Land Socialism: Playing With Fire

[♦ nivek ♦]

>self edited prior to, well.. self edited kFL<

 

 

 

 

LewRockwell.com

 

Land Socialism: Playing With Fire

 

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

 

How fashionable it is to love nature. Down with industry, development, internal-combustion engines, clear cutting, strip malls, and private ownership. Capitalists do nothing but ravage the beauty of mother earth. The hand of man only strangles and kills.

 

If you agree with the above, you will love the fires that have driven half a million people from their homes in California, and destroyed 1,200 houses. President Bush is dumping your money in the form of aid on these suffering souls, and the flames rage on.

 

In these wretched infernos that consume civilization, we see the truth about nature. It is beautiful when it is controlled and owned and put to our use. When it is left to its own devices, it is mean, dangerous, cruel, and often thoroughly evil. It is, as Albert Jay Nock said, the enemy.

 

The fires force us to choose. We thrive and rule nature, or nature rules and eats us alive. The tendency nowadays is to believe we can have it both ways. We can build great cities and gorgeous suburbs, amass glorious wealth, live in comfort, and meanwhile let the surrounding areas take their natural course. This allows us to sit in the safety of our homes with a pious sense that we have done right by Mother Nature and she will bless us.

 

In fact, she has not blessed Southern California. She has been unleashed, and she is gorging herself on civilization itself.

 

What went wrong? The problem is in the theory of environmentalism. Under it, ownership is the enemy. Nature is an end in itself. So it must be owned publicly, that is, by the state. The state, in its management of this land, must not do anything to it. There must not be controlled burning, brush clearing, clear cutting, or even tourism. We can admire it from afar, but the work of human hands must never intervene.

 

Then the brush begins to gather. It piles higher and higher. Old growth rots. Uncontrolled growing leads to crowding. When the weather gets hot the stuff combusts. Then the winds blow and the fires spread. It's been the same story for several decades now, ever since the loony theory that nature should be left alone took hold. (For a nice history of how these fires came to be, see Roger Sedjo's "The Fires This Time" from 2002.)

 

Next we come to the government's response, which amounts to "run for your life, or we arrest you." They say that evacuations are the best way to protect people. But this defies good sense because you are essentially abandoning everything you have worked hard to build so that nature can take its course. You just know that crazed environmentalists secretly love this approach, and think: "that's what you get for building those stinkin' houses in places where animals and plants should rule."

 

Next we turn to the government's glorious fire fighting units. As with all government bureaucracies, they resist new technology. They don't plan for and assess risks. They run around spraying water and chemicals on everything regardless of effectiveness or cost. But meanwhile, they crowd out private fire control efforts. They tell us to flee and then put an antique government bureaucracy in charge and expect us to be happy about it. Finally, when the disaster ends, the federal government dumps billions in aid as a way of placating us. This is an insane approach, or, rather, it is only a sane approach if the goal is to see civilization wiped out and meanwhile expand the state.

 

Oh: there is one more action that government takes: officials express profound sadness and regret that it is all happening. And we all just sit back and say, well, heck, I guess there is nothing that can be done about it.

 

Ridiculous! Are we under the impression that private markets can't handle risk management? Private markets specialize in protection of property, particularly against natural risks. If the land were privately owned, it would be protected against burning through better management. If it had to be burned, the burning would be controlled. Unexpected events like droughts and winds would be calculated into management decisions.

 

What's more, there would be serious liability issues. Any owner of property who let fires rage would be directly responsible for imposing fires on others. This is the way markets work. If my bathtub overflows, floods my house, and then the waters flood my neighbor's house, I am responsible via my insurance policy. So, yes, there would be a price to pay for fires on your land that harm others' property.

 

What do we have today? We have fires that are no one's responsibility. Oddly, and by some strange practice that dates back to, hmmm, the beginning of time, rulers are not to be held responsible for actions that take place on their watch. So the government is not liable. It should be but it isn't. So putting government in charge is always a perfect storm for disaster without responsibility.

 

Your job is to flee, pay, and obey. It gives new meaning to the famous quote from George Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

 

 

October 24, 2007

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

 

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

 

Lew Rockwell Archives

 

 

Links referenced within this article

 

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto...ockwell@mac.com

DIGG THIS

http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=htt...&title=Land Socialism: Playing With Fire&topic=political_opinion

Albert Jay Nock said

http://www.mises.org/store/Memoirs-of-a-Su...Man-P368C0.aspx

The Fires This Time

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?id=256

crowd out

http://blog.mises.org/archives/007234.asp

Speaking

http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Lib...3C0.aspx?AFID=1

of Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Lib...3C0.aspx?AFID=1

Irrepressible

http://www.mises.org/store/Irrepressible-R...0C0.aspx?AFID=1

Rothbard

http://www.mises.org/store/Irrepressible-R...0C0.aspx?AFID=1

The Economics

http://www.mises.org/store/Economics-of-Li...2C0.aspx?AFID=1

of Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Economics-of-Li...2C0.aspx?AFID=1

Why Austrian Economics Matters

http://www.mises.org/store/Why-Austrian-Ec...7C0.aspx?AFID=1

The Gold Standard: Perspectives in the Austrian School

http://www.mises.org/store/Gold-Standard-P...1C0.aspx?AFID=1

send him mail

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/mailto...ockwell@mac.com

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://www.mises.org

LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com

Speaking of Liberty

http://www.mises.org/store/Speaking-of-Lib...x?AFID=1?AFID=1

Lew Rockwell Archives

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/rockwell-arch.html

 

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/land-socialism.html

[Purple]

Unexpected events like droughts and winds?? I have no idea how either are "unexpected" in SoCal. I am also not sure how natural this all is. So far in LA I believe they said 3 fires are suspected arson. Granted nature is helping via wind and the dry conditions before this.

 

Anyway so far I'm ok. I hope that doesn't sound callous, just if anyone wondered. I know we have a few others around that are in so cal, how ya'll doing?

[Ouroboros]

We're doing fine (so far). The fire was over the hill yesterday so we could see the light from it and even some flames. My wife saw it up-and-personal at the store yesterday. But with the winds calming and the humidity up it probably will be contained today.

 

Yesterday I was thinking, why can't people (like me) have the right to protect our own property even when the fire is coming against us? It seems like they consider it a crime now. You are not allowed to stay behind and risk your life to protect what you own, only because ... they don't like it?

[Purple]

We're doing fine (so far). The fire was over the hill yesterday so we could see the light from it and even some flames. My wife saw it up-and-personal at the store yesterday. But with the winds calming and the humidity up it probably will be contained today.

 

Yesterday I was thinking, why can't people (like me) have the right to protect our own property even when the fire is coming against us? It seems like they consider it a crime now. You are not allowed to stay behind and risk your life to protect what you own, only because ... they don't like it?

 

 

I'm not sure, but I do know what was said a few years ago when there were fire in the hills around LA. If enough people stay, and use garden hoses it actaully effects the water pressure of the fire departments big hoses. That, and if you get trapped they have to get you out, which can deter from them doing other things.

[Ouroboros]

That's very true. It would affect the water pressure. And in San Diego they did have the problem of having to go back in and get people out instead of fighting the fire, but then again... maybe people should be let to make their own choices to die in their house? Just a thought. Why should we save someone that insists on staying? Is life so sacred that we have to force it upon people, even against their will? (This kind of ties into the whole right-to-die problem) I have no answer, but somewhere along the line private ownership and personal opinion doesn't matter when weighted against the states wish for you to live. In other words, your life is not your own, but is owned by the state and it intends to keep you alive.