With all this violence over consensual activities, it is no wonder that people are waking up and pressuring governments to legalize and decriminalize drug use. Over the past decade, dramatic shifts have occurred in drug policies in various regions. At present, 14 US states and 10 European countries have legalized or decriminalized at least some aspects of drug use or trade. The map below shows marijuana legality worldwide, with regions of legalization/ decriminalization in blue:

I recently re-connected with a friend from Portugal, and among other topics, we discussed the relative value of Californian vs. Portuguese drug policies. At first, each of us argued that the policy where the other lived was better. In California, the sale and use of medical marijuana was “legalized” in 1996, whereas in Portugal the possession and use of all drugs was “decriminalized” in 2001.

Early in our conversation, my friend and I realized there are flaws in both Californian and Portuguese drug policies. I had heard the term “decriminalization” and assumed that the Portuguese government was completely out of the picture when it came to drugs. In fact, drugs are still illegal in Portugal, and the decriminalization was effected through new legislation rather than repeal of previous legislation. My friend explained that being caught with even small quantities of marijuana in Portugal can send a person to court. He said drugs should be totally free like in California. But in California, I explained, drugs are not totally free. Various state and local government offices control who is allowed to buy, sell, grow and prescribe medical marijuana. Clearly, the state wanted to be in on the action. In California, medical marijuana is a $2 billion industry, generating about $100 million in state sales taxes per year.

I’m beginning to think the best policies are in those regions where the drug laws are actively ignored.

The Shadow Children series by Margaret Peterson Haddix begins with a book entitled, Among the Hidden. This book is about a boy named Luke who is the third child in his family, and they live in a place where it is illegal for families to have more than two children. The following passage appears on page 2:

At twelve, he knew better, but sometimes [Luke] still pictured the Government as a very big, mean, fat person, two or three times as tall as an ordinary man, who went around yelling at people, “Not allowed!” and “Stop that!” It was because of the way his parents and older brothers talked: “Government won’t let us plant corn there again.” “Government’s keeping the prices down.” “Government’s not going to like this crop.”

In one of our Skype video conversations during this business trip, I told my daughter how surprised I was about her book’s anti-government spin, considering her wish to avoid discussions about government. She replied that of course government is bad, but unlike our prior conversations, the book was interesting. I laughed out loud and told her how much I love her and missed her. Perhaps I’ve been more of an influence on her than I realized.

I have two daughters, and people who meet us together often ask me for parenting advice. Whether these people are libertarian friends or whether they’re strangers admiring my daughters’ behavior on an airplane, my answer invariably boils down to this:  Remember that each child is a person.

It’s not always easy. Sometimes I’ve had to take actions to keep my kids safe and/or keep store owners from throwing us out, and these actions have occasionally caused disappointment. I’ve made a habit of involving my kids in decisions that affect them, even when they were very young, and even when I was tempted to say, “Just do it” or “Because I said so.” I’ve taken responsibility for my actions, especially when I’ve made mistakes. I strive to keep my actions consistent with my words, and I feel blessed that my kids have decided to follow my example and have learned to trust me. I feel very blessed that my husband shares my parenting philosophy and partners with me every day in raising our kids.

Kids look to parents to answer questions, and they can ask a LOT of questions, from the trivial to the profound. When one of my daughters asked me if we believe in God, I replied by asking her what she believed. We had a fantastic conversation. My kids think critically about what they learn and to come to their own conclusions. Occasionally I get into arguments with my 11-year old who currently believes some form of government is necessary to enforce the laws she holds dear. And my 12-year old isn’t interested in discussing government or politics because she thinks it’s boring. Part of raising kids to think for themselves is accepting their opinions when they disagree with me and trusting that we’re all capable of learning and evolving through open discussion. We all respect each other’s opinions or lack thereof even though we currently disagree about the substance and/or importance of some beliefs.

I’ve learned that respecting my daughters as individuals means that the golden rule doesn’t always apply.  When I was a kid, my mom tried to motivate me to lose weight by refusing to buy me any clothes. The year I was 12, I owned only one pair of pants that fit me, and I bought those with money I’d earned with my paper route. I was determined to be a different kind of mom and buy my kids all the clothes I never had growing up. But my daughters couldn’t care less about clothes. When I see them dressed in old clothes and offer to take them shopping, they tell me, “Mo-om, clothes aren’t important. It’s who you are that’s important, not your clothes.” I laugh and have to agree with them.

Sometimes parents get into authoritarian power struggles with their kids over trivial issues out of fear from being judged. While I sympathize with the peer-pressure we endure as parents, this type of fear is no excuse for forcing kids to do such things against their will. As mentioned above, my kids don’t care much about their appearance, and this pertains to hair as well as clothes. They will usually brush their hair if I ask them to do so, but sometimes they refuse. This irks me, I admit, but it’s not a big deal… if people want to judge me for having messy-haired kids in raggedy clothes, they are entitled to their opinion and all the “tsk – tsk’s” they choose to send my way. I’ll be the one having a blast with my thoughtful, wonderful kids.

There are a number of gangs that claim to be in charge of various geographic regions. Occasionally, they go to war with each other.  These gangs establish protection rackets to fund their operations, and they supplement those funds through deals with business associates to force competition out of the market.

I don’t grant special privileges to some gangs over others just because they call themselves government. However, I notice what people in these gangs do and I work around them whenever possible. Sometimes, I pretend to go along with them until I’m in a safer place. I notice the actions of each individual, regardless of whether they’re wearing a costume or badge.

Since I’ve been seeing the world more clearly, I see also that gangs don’t rule the world. Take a look around you and see all the ways people interact with each other freely… People selling goods at farmer’s markets… People exchanging services with friends and neighbors… People going to rummage sales and getting their nails done. Individuals who interact with each other freely far outnumber individuals in gangs that call themselves government. What’s more, there are a number of people within these gangs who refuse to initiate violence.  I’m inspired by these and all of my fellow inhabitants on this planet who interact freely every day.

My vision for a free world:  We’re soaking in it.

Here’s how it works:

1. Government passes a law and starts enforcing.
2. Under the banner of “compliance,” individuals in businesses create checklists designed to standardize processes. This discourages responsibility and trust among individuals working in the company. People stop thinking about what to do as they follow company procedures.
3. Some of these individuals begin engaging in business practices that coerce or harm others.
4. People and media notice these actions, and they contact their government representatives.
5. Government convenes hearings where CEOs testify that their companies engaged in horrible practices because the law allowed it.
6. Government passes a new law and starts enforcing…and the cycle begins again.

The Cycle in Action

The practice of “recission” by some employees working in the US health insurance industry offers an example of this cycle in action.  Recission has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between parties, to rescind or set aside a contract.

On July 27, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing about recission. The proceedings from this hearing highlighted the harmful actions taken by some insurance company employees. The committee’s supplemental report summarized the “haphazard collection of inconsistent state and federal laws” that contributed to the decisions by insurance company executives to support the practice of recission in their companies.

Incomprehensible Forms

During the hearing, Chairman Bart Stupak, a congressman from Michigan, asked Don Hamm, CEO of Assurant Health, whether he could explain the company’s insurance application form. Mr. Hamm ducked the question, claiming he wasn’t sure if the application form was current.

Effects of Recission on a Patient

Robin Beaton testified at the hearing regarding her struggles with her insurance company. When Ms. Beaton filed a claim for breast cancer treatment, Blue Cross/Blue Shield refused to pay for this treatment while they conducted an investigation triggered by a diagnosis of acne in her prior medical records. Subsequently, they rescinded her coverage.

According to Ms. Beaton’s testimony,

There is a nurse in my church who works full time for Blue Cross. Her sole job is to go through medical records searching for reasons to cancel people’s policies. After she heard what happened to me, she came to me and told me how very sorry she was.

Ms. Beaton turned to congressman Joe Barton of Texas for help. Three months later, her insurance was reinstated and she finally received surgery. During the time of this treatment delay, her tumor had grown from 2 cm to 7 cm.

Many other examples of recission’s human toll are highlighted in one of the committee’s fact sheets.

“Doesn’t That Bother You?”

Following testimony of patients whose policies had been rescinded upon filing claims, committee chair Bart Stupak asked Don Hamm, CEO of Assurant Health,

Doesn’t it bother you that people are going to die because you insist on reviewing a policy that somebody took out in good faith and forgot to tell you that they were being treated for acne? Doesn’t that bother you?

Mr. Hamm replied,

Yes, sir, it does. And we regret the necessity that that has to occur even a single time.

Perhaps further evidence that Assurant’s employees are bothered by the consequences of recission, when I tried to link to the Assurant television commercial that the committee had posted on YouTube, I saw the following message instead:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Assurant Health.

In a radio program a few weeks after the hearing, committee member Jan Schakowsky from Illinois said,

Looking at the face of a woman who had fast-moving breast cancer that could take her life, I just could not understand how the people who were testifying for the insurance industry could sleep at night, as people, as individuals.

I don’t often sympathize with politicians, but I share this congresswoman’s confusion.

Effects of Recission on Insurance Companies

If you suspect that the practice of recission is motivated by profits, you’re probably right.

According to the committee’s supplemental report,

On June 9, 2009, Committee staff conducted an interview of Michael Corne, the Vice President of Health Products, Marketing, Government, and Regulatory Affairs for Golden Rule. Mr. Corne asserted that the company maintains no single list of diagnoses that automatically trigger reviews. Mr. Corne was unable to explain in detail the company’s process for triggering investigations, but he did confirm that one variable considered is the cost of the treatment.

As described in another fact sheet, the three companies with CEOs who testified in the hearing rescinded nearly 20,000 policies and saved more than $300 million through recission during 2003-2007. Some insurance companies have clearly profited from aggressive recission practices. But if you think their actions would have been worse without the government and its regulatory framework, I would disagree. If it weren’t for the regulatory framework, many more people would see the truth:  the responsibility for these individuals’ actions lies with the individuals.

Would You Do Business with these People?

Committee chairman Bart Stupak polled the CEOs about their intentions for recission going forward.  All three refused to end the practice of recission, even if they could find no intentional fraudulent misrepresentation in the application. Two of the three CEOs cited compliance with state laws as their justification for the practice.

The video of this CEO testimony unfortunately did not capture the full quote from Brian Sassi, President and CEO of Wellpoint, who replied,

No, I can’t commit to that. The intentional standard is not the law of the land in the majority of states.*

The committee’s report described a November 15, 2008 letter from Stephen J. Northrup, Vice President of Wellpoint, which stated that his company “follows each state’s statutes and applicable case law as its standard for recission.”

I was relieved to learn that my insurance company was not among those cited in the committee’s report, and I have requested additional information from my insurer about their recission practices. I do not knowingly do business with people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Compliance with the law is no excuse.

More Government is the Cure for Bad Government?

The committee concluded their report by quoting the three insurance company CEOs who testified at the hearing. Each of these men stated his support for the U.S. government’s plan to require health insurance for everyone, and each claimed this reform would eliminate the need for recission. After reading this conclusion, I couldn’t help but wonder about the shared interests of the different parties in this hearing. It seems like insurance companies are hoping to benefit from all the new clients they’ll have if government makes insurance mandatory, and it seems like the committee members are hoping to benefit by broadening their authority and gaining votes from a popular issue. Meanwhile, the patients whose policies were rescinded continue to suffer and die.

What’s next?

Will “healthcare reform” solve the problems caused by the reprehensive practices of some insurance company employees? I don’t think so. Despite the length of most laws, and even with the best intent of most legislators, it is not possible for laws to cover every scenario that may occur. Laws are ineffective at best; most laws hurt more than they help the problems they’re intended to fix.

Laws are expensive—both financially and otherwise. They discourage individual responsibility and they help governments grow. This example from the healthcare insurance industry is one of many that follow a similar cycle.

How Can We Break the Cycle?

We can stop doing business with any person or company who uses compliance as an excuse to avoid responsibility for their business practices.

We can break the cycle each step of the way. I work in a highly regulated industry, and in the section below, I’ve italicized each step of the cycle, followed in plain text by the actions I take to break the cycle at that stage.

1.  Government passes a law and starts enforcing.

I ignore most laws. However, if I become aware of a law that’s likely to affect me or my business, I adapt my practices as needed to minimize government intervention. Meanwhile, I continue to do what I know is right, even if the law seems to prohibit doing so.

2.  Under the banner of “compliance,” individuals in businesses create processes and checklists designed to take away variances. This discourages responsibility and trust among individuals working in the company. People stop thinking about what to do as they follow company procedures.

When people around me stop thinking, I ask questions and raise awareness of consequences in order to provoke thinking and moral action.

3.  Some of these individuals begin engaging in business practices that coerce or harm others.

I am not aware of any coercive or harmful practices at my current company. But in general, when people try to use compliance as an excuse to justify evil actions anywhere, I take defensive action. Sometimes I also offer mutual aid to victims. Compliance is no excuse. In cases where someone didn’t realize the consequences of his or her actions, I help the person understand and take responsibility.

4.  People and media notice these actions, and they contact their government representatives.

Whenever I observe someone carrying out policies that I believe are wrong, I address my grievance to that individual directly or to someone else in their company if the individual is not known to me. Sometimes I enlist the support of allies. I do not ask government employees to intervene in my disputes or to “fix the system” for me.

5.  Government convenes hearings where CEOs testify that their companies engaged in horrible practices because the law allowed it.

If I become aware of any information about practices that I believe are wrong, I use that information and act accordingly through mutual aid to victims and/or through defensive action against the aggressors. I do not do business with people who use compliance to justify their disgusting and harmful business practices. I do business with people who have a history of responsible action.

6.  Government passes a new law and starts enforcing… and the cycle begins again.

I continue doing what I know is right, even if the law seems to prohibit doing so.

Please join me in breaking this cycle! I believe the solution lies in holding individuals responsible for their own actions, regardless of laws.

Notes:

* Episode #386 of the This American Life radio program included additional audio from this quote. Many thanks to Ira Glass and the crew at This American Life for bringing this hearing to my attention through their excellent weekly podcast.

The question of what is legal seemed to be interfering with some of my friends’ views about what is right. Ironically, just yesterday a friend pointed out that I’d been doing the same thing! That goes to show you: no video can take the place of a good friend and friendly discussion.

On that note, I view this as a work in progress and look forward to knowing your comments.

Click here to view the embedded video.

For years my political beliefs were defined by what they were not:

• I could not support Democrats because I know the free market is more efficient than any government.
• I could not support Republicans because they promote fear to justify violence and spending even more than Democrats;
• I could not support Libertarians because they do whatever it takes to get elected just like all other politicians; and
• I didn’t think I could support anarchy, because anarchy is unknown, and unknowns are scary.

My friends who are Democrats agree that government is inefficient. These friends ask me:  “Do you want all the government you pay for?” My answer: “No! But I wish I didn’t have to pay taxes.”

My friends who are Republicans agree that government is too involved and spending too much on wars. These friends ask me, “How else are we going to protect ourselves?” I was stuck not being able to answer this question for many years.

Fortunately, learning more about unknowns makes them less scary.  Over the past few months, I’ve studied a few examples of anarchy in action and some ideas on how it might work. Throughout this post are links with references to some of my study materials, and the links on my blogroll provide additional information.

In the process of learning more about anarchy, it has become less scary. I’ve met some great friends who’ve argued with me and inspired me to imagine ways we could make anarchy work. Through these studies and discussions, my vision for a free world has become clearer.

Free Trade: Is it Enough?

In a stateless society, we depend on each other rather than government. A commonly proposed mechanism to facilitate stateless interaction is free trade. Free trade is clearly the best mechanism for allocating resources and maximizing everyone’s potential. However, a world in which all interactions are based on contractual relationships falls short of my vision for the free world I want to live in.

When I think about free trade as the only mechanism governing interactions, I see a cold hard world where every relationship is contractual. And I worry about tyranny of the rich over the poor and disabled. But one of my core beliefs leads me to reject this world view as incomplete:  I believe in the fundamental goodness of human beings.

I believe I am not alone in wanting to live in a community that would voluntarily support the disabled or ill people among us. I believe that when we are free to pursue our own interests, those interests will include helping each other even in the absence of contracts.

Volunteering is in My Best Interest

Our work is one of our most precious assets; it requires investments of time and energy. In many cases we are rewarded for these investments through trade or equity in future profits. When I see people volunteering their services to make the world a better place, I admire them, and sometimes I choose to join them.

The following preferences are fundamental to my reasons for joining them:

• I prefer to be moving forward. When I find myself complaining, I either accept what I’m complaining about or I do something that I believe will help fix the problem; and
• I like feeling powerful, and I will do many things to avoid feeling helpless.

Following are some personal examples of volunteering despite (in some cases) the government’s best efforts to thwart my efforts:

Volunteering to Help a Government Agency

For the past three years I’ve volunteered to help maintain a so-called county park near my house three mornings a week.

Volunteering for a government agency like this has some consequences and risks:

• It may mask or enable poor performance in county employees and enable growth of unproductive park staff and taxes in future;
• It may be dangerous:  I may hurt myself or be mugged, especially on dark winter mornings;
• If there is too much to do (e.g., garbage in hard-to-reach places), it may drain my energy and render me too tired for other work later; and
• In order to obtain the keys to open the park and avoid arrest for my work in the park, I was required to allow the county to take my finger prints. Of all the things listed here, this one gave me the most pause.

Despite all these barriers, there are more park volunteers in my community than the county can use.  The fact that the county regularly turns volunteers away fuels my faith in the fundamental goodness of people.

I choose to volunteer at the park despite these barriers, because:

• Exercise gives me energy, and having a responsibility to my community inspires me to get my butt off the couch at least three days/ week;
• I prefer walking in a clean park, and the natural beauty of the park makes me happy;
• When my neighbors see me volunteering in the park, they often stop and talk to me or join me rather than walking on their way. This makes me feel happy and connected with my community; and
• I am the kind of person who picks up trash rather than complain about it. Doing something makes me feel powerful, and that is a better feeling than feeling helpless or worse, dependent on government to solve my problems.

What about Companies?

Companies typically use contracts for most interactions; however, they also facilitate volunteering without contracts. I currently work for a global technology company. One of the most difficult issues we face is recruiting talented scientists and engineers. It costs my employer a lot of money to recruit talented scientists from other parts of the world and it costs even more to help those employees develop their talent after they begin work.

The problem has become worse in recent years, after the No Child Left Behind Act became law, requiring students in US schools to undergo standardized testing in order for their schools to receive federal government funding. As a result, schools have abandoned or scaled back many programs that don’t appear on these standardized tests, including science, arts and PE.

Among other things, this law leads high school graduates to choose non-scientific majors in college, which in turn causes a dearth of talented college graduates ready to work in technology. Critical and creative thinking are not measured on the standardized tests required for federal funding, yet these skills are vitally important to the profitability of technology companies.

Technology companies respond to these challenges in a variety of ways. Many complain to schools and lobby the various levels of government to change their policies. However, smart companies including my own employer recognize that this method has limited effectiveness.

Another action many companies take is supporting employees volunteering on work time to facilitate experiments, arts or music workshops and lectures in local schools. My employer supports and encourages these activities by allowing employees to volunteer on company time and by facilitating and recognizing accomplishments of employee groups who organize volunteering opportunities. This type of company-sponsored volunteering program benefits the community, employees and employer and is a good example of creating value by working together.

Sweat Equity

Sometimes I volunteer my time because it’s fun to collaborate with others toward a common and compelling goal. For example, my friend Dan is working on solar energy technologies, and he invited me to collaborate with him because we share a common goal of leaving our planet a better place for our grand-children’s grand-children and so on.

Dan and I have collaborated as colleagues and co-inventors through our work with a prior common employer. Our work there was so much fun and made such a difference in the world that if I were independently wealthy, I would do it all again without pay.

In the case of the solar energy initiative we’ve undertaken, our efforts may never pay off financially, but it’s fun anyway and maybe we’ll make the world a better place again through our work. In the process, we might build a profitable business, but that’s not our primary incentive. The initiative is in early stages and fun enough to do without any expectation of future profit or fear of future loss.

Ideas come easily to me, but reduction to practice is difficult. My best wish is for someone to run with my ideas and invest the funding and work required to make them happen. If at any point our work on this solar initiative becomes difficult for either of us or other collaborators, we will establish a contractual relationship. Until then, we re happy to collaborate as friends, voluntarily.

What about Protection?

Smart people have outlined ways in which dispute resolution organizations (DROs) and insurance companies might work to protect people in a stateless, free trade system. One such work is the Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill. Another is Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy by Robert Murphy.

After studying these works, I believe DROs and insurance companies play important roles in protection and could become much more important in future. I also believe that free trade would provide checks and balances required to preclude any one of them monopolizing a region, thereby becoming a government. However, these types of organizations aren’t necessarily the only possible actors for providing protection in the absence of government. We can help each other.

For example, I recently offered to help protect my friend George’s rights for free. He replied that he wouldn’t accept a sacrifice from me, only a contract. I rejected this idea, because it seemed ridiculous to enter into a contract with George for something I would volunteer to do without any expectation for reciprocity. I wouldn’t force my protection on him, but neither would I charge him for my services.

The important thing in this example is that it is in my self-interest to protect George’s rights. George’s writing helps me think, and I enjoy our discussions. I value George’s contributions; whether or not he would choose to reciprocate in kind or otherwise, his freedom is important to me.

Penn Jillette helped clarify my vision for protection in a 2007 interview that I watched recently on YouTube. He said:

Although I use guns in our show, I hate being around them. My feeling about gun control is that everyone in the country should have a gun except me, because I hate to carry things…. If everybody else has a gun, you’re OK because the overwhelming majority of people are good. And so if they all have guns, the bad guys are outnumbered, automatically.

Penn’s comments reminded me of the advice I was shocked to receive back in middle school PE from a self-defense expert who volunteered to speak with us that day. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the name of this wise man, but I remember his advice very clearly. Specifically, he advised us that if we ever find ourselves in trouble, we should run toward places where there are people and yell for help. One of the kids in my class asked whether he meant we should talk to strangers, and the expert’s reply (paraphrased) was: “Yes. DO talk to strangers, because most people are good, and they’re your best chance to escape.”  Now, over 20 years later, I teach the same thing to my kids.

What about Emergencies?

If a child ran up to me in the street and said he needed my help, my first response would be to drop everything and help him. If it turned out to be some kind of prank, I’d figure it out soon enough and send him on his way, perhaps also with a story about the Boy Who Cried Wolf. But my first instinct would be to help him.

Helping a child in need is in my self-interest in the following ways:

• I have a lizard-brained instinct to help children in need, and fighting my natural instincts would likely take more energy than providing the help.
• I like to believe I live in a community where most strangers would help and not turn away from a child in need. If I had reason to believe that most people in my community would refuse to help in emergencies, I would move.
• I am the kind of person who would help a child in need. This is part of my identity, and my actions under such circumstances speak louder than any words I may say or any contracts I may sign. Taking actions that are consistent with my identity gives me strength and confidence.
• I would feel proud that the child placed his trust in me by asking for my help. The flip side of my pride is responsibility to show him that his trust in me is well-placed.

Summary

Volunteering is an important part of my life. If we study examples of sustained volunteering around us, we will likely find that volunteers are concurrently taking care of their own self-interests through doing so.

If you disagree with anything I’ve written here, I look forward to knowing your comments. I enjoy learning, and different perspectives help me refine and clarify my vision. Please also let me know if I’ve inspired you through my words here; your support helps motivate me to continue blogging and tweeting.

Join me in the good fight toward a free world!