instructions to the letter, that is called what?  What would you call that?  How about misrepresentation?  You’re being misrepresented in what you want.

Just out of curiosity, do any of you know the – I’d like to see a show of hands of those of you who know the name of your United States Congressman in the House of Representatives.  You know his name.  Let me see a show of hands.  Alright, I just want to get a survey here.  That’s all?  That’s not even half a dozen people.  How many know the name of your United States Congressman in the House of Representatives?  Let’s hold them up.  I want to see.  Two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or so.  It appears to not be any more than ten.  Alright.

[Audience:  I’d like to fire him].

Gentleman says he’d like to fire him.  Well.  I’ll direct the question to the ten or so who know the name of your Congressman in the House.  Raise your hand again if your Congressman has always acted in the manner that you would have chosen him to act.  He’s always acted on your behalf.  Anyone?  Now we have zero hands.  Well, my Congressman, I put my in quotes, I don’t really claim him.  I do not recall one single thing he has ever done that I agreed with.  And yet, he has the audacity to say he is my representative.  Well I resent that.  He’s never represented me on one issue.  He wouldn’t know a true issue from a hole in the ground.  So I don’t think I’m getting much representation.  How about you?  Is there some question in your mind as to whether you’re getting very much representation?  I’m sure there isn’t.

Well, as a matter of fact, when you write your Congressman a letter, you’re supposed to use certain form.  You know, Dear Honorable Representative So-and-So.  Well, first of all, as far as I’m concerned, there is nothing honorable about coercion.  There is nothing honorable about stealing people’s property without their permission.  So I don’t know what’s honorable about being a Congressman.  But that’s part of the fraud.  They would naturally like you to think this is a honorable profession.  This isn’t honorable – taking away other people’s property without their permission, etcetera and coercive and so forth.

And I’m not getting any representation.  So I think a more honest way to write the letter would be Dear Dishonorable Misrepresentative So-and-So.  However, I don’t’ advise you to do this.  As a matter of fact, why would you want to write a letter to your Congressman or to any other criminal?  I realize many of you think this is harsh.  And you probably think it’s unfair.  And you may even think this is name calling.  When I call, for example, a politician’s actions criminal, this is not name calling.  A criminal is one who perpetrates a crime.  A crime is a successful act of coercion.  Coercion is any attempt at intentional interference with property.  If the shoe fits, as the saying goes.

Alright.  How can we achieve true or right representation in government?  Even before that, what is the function of government?  Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence put forth by Thomas Paine.  Let’s read some of these sentences again:

That to secure these rights [secure means to protect, fasten down.  What rights?] life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  [These are all property concepts, aren’t they?  Life is primordial property, life itself.  Liberty can only occur when you have total control of your primordial, primary and secondary property.  Either you have liberty or you’re a slave.  That covers all possibilities.  And the pursuit of happiness, as you see it, according to your own value judgments can only occur when your property is secure and fully protected].  That to secure these rights [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments [plural, governments, plural] are instituted among men [What does it say?  Well, we institute or build a government to protect property, to protect your life and your liberty and your opportunity to pursue happiness as you see it.  That’s why we institute government.] deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. [What does this mean?  Whatever power that the government has, and power is defined as control over action, whatever power the government has, the governed, the one being governed, must consent to it.  Is this what it says?  Yes.  Read it.  It’s what it says.  I’m not making it up.  Then what does it say?  What does Paine say?]  That whenever any form of government [any – that doesn’t allow for exceptions, does it?] becomes destructive of these ends [What ends?  To protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or, in other words, whenever any form of government attacks property], it is the right of the people to alter [which means change] or to abolish it.  [In other words, we build governments to protect property.  And whenever any government attacks property, get rid of it.  That’s what it says.  And do what?  It tells us what do then] and institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles [in other words, the foundation isn’t just built on any old thing but principles.  And the characteristic of a true principle is it never changes which means you always know where you stand because it’s never changing.  It’s always the same] and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness”.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, why don’t this have now if that’s how we started?  Because Thomas Paine, the founder of this country, his principles are sound.  What he did not understand was how to implement them.  And he believed the way to implement these principles is through a political mechanism.  That does not mean we are smarter than Paine.  It means we are later, two centuries later.  Later does not mean smarter.  Later is always an advantage.  The founders of this country wanted freedom but they didn’t know how to achieve it.   Do you think the Wright Brothers are the first people who wanted to fly?  Obviously not.  But those who wanted to fly before the Wright Brothers, they didn’t know how to do it.  The same thing applies here. There have been always people who wanted liberty but they didn’t know how to achieve it.  And one of the principal difficulties before that is they didn’t articulate it.  There was no precision on the subject of freedom and liberty and therefore no means to achieve it.

Well, then the question arises why even have a government in the first place?  Is government necessary?  Is it essential?  I pointed out something earlier.  I asked this question.  What if every single politician and bureaucrat on the planet would drop dead?  Just like that.  Would we then have liberty?  Would we have freedom?  Well, if every bureaucrat suddenly dropped dead, the whole mechanism of bureaucracy suddenly collapses with all the bureaucrats, would we have freedom?  Or would we have the condition where everyone has 100% control over his own property?

I indicated what we would have, ladies and gentlemen, if this did happen, we would have a universal Watts Riot.  You would have total chaos.  The masses would go totally berserk.  I mean, to illustrate, for example, which is something I may or may not have mentioned already in this lecture, but look at what happened recently in New York City.  All that happened there was the lights went out for a while.  Are you sensitive to that?  All that happened there was the electricity went out for a while.  Are you sensitive to that?  All that happened is the electricity went out for a while. And that was the so-called provocation that led to what?  A riot, a total disaster.  And a section in New York City was virtually destroyed.  Well, if that’s all it takes to start a riot, that the lights go out, imagine what would happen if something of a real serious nature occurred?  What if there’s a food shortage, where there literally is a shortage of food, and people are truly hungry?

The state can easily take care of this because the state is the author of shortage.  So government is actually, if you want order and production and solutions to man’s problems, government actually is a requirement of nature because without it there is no solution.  What that means is there must be a mechanism to render all property secure and that’s a function of government.  Because to assume that every person will be moral…now if every person is moral and would never attack the property of another, then you don’t need government for the purpose of protecting property against criminals.  But you would still need government for protection of property against non-criminal actions like floods, fire, that are not caused as a result of crimes.  In other words, you still need property protection even if there are no criminals.  It’s essentially a requirement of nature.

What is the source of the demand for government?  The intellectual origin of the concept of government, simply, the demand comes in the following way.  Namely, people want their property protected because they value their property.  It’s an unnatural concept not to value property.  And this is what makes communism an unworkable concept.  To say that a man, for example, ought not to have individual property is completely contrary to his nature.  Anywhere, where you attempt this, the result is immediate failure.  And you don’t even have to wait a century, or half a century, or even five years.   As soon as property is nationalized, as soon as all the factories, all the means of production, are owned by the state, you get instant famine, within a matter of months.  This is what happened in Russia.  When the Bolsheviks took over Russia, the result was instant famine.  Production fell to a miniscule level of what it was under the czars.

Well, just how much production of property do you think there was in Russia under the czars?  So little that you had a subsistence level of existence already.  And then when you reduce that drastically, anything lower than that is famine and that’s exactly what happened.  For example, there were hordes of teenage mobs would descend upon villages and they would just destroy everything in sight and they had resorted literally to cannibalism; was the result of that experiment with communism in Russia.  Talk about failure.  It would be hard to improve on that.  Production is so low they resort to eating human flesh to survive.

And then, Lenin realized it’s not working too well.  And that’s when he came up with what was called the NEP or New Economic Plan.  And you know what that was?  The New Economic Plan was, well, let’s give back some of the property to the people that we’ve confiscated.  And immediately what happened?  Production went up almost overnight.  That kept them from total starvation.  Of course, we came along and bailed them out.  A collectivist president, Herbert Hoover, was the first person to engage in handouts to the Communists in Russia.  Herbert Hoover does not get my praise for that stupidity.  Because if we had just butted out from the very beginning and stopped propping up every one of their failing experiments with communism, maybe somebody would have gotten the message a lot earlier the whole thing is a hoax to begin with.

Have you ever stopped to consider how much, with what little capitalism that exists in this country, partial secondary capitalism, how much of the world we’re still feeding?  Well, let them fail.  And maybe they might figure out they’re doing something wrong.  We’re still subsidizing the Russians as I’ve already pointed out.  Were you aware of this before V-50?  Do the Russians sell us their surplus wheat or do we sell them our surplus wheat?  And they got the Ukraine, which is the bread basket of Europe, one of the most fertile areas for growing wheat in all of Europe, if not the world.  And we sell them our wheat.  And our wheat, of course, is subsidized.

And worse than that, if the Russians had to solve and put some of their resources into farming, do you know what that would mean?  They wouldn’t have as much resources to put into intercontinental ballistic missiles and other weapons to destroy us with.  And so, everything we do is essentially tantamount to committing suicide.  There must be in the Kremlin perpetual laughter.  It must be wall to wall laughter.  They must think, it is inconceivable to them, that any people could be such blithering idiots.  And we prove this practically with everything we do and have done with respect to the Russians with few exceptions.  Anyhow, the whole thing was a fiasco.

And that does not mean that the Communists are going to recognize that communism doesn’t work.  They’ve scrapped it nevertheless.  And you know what they’ve discovered in Russia?  There have been many articles on this over the years.  They have discovered, every time they figure out a way to increase individual incentive, they increase production and every time they diminish individual incentive, they diminish production.  Isn’t that interesting?  As a matter of fact, they had an economist named Lieberman some years ago who came out with a new economics solution in Russia.  And essentially it’s called capitalism, except they don’t call it that because they would have to admit then that they’re wrong.  And even as early as 1936, if you read the Soviet Constitution, which I quoted from last week I believe, Article 118, listen to this:

“Citizens of the USSR have the right to work, the right to guaranteed employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality”. 

Now, wait a minute.  That doesn’t sound like Karl Marx.  Remember what Marx said?  Each person will be compensated according to what he needs.  “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”.  Compensate each fellow according to what he says he needs.  But right here, Article 118 says oh no, no.  You compensate him according to how much he produces and what is the quality.

Communism is a hopeless failure.  And did I not also point out, maybe we didn’t take the time, we started with communism.  Did I mention the Pilgrims set up a communal structure?  Did I mention this?  Did they mention to you in school that the Pilgrims were communists?  Communism was the first thing we tried.  They tried this at…Governor Bradford, at Jamestown, tried this for three years.  At Jamestown, I’m sorry, at Plymouth, the other colony.  Bradford was the governor at Plymouth.  They also tried this communism at Jamestown also.

At Plymouth, at the Plymouth Plantation, they tried this for three years.  They had a common warehouse.  Everything went into the common pot.  It was produced and then it was divided up equally.  This won’t work anywhere.  Why?  Because there are no two equal people.  The reason it won’t work is there are no two people alike on the planet.  Equality is impossible.  Even identical twins are not equal.  There are no two equal people ever.  People are unequal, all of them.  It is impossible for them to be equal and still be volitional beings.  They’re all different.  It’s what makes them more interesting.  Would you like to live in a world where everyone is identical to everyone else?  Everyone is an exact carbon copy of you, down to the last mole?  It’s absurd.

And so, some produce more than others.  Some have more imagination than others.  Some are more industrious.  Some are lazier.  Some work harder.  They’re all different.  And so, they produce different amounts of property.  You try dividing it all up equally and see how it works.  It won’t work in Plymouth or anywhere else.  And the result was all production came to a halt because the people in the beginning, who were working hard, they look around, everybody is goofing off.  You don’t have to be a genius to figure out, well, wait a minute, I’m not quite getting this.  I’m missing something.  I’m doing all the work.  You guys are goofing off, doing nothing, and yet you participate equally in the production.  Do you have to be a genius to dislike this?  No.

And they resented it.  And finally, something like three-quarters of the colony died of starvation.  That is failure.  Finally, Governor Bradford said this is ridiculous.  Sorry, I don’t have the exact quote that has come down to us from the Plymouth Plantation.  But, essentially, in his statement, he criticizes Plato for this communism.  He said who are we to think we’re wiser than God, to believe that setting up a commonwealth and so forth, and trying to divide everything up equally with such a thing.  He actually said it better than this.  I’m trying, poorly, to paraphrase him.  But anyhow, he said forget it.  It’s not working.  We’re dividing everything up equally and every man for himself.

And what was the result?  Production went up overnight.  All the complainers were saying, oh, I’m too tired to work today, suddenly all of these people showed up and were working. And they produced so much food they couldn’t eat it all.  And then it occurred to them, hey, why don’t we invite some of these savages over to dinner?  Or heathens as they were called.  We’ll invite some of these heathens over to dinner.  That’s the origin of Thanksgiving.  Didn’t I discuss this before the Thanksgiving break?  No?  I should have.  I did at the other location.  We ran out of time.  Anyhow.  Didn’t they mention this in school?

And you see, please note, they learned how to produce first and then invited the savages over to dinner in that order.  Because when you are starving to death, you don’t invite a savage over to dinner.  Is that right?  It’s only when you’ve got plenty of food on the table and the prospects of replacing that food when it’s gone, then it occurs to you to invite somebody over to dinner.  Am I right?  And that’s the origin of Thanksgiving, except it isn’t explained in school.  That essentially we started out with communism.  It was a total flop.  And we adopted, essentially, a form of crude capitalism, namely every man produces on his own and he can keep what he produces.  The property that’s yours is what you produce and what the other guy produces is his.  If you want to swap, fine, but you agree on the terms.  And that works.  Essentially, Thanksgiving should be celebrated as a victory of capitalism over communism.  But this is not explained to the little tykes in our communist schools.  The whole school system is, essentially, a communist school system.  Even in the private schools, they promulgate and promote communism with few exceptions.

Communism fails simply because individuals do not like to lose control over their property.  Simple as that.  Those who advocate communism are all hypocrites anyhow because the communist really doesn’t want to give up his own property.  What do you think he wants?  He wants you should give up your property to him.  He resents the fact you’ve got more than he does and that’s not fair.  As a matter of fact, communism, all forms of collectivism, really thrive upon greed and envy.  Envy of somebody who’s got more what?  Property.

There’s a story that came out of World War I.  It’s true, involving Hungary, which after World War I, Hungary was subjected to a communist dictatorship.  And a communist agitator was taking a trip through the provinces of Hungary to see how the people, the peasants in particular, were taking to this new exciting program of communism.  And this commissar is walking through the country taking this survey and he sees this peasant working out in the field.  So he goes over to the peasant.  He says, “Excuse me comrade.  We’re taking a survey.  We have a few questions to ask you.  If you had two houses, and your neighbor didn’t have one, would you give one of your houses to your neighbor”?

And the peasant said, “Yes.  If I had two houses and my neighbor didn’t have one, I’d give one of my houses to my neighbor”.

The commissar smiles.  “Very good.  That’s a very good answer.  Next question.  If you had two cows and your neighbor didn’t have one, would you give one of your cows to your neighbor”?

“Well, certainly.  If I had two cows and my neighbor didn’t have one, I’d give one of my cows to my neighbor”.

“Very good.  Final question.  If you had two pigs and your neighbor didn’t have one, would you give one of your pigs to your neighbor”?

“Oh no, I couldn’t do that”.

“I don’t understand.  If you had two houses and your neighbor didn’t have one, you’d give him one of your houses.  And if you had two cows and he didn’t have one, you’d give him one of your cows, but the pigs I don’t understand”.

“Well, you see, it’s like this comrade.  I have two pigs”.

You see, he’s only too happy to give up what he does not have anyhow.  He doesn’t have a house or any cows, but pigs, that’s different.  You see, I have two pigs.  And the communists had great difficulty with the Russian kulaks.  The kulaks were in the Ukraine, mostly.  They were the so-called wealthy peasants that had, perhaps, a few acres of their own land to till under the czars.  And these kulaks in the Ukraine were so stupid, they couldn’t figure out how they would be better off to have their farms taken away from them, to give up their farms to some collectivist operation.  In other words, they couldn’t understand what’s in it for us?  What do we get out of it?  They just couldn’t understand this.  They were so thick.

And finally, out of desperation, Josef Stalin sent one of his chief hatchet men down there to shape up these Ukrainians.  His name, you have heard of – Nikita Khrushchev.  And Khrushchev was sent down to the Ukraine to shape up these Ukrainians, in particular, these kulaks.  He shaped them up alright.  Khrushchev is responsible for the murder of some three million Ukrainians.  In other words, they were so stupid, for example, not even having the advantage, most of them, of any education at all, especially a college education, not having the advantage of this, they couldn’t figure out how they would be better off without their farms.  But if you have a college education, it’s easier to figure this out – how you would be better off without your property.  Am I right?

Well, it reminds me of someone taking my class years ago, said, “When Khrushchev came to this country and was welcomed with open arms and the red carpet treatment and so forth” – he was attending grammar school in Boston.  And he said the whole grammar school was dismissed so they could go out on the streets.  And when Khrushchev’s automobile came by, they were all waving on cue to the great leader of Russia as he went by.  I don’t remember if they were waving American flags or Russian flags, but anyhow.  Well, we have to make a good display for the, you know, leader of Russia.

And so, in every society, individuals wish to have their property protected.  There is a natural desire to do this.  This is a natural concept.  We have been told that if our property is going to be protected, it is the state that we must look to for this protection.  And who accepts this?  Is this accepted by the two classes?  With few exceptions, yes.  And why is it accepted?  Watch what they say.  For the same reason that not long ago was accepted that the Earth is the fixed and immoveable center of the universe.  For the same reason it was accepted that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.  You accept it on faith.

How do you protect property?  Well that’s what we’ll be discussing.  Moral alternatives to coercion we’ll be discussing, in the rest of the lectures on maintenance , 9, 10, 11 and 12, and in particular the lecture on justice.  In fact, in the second half of this lecture, I’ll get into things like the definition of government and the difference between government and state, moral alternatives to all of the coercive programs and so-called various services offered by the state.  We’ll be discussing that in Lectures 9-12.

 

Continuing now with the second part of Session #9.  In what way does a man want his property protected?  Well, he wants it protected from those people that might steal it, damage it, destroy it, attack it.  Any man, in fact, who has property has a definite desire to see that the property he has remains under his control and is secure from attack.

However, is he able to fully protect his property through his own actions and efforts alone?  No. Would he like to protect it?  Yes.  Therein lies the problem.  He would like to have his property protected but he’s not capable of protecting it by himself.  No man is capable of protecting all of his property.  It’s a physical impossibility.  Even a poor man with very little property, the only property he may have involves the clothing on his back, he cannot protect his property.  He must sleep sometime and he might be killed while he’s sleeping.  So even the poorest man with the least amount of property cannot protect himself.

Alright, how about people who have more property?  How about people who have acquired a large amount of property?  Well, criminals will be attracted to larger amounts of property.  The plunderer is always attracted to a larger amount of property.  Well, how can a man who has, let’s say, property in Los Angeles, New York, Omaha, St. Louis, Anaheim, Missoula, Cucamonga, you name it, London or Rome, how can he possibly protect all of his property?  Even if he is awake 24 hours a day, he can’t be everywhere at once.  And even if it were physically possible for someone to personally protect all of his property, a man who’s got that much property, he can hire somebody to protect it.  In other words, his time is too valuable to be sitting on his own coconut.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, the hiring of protection is a natural thing.  This is the entrance of both a rational and a moral concept of government, hence a right concept of government.  The proper function of government is to protect property.  I gave you, I believe earlier, a definition of state versus government.  Did I give you that definition in this location?  State versus government?  Have I made that distinction?  What is a government?  I’ve already said a government’s function is to protect property.  On the other hand, what has been called government, is not a true concept of government at all.  It’s fraud.  It’s an attack upon property which passes under the guise of protection.

Let me give you an introductory distinction between government versus state.  A government – did I give you this slide?  A government is any mechanism whose function is to protect property with the permission and consent of the owner.  I’ll make a comparison between another term, government versus state.  A state is any mechanism whose function it is to seize or control property without the permission and consent of the owner.  Well, how is state related to government?  In the same way that freedom is related to slavery.  The concepts are opposite.

Alright.  So we have these two concepts, state versus government, entirely different concepts, opposite concepts.  I want to examine the fundamental distinction then between state versus government.  If I hire someone to protect my property, that means I can fire him.  If I hire someone to protect my property and he fails to protect it, I can fire him and seek instead the services of someone who I believe will do a better job of protecting my property.  With this proper concept of government, I always retain control over my property and with it the right to always determine how my property will be protected and who will do the protection.  And it is clearly my right to secede from this protection service when it does not meet with my full approval.  When the state is coercively providing the so-called protection, you cannot secede, as I have explained.  And there is the distinction between government and state.  One is voluntary.  The other is coercive.  This government is a voluntary concept and the state is a coercive concept.  You might clearly state it in the following way:  A government is a protection business.  A state is a protection racket.

And the distinction between a true business and a racket, of course, is that a racket is coercively imposed upon its victims.  A business engages in voluntary contractual associations with its customers.  The customer is a subscriber of the service.  As I pointed out, you do not subscribe to the Internal Revenue Service.  And if anyone actually believes that he does, he’s so misguided that he actually believes this, then great.  Cancel your subscription immediately.  And so, states have taxpayers who must pay for the so-called service rendered by the state for no other reason than that the state imposes that tax upon them with a gun.  And it matters not that the taxpayer is getting the service he wants, whether he is satisfied with this or not.  And under such a system, you will find, in general, those people who get the least service pay the highest tax and those who pay the least tax get the greatest service.  A protection business, then, implies a customer relationship.  A government has customers.  A state has taxpayers or victims.

Alright, let me give you now a more fundamental definition of government, a broader definition of government than I gave you previously.  A government, this explains more clearly to you what it is, a government is any person, volitional being, or organization which sells goods and/or services, the purpose of which is to protect property to which the owner of that property can voluntarily subscribe.

Alright, the key to this is the part which says, “to which the owner of that property can voluntarily subscribe”.  You must be able to subscribe to the service.  If you don’t subscribe, fine.  You don’t have to pay for it.  If you do subscribe, then you pay for it as you would pay for any other service.  You don’t expect if for nothing.  And the government’s principal goal is guess what?  Its principal goal is not even to protect your property.  Its principal goal is what?  To make a profit.  And incidentally, a more precise way to state it is not to make money because the mafia may make money by printing it up or swindling somebody out of it.  The better way to state it, this is to sharpen your precision, is to make a profit which is defined as any moral increase in happiness.  That excludes the mafia thug or swindle type activity.  And recognize that this is a totally distinct concept from what we have today in government, namely, the profit-seeking nature of government.  The main goal is profit.  The means to achieving the goal of profit is a satisfactory protection of the property of their customers.  That’s how you maximize your profits through efficient protection of the property of your customers and subscribers who are one and the same.

The government cannot perform a protection service without being in the marketplace as a business.  And a government should have the same purpose as any other business.  Every business which is a moral business has the same purpose and that is to make a profit.  The government business differs from other businesses only to the extent that the government is in business to protect property.  Some businesses produce goods and services.  Others distribute goods and services.  Still others protect goods and services.  So the government, as a private enterprise business, with stockholders, proprietors, management, salesmen, will sell protection services to people who wish to purchase them.  I will demonstrate this is rational.  I will demonstrate this is moral.  Therefore, it will be demonstrated to be right, a right concept of government.  If it’s not right, that implies it’s wrong.  If it’s not rational and moral, then it’s wrong.  No exception.

Alright, remember coercion?  Again, any attempted or intentional interference with property.  A crime is a successful act of coercion.  These are absolute concepts.  We are not dealing in relatives.  Please note this is not identical with the present concept of crime.  What is the state concept of crime?  The state concept of crime is anything which is a violation of a political law or some bureaucratic regulation or what have you.  However, are there many things that the state calls criminal which, in fact, are not criminal according to this precision definition of crime?  Certainly.  You’re called a criminal if you do not comply to any of the state coercive requirements which includes payment of taxes or anything they coercively require you to do.   You’re violating the law.  You’re breaking a law and so forth.

And this presents a very large problem when the state has a wrong concept of who the criminal is.  You see a problem?  Yes.  Because they will be persecuting and even throwing moral people in jail who have never committed any crimes.  When they have, for example, price control and you sell the product for some other price than that stipulated by the state, then you’re called a criminal.  Alcoa is called a criminal because they do nothing…their only so-called crime is that they do an outstanding job of producing and expanding upon the product called aluminum.  I gave you this illustration earlier.  It’s called a crime.  Efficiency is called a crime, as I pointed out.  It’s absurd.  On the other hand, they get everything backwards because that which is a crime then is not called a crime.  In other words, when the IRS plunders you, that’s not called a crime but it is because it’s a successful act of coercion.  But it’s not called that.

Alright, the end result of continued, unchecked crime is this, tyranny, which is simply large scale crime without recourse to the victim.  Now, a crime involves the success of a single act of coercion.  And there can be recourse to a given crime.  But when tyranny reigns, there is no recourse.  The verb “to rule” simply means to exercise unspecified, arbitrary, and, in particular, immoral control over action.  As I said, in order to have a ruler, you must first have people being ruled.  The way to do that?  Gain control of their property without their permission.  Rule simply involves continual attacks upon property of the individual without recourse to the victim of the crime.  And the term rule versus govern, these terms are not the same.  Nature does not rule you, but rather nature governs you.  Nature does not tell you what to do on an arbitrary or whimsical or capricious basis.  If the individual expects to survive, then he must understand ultimately the laws of nature or he won’t make it.  And man’s failure to understand these laws and to apply them will result ultimately in his extinction.

If a man thinks, for example, he can fly through the air by flapping his arms very rapidly and then one day he launches himself over the side of a three thousand-foot cliff.  What does this mean?  There will be a subsequent collision between two things, this man and the planet Earth.  The probability is the impact upon the earth will be nominal.  The impact upon the man will be substantial and will probably result in his soon demise shortly after collision.

But was he killed by nature?  No.  He was killed by his gross stupidity.  Perhaps his stupidity and ignorance of the laws of nature.  But you don’t even have to know the laws of nature, you don’t even have to understand these to know that it’s not a good idea to jump off of a three-thousand-foot cliff.  And he might have done this.  He might have started out, instead of this experiment of flapping his arms rapidly in order to fly, he might have first tried a three-foot cliff.  Try that one.

And if that works out then maybe go to a six-foot cliff.  But you don’t start with a three-thousand-foot cliff.

Nature does not rule man through the control of his property.  Nature does not coerce man.  Nature governs man.  And the term govern comes from the Latin guvernare which means “to steer”.  And this little illustration will introduce you to a rational and moral concept of government.  To illustrate, when you take passage on an ocean liner, you’ve entered into a contract with a steamship company to transport you safely, let’s say, from Honolulu to Hawaii.  When you do this, you’ve hired the captain to do what?  To transport you safely to your destination.  Now the captain does not coerce you.  You didn’t have to hire him in the first place.  But he very definitely does control your action.  He does have control of your actions.  Can you do anything you want on the ship?  No.  Can you just walk into the kitchen any time you want and look around?  Just walk into the engine room any time you want?  What if the captain puts a sign up in front of the engine room that says the engine room is off limits to all passengers.  Alright.  Is this a control of your action?  Yes.  That clearly, that clearly controls your actions because one of the actions you cannot perform is to walk into the engine room.

Alright, the question is have you lost your liberty?  Your actions are controlled.  Is the control moral or immoral?  Have you lost any control of your property?  No.  How do you answer this question?  Alright, we go back to the universal can opener.  Whose property is it?  Who owns the engine room?  You or the steam ship company?  They own it.  The captain may not own it, but even if he doesn’t, he’s the agent and representative of the steam ship company and he’s authorized to act on their behalf.  So he can morally say this is off limits.

Is it to your advantage, as a passenger, to have such a sign in front of the engine room?  This is actually, not only is it not an attack upon you, this is for your protection, to protect your property.  Because you don’t want just any old passenger wandering around the engine room any old time, do you?  Would you want this?  You could get maybe some drunk stumble in there who might fall down the steel staircase and hill himself or he might start pulling switches.  He could wreck the ship.  Could some lunatic running around in there, or some drunk, or somebody, could such a person actually sink the ship?  You’re darn right he could, under the proper circumstances, if he pulled the wrong switch at the wrong time or something.  He could wreck the ship.  And so, this is not an interference with your liberty.  It’s a control of your action.

They don’t want you to jump over the side and go for a swim.  That’s not part of the contract, that you just suddenly dive off – you’re in mid-Atlantic and just decide I’ll go swimming for a while.  Why won’t they want this?  Man overboard.  They’ve got to stop the ship.  This costs them money and time, jeopardizing even the lives of the crew to try to save you.  Are all these things possible?  So that’s a control of your action.  The captain does not want you to go for a swim.  And you could be a very strong swimmer, but, if the ship is cruising along at thirty knots, you will not catch up with the ship.  And by the time they stopped this big ship and come around to look for you, that would be a long distance away.

Alright.  The point is…oh, and another thing.  Is it in your interest for the captain to have total and complete command and control of the ship?  Is that in your interest?  To set the course for the navigator?  To give the orders to the helmsmen?  Or would it be better to have the ship run, let’s say, on the basis of democracy where everybody on the ship gets to vote on how the ship will be run?  The passengers, the crew, we’re all equal of course.  We will vote on what the compass setting is going to be.  We will vote on how the ship is going to be handled in the storm.  Good luck.  Would you like to be on that ship?  Good luck.  A ship that’s run essentially by a committee.

Why do we think democracy will work as the basis of the whole social structure?  You see it doesn’t work anywhere.  Would it be in your greater interest for the captain to turn the command over to you?  You give the orders to the navigator and the helmsman and the first mate.  I won’t speak for you, but if he turned the command over to me, I don’t think we could make it out of San Pedro Harbor.  You know why?  And even if we did, that would be even worse because suddenly we are on the high seas and I don’t know what I’m doing.  I’m the first to admit that when it comes to running a large ocean liner, I don’t know what I’m doing.  This takes a little knowledge and experience and skill that most people do not have.  For example, I wouldn’t know how to handle…would you know how to handle a ship in a storm, for example?  An ocean liner?  You got that experience?  And you don’t want some ignoramus in command, especially under these circumstances, do you?  Ignorant in the sense of ignorant of what is necessary to be a competent ship captain.  It doesn’t mean you’re stupid.  Ignorance means lack of knowledge.

And so, it’s both in your interest and my interest to hire a steersman who knows where he is going and how to get there.  So no trespassing on the ship, engine room or what have you, or the bridge, same thing.  You don’t want just anybody wandering around on the bridge where they operate the ship.  That is not an interference with your liberty.  It’s in your interest that it’s handled in this way.  Govern means to exercise, specified, delineated, moral control over action.  The ship captain’s control over us is moral.  The service I’ve hired him to perform is clearly specified and delineated.  What is my option?  If I don’t like the terms of the contract in advance, what do I do?  Don’t take the ship.  Take another ship.  Don’t go anywhere.  Fly an airplane to London.  Take a train.  Go for a drive.  Take a nap.  In other words, I have authorized, when I do take the ship, the captain to steer the ship.  Hence, he governs my actions.  Hence, ladies and gentlemen, he is my governor.  And the “governoring”, or governorship, occurs with the consent of the governed.  That’s me.  I consent to it.  That’s a proper concept.  In other words, what I have introduced you to is a rational and moral concept of government and governor and governed.  With the consent of the governed.

Alright, let’s begin looking to alternatives to state coercion.  Here are ten principal areas where the state claims a coercive priority.  For example, one is defense, both national defense and local defense.  Two, we have a Department of Interior.  Of course, we have a Department of so-called Defense.  Actually, the second one was money.  We have the Department of Treasury.  And they handle the coinage and minting of money and so forth, coins and currency.  We have a Department of Interior that deals with national parks and conservation of resources and forests and so forth.  We have exterior services the state provides us like war, for example.  Well, that’s    something at least.  I mean, if it wasn’t for the state, you couldn’t have a war.  So we got to support the state, right?  I mean, just think about it.  If there’s no more wars, you wouldn’t even have people telling war stories anymore.  What would there be to talk about?  We get from the state alliances, tariffs, trade restrictions and so forth.  We have a Department of Agriculture, a fifth area.  A sixth area is labor.  A seventh is justice, handling the courts and so forth.  An eighth area would be control of communications and transportation.  A ninth would be health, education and welfare.  There’s a department with that title. Health, Education, and Welfare.  We have a tenth area, Postal, so-called, Services.

Alright, the state claims to offer us a service in all of these areas.  Actually, they don’t offer any service at all.  What they do is they have a coercive, monopolistic control of these areas.  For example, we are not protected from attack.  We are left open and defenseless.  For all the money that has been wasted on national defense, what have we got to show for it?  This nation was safer from attack, from external aggression, back when John Adams was president.  Instead of defense, you get a lot of hot air or détente or some other form of stupidity.  There is absolutely no justice.  What is called justice, or the Department of Justice, is an outrage.  This represents the persecutor of producers.  Antitrust, of course, I’ve already discussed.  This is a major tool to destroy production, to discourage initiative, and so forth, and to thwart progress in general.  The courts are the opposite of justice.  We’ll come to that in Lecture 12.  In the area of welfare, the state coercion creates the destitution in the first place.  As far as food production, it’s not necessary to have a Department of Agriculture.  Control, production, and distribution of food is a proprietary private enterprise concept.  Control of labor should also be based on the free market.  Communication, transportation is a free market concept. Let’s start looking at some of these specifically and we’ll start with one of the simpler ones to find a moral alternative to would be the post office.

Alright, the Post Office, properly, is a private enterprise concept.  Alright, if that’s true, why don’t we have first class letters delivered by private enterprise companies such as United Parcel Service?  Ask the average fellow if he thinks a profit seeking company or companies should operate a post office, and he’ll probably say, “Well, that’s impossible.  I mean how could any one company know where everyone lives”?

You’ve heard this argument, too big for private enterprise.  How many have heard this argument?  Oh, this is clearly too big for private enterprise.  The state must step in.  That’s a common argument.  You get that one for going to the moon and so forth.  Alright.  The argument is how could any one private company or companies know where everyone lives?  You know, 200 million people in the United States.  Alright.  How does the state know where I live?  I wish they didn’t.  But I live on a street.  That’s a geographical location.  As I’ve told you, I would be very happy to send them a note saying I will do this for you.  I will take you off my mailing list if you will take me off your mailing list.  However, in the case certainly of the IRS, I don’t think that will work.  Anyhow, I live on a street.  This is a geographical location.  How can you determine where you live geographically?  Is this a simple concept?  There’s no great difficulty.  One of the best ways to do it is with a cartesian coordinate system that was developed by Rene Des Carte.  A very effective way to determine with great precision where you live, or anybody lives, using the cartesian coordinate system.  That’s more than enough accuracy than we’ll ever need.

To give you an illustration of how a private enterprise company can effectively deliver the mail, look at United Parcel Service.  They are quite competent at delivering packages efficiently in less time and at a lower cost than does the U.S. Post Office.  And they accomplish this in spite of all of the coercive state regulations from ICC, Interstate Commerce Commission, PUC, Public Utilities Commission, and these various alphabet soup agencies.  I don’t know why that offends people.  I got a nasty note from a teacher one time in one of my classes.  They were objecting to the fact that, PUC, sir, is not pronounced puke, it’s pronounced puck.  Anyhow, it’s still puke.

Please note that United Parcel Service, they have to pay corporation taxes where over half their profits are wiped out by the time you pay state income taxes as well.  We have property taxes, vehicle license taxes they have to pay, and all kinds of coercive regulation and controls and more coercion.  And still, please note, they outperform the bureaucratic Post Office.  They have to make a profit.  The Post Office, it’s a perpetual loss.  As a matter of fact, the last figure I heard, you know what the Post Office loses per hour?  Have you seen figures on what they lose?  This is the loss after they collect all the money for stamps.  The last figure I saw on this, they .lose a quarter of a million dollars per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days out of the year.  A quarter of a million dollars per hour.  They are some efficient mechanism.

And please note, United Parcel Service clearly outperforms the U.S. Post Office, faster better, and cheaper.  It’s no contest.  They have to pay all these taxes, half their profits plus are clearly wiped out.  And to add to this injustice, United Parcel Service is subsidizing whom?  Their competitor, the U.S.  Post Office.  Do you see the injustice of this?  At gunpoint, you are forced to subsidize your competition.

As a matter of fact, recently a U.S. postal official said, now this is an official of the U.S. Post Office, in comparing the U.S. Post Office with how United Parcel Service operates, this postal official said, “For every package that United Parcel Service destroys, the U.S. Post Office destroys ten”.  Now that was a statement made even, I mean, they even admit that they’re incompetent.  In the southern California area, if the United Parcel Service gets a package on Tuesday, it’s delivered on Wednesday.  You don’t have to wonder if maybe it will be delivered or hopefully it will be delivered.  It’s delivered.  And in spite of all these handicaps, you still get a better service from United Parcel, clearly a better service.  There’s no comparison.

Have you ever compared the posture of the United Parcel Service man versus the U.S. Post man?  I have actually been a witness to United Parcel Service deliverymen actually jogging with a package.  I admit I’ve never seen one sprint with a package but I have seen them jog.  I have seen them walk briskly, rapidly.  How many have been a witness to this?  Practically all of you.  You have seen this with your own eyes.  I have never seen them when they were not neat, friendly, courteous.  I won’t say it’s never happened.  I have never personally been a witness to any exception of this however.  I always compliment them and tell them what a great job I think they’re doing.  Contrast that with your postman.  When was the last time you saw him jogging with the mail?  When was the last time you saw him walking briskly for that matter?  Here he comes trudging up to the door with his satchel.

And what’s the difference?  It’s called incentive.  That’s the difference.  For example, United Parcel Service deliverymen, the more packages they deliver, guess what?  The more money they make.  And the sooner they’ve completed their rounds, the sooner they can go home.  You see, they’re not paid by the hour.  I mean, if you were a postman, and you were allowed to go home early, there’s no incentive to go home early because you’re paid by the time you’re on the job.  And I understand it isn’t even that easy to get a job with the United Parcel Service as a deliveryman.  They have a waiting line.  The last time I heard, they had, somebody had, a two-year waiting list.  I don’t know what it is now but a two-year waiting list to be a deliveryman for United Parcel Service.  And they earn more money than the postmen in general and work fewer hours.  I think they must probably have more enjoyment in doing it.

Now what has been the trend of the quality of the service offered by the U.S. Post Office?  How many of you remember, not too long ago, you could deliver a first class letter for 3¢?  How many of you remember this?  3¢.  And when it was 3¢, how many deliveries were there a day?  Two.  Today it’s 13¢ and how many deliveries?  One.  And they’re already blabbering about, well, we’re going to cut that down.  We’ll cut out Saturday delivery.  And then the first thing you know, well, we might as well do away with Wednesday delivery and then Monday.  We’ll deliver Tuesday and Thursday.  No, Friday’s out.  We’re thinking about cutting Thursday out too, but once a week.  Well, after all.

And, essentially, they are aspiring to the quality, for example, of the Italian Post Office.  And you know what they do in Italy?  Have you read what happens there?  They’ve only been able recently, in recent times, to get something like two-thirds of the first-class letters delivered.  About a third of it goes undelivered.  And you know what they do with the undelivered first-class mail in Italy?  They burn it or send it to the shredder.  This is first class mail.  That’s the Italian Post Office.  Incidentally, the trend is, with the Post Office, as the price goes up sharply, the quality of the service goes down.  Have you noticed that?

In contrast, the telephone company, their rates essentially have gone down as the quality of the service goes up.  You compare how long it took to place a call to New York City, let’s say forty years ago, from California.  Can you get one through more quickly now?  You had to go through this long chain of operators across.  Now it’s a few seconds to call New York.  And you can talk to New York, if you pick the right time of the day, you can talk to New York, I think, for less than 30¢, if you keep it short.  I think the first minute they charge you about 30¢ I think.  Does anyone know an exact figure on that?  $1 for three minutes?  Oh, it’s less than that. I’m sure it’s less than that.  22¢, I believe that’s correct, for the first minute.  If you call New York – it depends on when you call New York.  If you call New York, for example, after 11 p.m. or before 8 in the morning, which you might want to do if you want to save money, or you might even want to call a business.  Because if it’s 8 here, it’s 3 hours earlier (sic) in New York, 11 o’clock.  So you can call before 8 and you get a very inexpensive rate.  Of course, even in prime calling hours, it’s still cheaper.  When I was, I remember, a kid, it seemed to me something like $5 or $6 to call New York City.  It’s easy to look this up.  Don’t hold me to the exact figure.  It’s all something you can look up.  I’m just contrasting that with the postal service.

You say, “Well, I don’t know.  But how do we know that private enterprise can really do a good job of delivering the mail when we’ve never had private enterprise delivering first class letters”?

Well, if United Parcel Service can deliver packages much more efficiently and effectively and for less money than the Post Office, why couldn’t they deliver letters?  As a matter of fact, if you think about it, in general, it’s easier to deliver first class mail than it is packages because packages have a tendency to be a wider variety of shapes and sizes and weights.  They’re more heterogeneous in terms of their size, weight, shape.  Whereas, letters tend to be more homogenous and therefore, in general, especially letters, to be easier to handle.

Well, the statement that we never had private enterprise delivering first class letters isn’t true anyhow.  There was a man in the middle 1800s in this country, an attorney from Massachusetts named Lysander Spooner, who started a private enterprise mail delivery service, first class letters.  And at the time, this was in 1844 he started this, and at the time, I’ll give you some comparisons.  The cost of delivering a ¼ ounce letter through the U.S. Mail in 1844 was 12 ½ ¢ to 25¢, depending on where it was sent.  It was 12 ½ ¢ to 25¢ for a ¼ ounce letter.  In 1844, Spooner ran the following advertisement in the New York Daily Tribune:

“The American Letter Mail Company have established post offices in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston and will transmit letters daily from each city to the other, twice a day between New York and Philadelphia.  Postage: 6 ¼ ¢ per each ½ ounce”.

Did you follow that, compared to the U.S. postal rates?  Spooner is going to deliver letters at 6 ¼¢ per each ½ ounce.  That’s from between ½ to ¼ of what it would cost to send it through the federal mails.  Plus he will carry twice the weight and, in some locations, twice the number of deliveries.

Then he says, “Stamps – 20 for $1”.  Well, if you buy 20 at a time, that reduces the unit rate to a nickel.  That’s even less.  That’s a proper concept incidentally, quantity discount.  Do you know that’s a proper concept and why?  Why it is?  And that’s not unfair to the guy that pays more because he buys for fewer quantity?  In other words, the number that he buys is fewer per item.  For example, when I walk into the post office, I say I want five-thousand first class stamps.  I want five-thousand 13¢ stamps.  And then the person ahead of me, I remember one time a lady was buying some stamps and she said, “Let me have four of the red ones there and I want three or four two-centers”.  She went through this whole thing; bought a lot of stamps.  But the total sale came to about $2.42.  When I say a lot, a lot of different kinds maybe.  And her transaction took longer than mine.  And I bought 5000 or 6000 stamps times 13¢.  It was a much bigger sale than hers.  And the clerk handled my transaction in less time.  Not only that, when I deliver these letters, they’re all in postal trays, all stacked the same way, all alike, all the same weight, all identical, and here’s six thousand.  And I even will carry them down to their annex instead of just dumping them in the local box.  Does it cost any less money to process my mail?  You’re darn right it does.  A lot less.  I even take it to their main processing center.  They don’t have to have the local guys round it up.  Plus it’s all in the tray ready to go and they just send it through the cancelling machines.  Why shouldn’t I get it for less then?  The fact is I should.  But I don’t.

I’ll read you an advertisement, part of the advertisement that Spooner put into the newspaper in New York.  He said – well I started reading part of it.  Let me finish it.

“Their purpose is to carry letters by the most conveyances and at the cheapest rates and to extend their operations as fast as patronage will justify over the principal routes of the company so as to give the public the most extensive facilities for correspondence that can be afforded at a uniform rate.  If the public approves the enterprise, they’re requested to give their support”.

Please note he says, “if the public approves the enterprise, they are requested to give their support”.  In other words, what?  He’s not cramming the service down your throat.  If you like the service, you like what we’re doing, then we invite you to support it.  In other words, the people were subscribing to Spooner’s postal service.

Alright, do you think the public gave Spooner their support?  Indeed.  Let me ask you something.  Do you have to be a graduate, let’s say, of the Harvard School of Business Administration to know that it makes a lot of sense, if you can send your letters from ½ to ¼ the cost of the federal rates, with twice the weight and sometimes twice the number of deliveries, twice the quality of service, do you have to have an IQ of 200 or be a graduate of the Harvard Business School to know that this is a better deal?  Obviously not.  Can the dimmest dimwit – do you even have to know how to count?  No.  Can the dimmest dimwit cubed figure out this is a better deal?  Does he need a lecture on it?  No.  And so, suddenly, all kinds of people, more and more people are using Spooner’s mail service.  It’s clearly a better deal.  What do you think happened?

“There ought to be a law”, the Postmaster General is screaming.  “We need stronger legislation to put an end to this”, he’s screaming to Congress.  Well, if you were Postmaster General and you saw suddenly that each day fewer people are using the U.S. mails and more and more are using some private carrier, would you be concerned?  Could even the dimmest dimwitted Postmaster General see the handwriting on the wall that eventually the number of people using the U.S. Mails will be zero?  And if no one is using the U.S. Mails, is it possible someone might ask the following embarrassing question?  I’m sure you’ve already figured it out, but the question is: “Then why do we need a Postmaster General?  For that matter, why do we need a Postal Department”?  And it’s a pretty difficult question to answer, isn’t it?  And so, they got stronger legislation passed.  And they started throwing Spooner’s mailmen in jail for delivering letters, first class letters.  And although he did win some court battles, eventually they had stronger legislation and he was coercively forced out of business.

To show you the lengths to which the Post Office will go, and I would like to point out, the Post Office is the least coercive and offensive branch of the state.  And just for the record, I do not hate my postman.  As a matter of fact, the postman I have now is the best postman I’ve ever had.  The fellow actually, within the system, appears to be relatively competent.  He’s friendly and pleasant to deal with.  I don’t hate him.  He’s simply an employee of the bureaucracy.  But here was an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, just to give you a little appreciation for the coercive nature of the Post Office and it’s probably the least coercive branch of the state.

“Denver, Colorado.  The mail mustn’t go through, not at any rate through private postal operations.  That has been the law since 1792.  And last month, CF&I Steel Corporation discovered that the law is still strictly enforced.  The Denver Post Office stepped in and stopped private CF&I curriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds  CF&I officials were frustrated by the quality of mail service between their headquarters here and their plant in Pueblo, a two and a half hour, 120 mile drive.  Sometimes it took two days for letters to wind their way south from office to plant they claimed [I can believe it].  So they stopped putting stamps on their letters.  Instead they hired an armored car service to deliver the mail.  Not only did the service guarantee overnight delivery but also its fee was less than the postage would have been.  ‘We were incurring substantially less cost and getting better service’, maintained an CF&I executive.  But the Denver Post Office got wind of the scheme and promptly notified the company of the old laws that give the Post Office exclusive rights to deliver mail.  Violators, the Denver officials noted, can be fined $500 and sentenced to six months in jail.

Taking the hint, CF& I dropped its private mail service.  And at the Post Office’s suggestion, forked over $2000 to help pay for postage the government hadn’t collected during the five months the steelmaker used its own mailmen”.

[Audience: what year was that?]

This particle article was June 5, 1967.  I’m reading just a few more excerpts – this is a longer article.

“It’s not always pittances that are recovered though.  Postal officials say that during the 1930s an out of court settlement with Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company [that’s A&P, as you know] enriched Post Office coffers by more than $900,000.  The company had been accused of using private mail service between its stores and offices”.  I might remind you $900,000 in the 1930s is a rather large hunk of change.

And then another brief statement from the same article:

“Public Service Company of Colorado has discovered how broadly the law can be interpreted.  In May, 1964, it began using a bus company to transport among its various offices data on electric service billings.  They’d pay the bus company a fee.  Last October, postal authorities cracked down saying that the data was really mail according to the law.  The authorities demanded that the company either switch to the U.S. Mails or pay an equivalent postage fee.  The company chose the latter course.  It continues to use the bus service but gives the government $9000 a year for postage it never uses”.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the least coercive branch of the state.  The rest gets worse.  Alright, let’s look at other areas where the state claims a coercive priority.  We have a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.  Well, first of all, health I’ll discuss now briefly.  Education will be Lecture 14.  Welfare, we’ll probably get to that next time we meet.  Alright, first question.  Can the state protect your health? Can the state protect you from quacks?  Should doctors be licensed before they should be allowed to practice upon their patients?  What if a survey were taken of the people and they were asked should medical doctors be licensed?  What would most people say?

Yes.

Of course.  What would medical doctors say if they were polled, should medical doctors be licensed?  What would they say?

Yes.

Absolutely, with few exceptions.  Alright.  Can the state protect you from quackery in medicine?  Well, one might ask is there quackery today in medicine?  Yes there is.  If the state can protect you then where is the protection?  First of all, who has the greatest interest in your health?  Hopefully it’s you.  I’m willing to say that I have the greatest interest in my health.  I cannot comprehend how anyone could be so naïve as to believe that I need a bureaucrat to tell me what doctor to go to.  And, of course, this is the main argument in favor of licensing doctors.  The bureaucrat does not believe that I am capable of selecting my own physician.  Well, the physicians are chosen, those who can practice medicine, are chosen by whom?  Bureaucrats who sit on some medical board who themselves may have MD degrees but are bureaucrats.  They’re bureaucrats when they’re telling someone else who can practice medicine and who cannot.  And the whole concept of the bureaucracy involves quackery.  A quack being what?  One who can never deliver upon his claims.  That describes a bureaucracy.  The law of bureaucracy.  You get in the end the exact opposite of what is intended.  So, essentially, what you have is the following.  A quack sitting in judgment as to who is or who is not a quack or who should be allowed to practice or not allowed to practice medicine.  In other words, can a quack protect you from a quack?  Well, the question answers itself, I think.  Essentially what you have is what I call quack-quack or quack squared.  A quack will not be effective in protecting you from quacks.

First of all, the main reason for having health laws and all of these things is to protect people from what?  Well, contaminated food, contaminated drugs or what have you.  The fact of the matter is the state is an obstruction to good health.  Knowledge in medicine comes from the first step of the Ideological Program, innovation, and that’s where the solution lies.  We need more innovation in biology.  One that would really help would be the integration of the biological sciences and then medicine can really begin to develop, but not until then on any effective, large, significant way at least.

First of all, if I want a medical doctor, I will seek one.  The service that the medical doctor renders, like any other service, is rendered in the market place.  It must be paid for.  I must pay for it.  The fact that I’m poor does not alter the fact that I should pay for it.  The fact that I’m poor does not alter the fact I should pay for my own haircuts.  I do not know of a single barber who will give me a haircut simply because I need one.  Why should I get free medical services because I need it?  Well, the bureaucrat says, well, you need the medical service to survive.  Well, if it’s that important, I ought to be more willing to pay for the medical service than I would be willing to pay for the haircut.  The more I need it, the more I should be willing to pay for it.  To expect it for nothing involves either the enslavement of the medical doctor or the enslavement of everyone else.  It can’t be any other way.

If the doctor, for example, provides a service at no cost to me, that means either he’s donating his services with a gun in his back, in which case he’s been enslaved, or he’s paid by the state, in which case everyone else is enslaved.  And so then, you see, the entire concept of medical care today, unfortunately, is based upon the Marxian foolishness of each according to his need.  In other words, the service should be rendered on the basis of need.  It’s tragic to note that probably the worst enemy of the medical profession, the worst enemy of medicine today, is the average MD; an appalling, but accurate, appraisal of the situation.

The doctors have socialism built into their profession through the altruistic belief that they owe their services to the world.  When a doctor goes to medical school, he’s taught by professors who promulgate and advocate socialism.  The other professors in the school who do not teach medicine also advocate socialism in one form or another.  And so, that’s all the medical doctor gets in school is a steady dose of socialism.  That’s one reason why the longer you go to school, the more indoctrinated you will be with socialism because that’s all the indoctrination involved with socialism in one brand or another, Marx II, Marx I, some hybrid Marx III.  Do they teach these things in what are called schools?  Yes they do.

The doctors have created for themselves the attitude that their services are allocable on the basis of need.  This is not true.  Medicine is a market service.  All medical services represent market functions.  It’s no different than selling tomatoes.  And yet, the doctors have taken the position that they deserve special consideration because, if they do not perform their services competently, their mistakes will be buried.

Alright, is this true?  Can the blunder of a medical doctor, can his mistake be buried with the burial of his former patient?  Can this happen?  Yes.  Does this happen?  Yes.  It does.  However, and this point I want to stress, the medical service is not the only service which, if incompetently rendered, will result in the death or injury to someone.  What if an engineer, for example, is incompetent?  What if he doesn’t know how to design a bridge properly?  Could his incompetence result in the death or injury of many people?  Yes.  Has this happened?  Yes.  Does it happen?  Yes, it does.  For example, here’s a newspaper article on the very subject.  Just look at the headline alone.  It says, “Bridge Crash Kills 32.  Safety Engineer a Victim”.  Well, the headline tells you the whole story, doesn’t it?  Let me read this to you:

“Melbourne, Australia.  United Press International.  A $47 million bridge under construction, three miles from the center of Melbourne, collapsed today, plunging scores of workers more than 100 feet into the Yarrow River and crushing sheds where others were eating lunch.  Police said 32 workers were killed, 19 injured, some 10 to 15 others presumed dead, missing and presumed dead.  One of the fatalities was chief construction engineer, Jack Henshaw, who only six weeks ago assured workers that the bridge was safe.  The workers had sought assurances in the wake of the collapse of a similar type bridge at Milford Haven in Wales last June.  He died in hospital of multiple injuries”.

Alright, what is the cause of this bridge collapsing?  One answer: incompetence.  Well, how can you be so certain?  Well, it was either an incompetent design.  If the bridge is properly designed, it doesn’t fall down.  Do we have a history of knowing how to build bridges that do not fall down?  Yes.  If not an incompetent design, the execution of the design may have been incompetent.  It’s not like this was the first bridge with a long span over water that’s ever been built.  We built the Golden Gate Bridge with, for many years, the longest span of any bridge over water.  It did not fall down under construction.  It has not fallen down since then.  Etcetera.  The George Washington Bridge, the Brooklyn Bridge – the Brooklyn Bridge was built back, I think, in the 1880s.  It hasn’t fallen down.  It didn’t fall down under construction.  This is due to incompetence.

What if a lifeguard can’t swim?  Is that impossible?  Well, I’ll tell you something.  I consider myself to be at least one of the 15-20 poorest swimmers west of the Mississippi River and I have taught swimming.  When I was in high school, I was a swimming instructor.  I am one of the poorest swimmers around.  I had no business teaching swimming.  Of course, if anybody got into trouble, I could pretty much walk across most of the pool with my head above water because I was about 6’5” when I was in high school.

What if a forester cannot put out a fire?  Could a town be engulfed in flames?  Could much of the forest a total disaster?  Yes.

What if an aviation mechanic is incompetent?  Could the airliner that he failed to properly service, could it crash due to his negligence and incompetence?  Could his mistake be buried in a pile of rubble?  Has this happened?  Yes.  Let me ask you this.  Oh, incidentally, on that subject.  Do you recall the crash of that plane outside of Paris where some 340 people were killed?  That was due to incompetence on, perhaps, the part of several people.  Some claim it crashed because …you know what happened.  The cargo door fell open during the flight.  Below the plane, it came open and the air caught a hold of this and ripped the cargo door off.  It was ripped off in the airstream. And that severed all of the control lines.  When the control lines are inoperable on one of these large liners, what happens is it will land in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Usually the landing will result, probably, in the death of everyone on board which, I believe, I heard, someone mentioned this the other night in my class when I mentioned this, there may have been some four survivors.  Does anyone know for certain?  Did any of those live very long after the crash?  I don’t know but there was something like 340 people killed.

Alright, there was incompetence here on the part of, perhaps, many people.  The instructions on how to secure the cargo door were written in English and Arabic, which is fine except this was a French plane and the crew, in general, did not know how to read either Arabic or English.  I understand they tried to get the wording reworded into French but they hadn’t yet got clearance from the bureaucrats to do it.

But even without this, if the people that run the airlines were responsible, they would have made certain that everybody understands all of these various admonitions which you might expect to find many on an airplane – warning signs that say don’t do this, don’t pull this lever at this time, don’t push this button until such and such happens.  Might you expect to see many admonitions or warnings, signs on an airplane in various places?  Yes.  Well, if you can’t read what they say, then you got a problem.  So they should have explicitly explained to all of these people, alright, this means this, this means this, etcetera.  They could have done that, but they didn’t.

You say, well, it might have delayed the takeoff.  Well, I’m sure if you were to poll every one of these 340 people, would you rather take off 30 minutes late and land at the airport slowly, you want a slow, controlled landing, not a fast, uncontrolled landing, I think all 340+ would say, yeah, we’d rather take off 30 minutes late and land at the airport and come to a slow stop instead of, it’s a fast stop that gets you.  Alright, and the point being that the mistake can be buried in a pile of rubble.

What if the people who are the promulgators of freedom are incompetent hacks?  Could their mistakes be buried in a pile of rubble with the burial of the entire civilization?  Look at all these jerks running around, marching for freedom, burning down banks for freedom, blowing up theaters, shooting people, rebelling.  All of this is totally wrong activity.  And they’re all babbling about, “Well, this is for freedom”.  And they’re all hacks and quacks and charlatans and dangers.  Could their mistakes be buried with the entire civilization?  You bet.

So the problem isn’t peculiar to medicine, is it?  That’s the first point I’m making.  If a medical doctor is incompetent, the patient may die due to his negligence and his mistake could be buried and the only one who might know about it is the physician.  That’s a fact.  That does not alter, however, the situation that the medical doctor renders a service in the marketplace that does not differ in principle from any other service.  Whether you’re selling tomatoes or pop-up toasters, he’s selling a product.  As a matter of fact, the best defense that any individual has in the marketplace, regardless of the service he’s seeking, automobiles or medical services or you name it, the best defense is the one you’ve heard of, the well-known Latin phrase, caveat emptor.  The Latin verb caveat means to beware or to be on one’s guard.  Emptor is purchaser.  The more common phraseology: let the buyer beware.

But now you might say, wait a minute, I’m not a medical doctor.  I don’t have the knowledge to determine who’s a competent medical doctor and who is not.  Alright.  Then how do you solve the problem?  Very simple solution.  How do you know who’s a competent attorney to represent you?  How do you know who’s a competent firefighter to protect property?  A competent electrician?  He might be incompetent when the house is rewired, or something, the house burns down.  His mistakes can be buried.  And so, there’s no end to this illustration, is there?

How do you know who’s competent in any field?  Let’s look…in the closing part of this session, I’m going to introduce you to some large solutions.  If I, for example, let’s say, have fire insurance, what if I were to go to the fire insurance company and say, “I’m planning to rewire this Cape Cod cottage that I’ve recently purchased that was originally wired in 1910.  Well, the wiring is probably inadequate.  I’d like to upgrade the quality of the wiring.  Can you recommend a competent electrician”?  He’s asking his fire insurance company this question.

Alright.  Do any of you think the fire insurance company would have a proprietary, vested interest in recommending a competent electrician to rewire this house?  Would they?  Would they have everything to gain by recommending someone who’s competent and everything to lose by recommending a hack?  Yes?  Sure.  They recommend some incompetent fellow and maybe this house is insured for $75,000 worth of fire insurance, $100,000, and the house burns down, they don’t want to pay out the check for $100,000.  They would rather your house does not burn to the ground and you would rather your house does not burn to the ground.

If I have life insurance, let’s say I have $100,000 worth of life insurance, and let’s say I’m seeking the services of a medical doctor for some reason, maybe a doctor of internal medicine for purposes of diagnosis.  Would my life insurance company have, again, a vested, proprietary interest in recommending somebody who is competent?  Certainly.  And everything to lose by recommending somebody who doesn’t know what he is doing?  Yes.  If they recommend someone who is incompetent, I might die a quarter of a century earlier than I might have.  Is that possible?  Due to the negligence of the MD.

Would the insurance company rather not pay my beneficiaries the $100,000 at this time?  Yes?  Yes.  And who else would rather they not pay my beneficiaries $100,000?  Me.  I would rather go another quarter of a century.  So they have everything to gain by recommending someone who is competent and everything to lose by recommending someone who is incompetent.

Beyond this, you could set up an advisory service.  If an advisory service earns its living by giving advice as to who is a competent medical doctor and who is not, they have a proprietary interest in offering sound advice.  Such a medical advisory service would have extensive information in the community as to what doctors offer what services, who’s competent to provide a given service.  And it’s quite likely such advisory services would have several medical doctors on their staff, men who would have a proper medical background to make a proper determination and evaluation of who is qualified to do what and who is not.

To be sure, you might say, well, wait a minute, their advice could be wrong.  Yes, it could be.  Can the most competent man make a mistake?  Yes.  But I will tell you this.  Their advice will not be wrong too often because they can’t stay in business.  Alright, let me solve this problem for you.  I’ll end with this problem.  And let’s see if we can find a moral solution because I said we’ve got to find moral solutions to every problem ultimately.  Otherwise there is no solution.

If the theories of Professor Galambos obsolete the state, and I claim they do, then they also obsolete, for example, this fellow, Ralph Nader, you know, the so-called consumer protection agency head.  Alright, then the question is what will protect the consumer of products from the producers of products?  Let me restate the question.  Listen to the question.  What will protect the consumers of products from the producers of products?  What will protect the consumers of property from the producers of property?

Please note how effective the fraud is in our society.  We appoint state criminals to protect us from what?  The non-criminal producers.  But how many Americans have ever asked a question, for example, what will protect the non-criminal producers of, let’s say, a product called aluminum, what will protect Alcoa from the monopolistic criminals at the Department of Justice?  How many Americans ever ask that question?  Does that show you how effective the swindle and the fraud is?  You never ask that question, do you?  Everybody’s always worried about some private enterprise monopoly, but whoever worries about…the only monopoly, there is a monopoly you should worry about.  I discussed it in the lecture on monopoly.  There is one monopoly you should worry about, the monopoly of coercion.  And it is the state that has the monopoly of coercion, not any private producer of property.  That shows you how effective the swindle and the fraud.  They get you to worry about the wrong thing.  And they started beating on you on this monopoly thing in your early days in school and all the way up through college.

This theory, ladies and gentlemen, obsoletes Ralph Nader.  If you like Ralph Nader even a little bit, you have been swindled.  If you have even a slight favorable image of Ralph Nader, you’re a victim of fraud.  Ralph Nader is probably one of the most dangerous witch doctors in the nation.  And yet, he commands something like $2,000 or $3,000, just for an after dinner speech.

Alright, what finally is the alternative to all of this coercive interference with production masquerading under the guise of consumer protection?  There are three alternatives to coercion and the gun.  They’re not the only ones but here are the three principal ones.  They are:

  1. Caveat emptor.  Let him beware.  Who should have the greatest proprietary interest in looking out for Number 1?  Number 1, of course.
  2. Don’t buy.  Abstain.  Switch your vote to the superior product.  If you think you can produce a better product and make a profit, then do it.
  3. Set up a proprietary profit-seeking advisory service. However, the concept of the advisory service will be revolutionized by the Galambos theory of primary property.  What is missing in the concept of the advisory service is two things.  The application is too narrow.  You should be able to get advice on any product, any service, and so the theory of primary property, put forth in Course V201 by Professor Galambos, will revolutionize this whole concept of the advisory service.

And secondly, and most important, the theory explains how and why the advisor will fully guarantee his advice, even to the point where, if his advice is wrong, and you lose and are damaged, he will compensate you for the total amount of your damages.  If you have that coupled with the advisory service, then there is no question of the quality of advice that you can expect to get.

When the advisor has total and complete risk, he assumes full responsibility for the soundness of his advice to the point where you will even be indemnified if he makes a mistake.  How this is implemented, of course, is part of the theory of primary property.  I’m just giving you some idea of how this concept will be revolutionized, expanded.  And the end result, of course, it will obsolete Ralph Nader.

Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I will be seeing you the first of the year.  I might just mention in passing that there is a particular day coming up, namely December the 25th, which is the anniversary of the birthdate of Isaac Newton, the most important man who ever lived.  And Professor Galambos refers to December the 25th as Newton Day in honor of the most important man who ever lived.  And so, I wish all of you a happy Newton Day and I do look forward to seeing all of you next year.  And I hope you will do some reading.  I hope you will continue to do some thinking.  I bid you good evening.


© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010