Yes, I Advocate A Form Of Anarchism

COLUMN NOTES: For those interested in more detail about this headline, I advocate for the type of anarchism generally known as "free-market anarchism." If you interested, I trust you have the ability to do a google search and begin your own journey into the ideas. Of course if you do want to discuss it with me, I'm happy to do so, just contact me.

HARBESON: It’s a voluntary reaction

I see that Floyd County Republican Party chairman Dave Matthews is upset with me again. Poor Dave, he struggles to understand my viewpoint. He’s not the only one.

Others have struggled to understand why they can agree wholeheartedly with me one week and perhaps the very next week find themselves thinking I must be a wacko (insert label here).

Dave did not like what I had to say in a recent column about State Rep. Steve Stemler, who is rumored to be a Democrat. Or is it Republican? I forget. Oh well, it doesn’t really matter.

Anyway, I’m not sure how often Mr. Matthews disagrees with me but I remember the last time he decided to go public about a disagreement. It was after a 2009 column questioning our country’s worship of Abraham Lincoln, after I learned more about his actions while president.

COLUMN NOTE: I wrote a response to him at that time and am linking to it here because I think this entire series of columns and resulting interactions provides a great demonstration of how many of us get stuck in certain thought processes and entrenched in certain positions without really considering whether it's consistent and makes sense.

And yet in between these two instances, I enjoyed a series of cordial e-mail exchanges with Mr. Matthews, beginning when he e-mailed to congratulate me on another column I wrote about a politician. That one was about Lee Hamilton. He enthusiastically commended me for taking an “honest look” at the guy and for being “brave enough to take on an icon.”

He seemed to understand why I was questioning the actions of Hamilton. He seemed to understand when I pointed out that Hamilton played a part in instituting programs that increased federal government involvement into more areas of our lives. (All that money spent to fix problems and what’s in the headlines today? The same issues: health care and education.)

But what Dave seems to miss is that the underlying theme of all three columns is the same: society’s automatic reverence for politicians who claim to be above the fray and constantly spread the myth of government as a virtuous institution.

I realized during our e-mail conversation that he is also confused because he thinks my ultimate goal is smaller government (whatever that means). It’s not.

My goal is a society completely absent of the aggressive institution we call government. My goal is a society of voluntary interactions. Yes, that means I advocate a form of anarchism.

I didn’t always think this way of course. It’s a result of taking a serious look at what I claimed to value. I accept the nonaggression principle and once I decided to apply it consistently, I realized that if it’s not proper for me, as an individual, to initiate force on other individuals then it’s not proper to do it using an institution called government.

So, I must reject government because I reject the initiation of force on peaceful people. I have concluded that voluntary interaction is the only social order matching my values. This means I can’t hold reverence for government, an institution whose very foundation rests on aggression.

I hope Dave understands that this goal cannot be accomplished through politics. Politics is counter to the goal. I know he’s put a lot of time and energy into government as the answer, so I understand he may not be willing or able to accept what I accept.

But still, I have good news for Dave. Even if he doesn’t accept the principle and reach the conclusions I have, I’m not going to try and force him to do so.

Dave has chosen who he will voluntarily associate with by deciding not to read any more of my columns. I fully support him in his decision because freedom of association is one of the very tenets of voluntaryism.

For everyone else, you can follow Dave’s lead and stop reading, or you can continue to read, ponder and critically examine the points I make.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson is starting to enjoy being referred to as that wacko “insert label here.”

Staring Blankly Is Hard

HARBESON: Readers write, Dear Debbie


> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This past weekend, if someone mentioned my column or a local controversial issue, I just stared at them blankly. Even if they mentioned a local politician, I still just stared at them blankly.

Then when they asked if I was feeling OK, I shrugged my shoulders and said I just didn’t have an opinion one way or another. Then they stared at me blankly.

All of this blank staring was beginning to look like a legislative session so to snap us out of it, I explained that I was only trying to celebrate Labor Day weekend the way most people do — by taking a rest from my work.

It completely wore me out.

I don’t have the energy to write a column now so you know what that means. Yes, time to share reader’s opinions.

The column about storing a gun in your locked car while at work led to several people writing in with additional examples of why someone might want to do so.

One writer said, “No pun intended, but you hit a bull’s-eye on this one. There are a myriad of reasons for possessing weapons secured in your automobile on your employers property while you are working. Following are just a few of many:

1. You live in a desolate section of Clark County with the nearest neighbor 1/2 mile through the woods and you return from work at midnight.

2. Your workplace parking lot is unlit and unsecured. You work the second shift. You would want your weapon handy

3. Coming home from work at midnight — or any other time — your car breaks down on a desolate stretch of a county road.

4. Car jackings at night at stop lights are not uncommon. You would want your weapon handy.

You get the drift ... Galligan doesn’t!”

•••

Several people wrote in response to my column on the tax referendum for Clarksville schools, where I suggested that those for a tax can always pay it voluntarily. Some didn’t seem to think my idea would work:

“I’ll bet this one is going to go over well! I’m amazed how often people will demand a general tax increase; but, if there is not one, they will be the LAST people on earth to freely give any money to the cause.”

“Gee, I know those people that voted yes will run right over to the school and give them money.”

•••

After a recycling column, I found out one reader also shares her opinion regularly with the solid waste district:

“Every year the bill irritates me no end; I write [in red] “Paid under Protest” on my check and the bill remittance.”

•••

The responses on the Lee Hamilton column had the predictable love it, hate it responses but I found out that many are a bit conflicted about our government system:

“Your article on Hamilton and career politicians was 100 percent accurate. Hopefully people will listen. Having said that I still would prefer Hamilton over Hill if that were the only choices I had. Naw ... maybe I just wouldn’t vote. I hate voting for the lesser of two evils.”

“… I have to commend you on an honest look at what Lee was saying … Lee did some good things. But I agree with you, he was very instrumental in giving us a huge government that appears to be nearly out of control.”



Finally, let me share one last tidbit from someone advising me on my topic ideas:

“Ease up on my buddy, Tom, would you? Give somebody else your attention for a while. How’s this for an idea: ‘The reason I write so much about Tom Galligan is that he appears to be the only elected official in Clark County who is really making things happen!’ ????”

When I read that, I just stared at my computer screen blankly.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson enjoys staring blankly at readers’ responses.

Lee Hamilton's Love Affair With Government

COLUMN NOTES: As I thought, this one led to strong reactions both pro and con. Something to be expected for a career politician I suppose.

HARBESON: You don’t have to love government compromise

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Lee Hamilton loves government. Of course, being a politician for more than three decades how could he not?

Hamilton started his love affair with government when he was first elected as a representative to the United States Congress in the mid 1960s. During this time, there were some folks who were becoming less enamored with government. They saw through the caked makeup and feared that it was becoming too powerful and taking too much control.

But Hamilton was part of a larger group that was much too infatuated to see any problem with massive government expansion. As a result, Hamilton participated in a government love-in that instituted major changes, leading to huge increases in government spending and control.

Hamilton and this group were soon the proud parents of a government love child, Medicare. He and his fellow government groupies also started spending lots of federal money on elementary and secondary education and he was there when HUD, the department of Housing and Urban Development was born. And this was only the beginning of a long, long relationship with his beloved government.

Since retiring, Hamilton has continued this love affair and is now working to make sure everyone else loves government too. This is very important for a career politician such as Hamilton because his legacy depends on it. So he set up a center, which has been partially funded by the government, to help us understand how beautiful government really is.

Oh, he’ll admit there can be problems, but in the end, he thinks government works very well. He apparently believes some of us just can’t appreciate the beauty he sees because we haven’t been as intimate as he has, having spent 34 years with government. So he wants to educate us.

One repeating theme I’ve noticed as he works to educate the public on the subject of Congress is the importance of compromise. He’s very happy when the parties work together. He’s one of those bipartisan lovers.

But is compromise really such a good thing? Oh sure, compromise is great in various voluntary associations, such as a marriage or a business partnership, because the compromises are made individual to individual. However, in the realm of government, compromise amounts to politicians making deals with other politicians who then use government force against citizens to make their deals happen. And somehow, even with compromises, government still grows.

All we have to do to see evidence of this is to analyze the three categories already previously mentioned — health care, education and housing — and what happened with them after government became involved. We can easily observe the unfortunate consequences that developed over time in these federal government programs. No one can deny the immense growth and dependence we now have on government in these areas and many others.

Now Hamilton wants to play the congressional expert and defend the art of political compromise. He wants to educate us on the intricacies of how government works. He doesn’t talk about the part he played in creating and maintaining many problematic government programs, probably because that would cause many to question the wisdom of compromising, the very thing he’s been out there promoting.

Hamilton would rather dismantle ideas like holding on to principle and act like he’s somehow above it all because he was willing to compromise. But if what we have now is a result of compromise, then it’s time we stopped paying any attention to people who were part of the problem.

And we definitely need to stop regarding career politicians as some sort of experts we need to rely on when we are looking for the truth about how well government really works.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson would never participate in a government love-in because she loves freedom too much.