First, I would like to thank the Mises Institute, the staff, the sponsors for this opportunity.
Also, I would like to thank my friends Giancarlo, Ivar Wen, Pablo and Alberto, who made this
possible.
So basically, I'm going to talk about the free cities and the United States of America
was the closest we have ever been to set a republic with a limited government.
However, we constantly have seen how the Leviathan has been growing.
The government of the United States instituted by the people to protect the individual rights
has become the main threat for these rights.
That is why Austrian school members must explore new alternatives and Free Cities Project seems
seems like an interesting program to investigate. In this essay, we will address and explain
our reasons for a change. Autogovernment is more accurate than anarcho-capitalism. In
this discussion, we will explore what kind of government is possible in a free city,
which will require an autogovernance. We do not pretend to exhaust the topic in the present
essay but we expect to initiate a debate on this topic. Recently there has been a
lengthy debate within the Austrian School of Economy members, those who believe
there must be a state and those who think the state should not exist any
longer. In a recent article published by Jesus Huerta de Soto he discusses what he
He believes is the fatal error of classical liberalism.
In a current book published by Adrian Rabier in an interview with Alberto Venegas Lynch
Jr. is included.
He explains why the use of the term auto-government is more accurate than anarcho-capitalism.
The Negas Lynch Jr. tell us that the expression anarcho-capitalism can be a little bit hazy,
since it is composed of two concepts, anarchy and capitalism.
The first one alludes to the anarchist tradition, originally socialist.
On the other hand, capitalism was a term coined by Engels and Marx.
The project Free Cities is part of this investigation program where there is no state and a coercive
use of force.
First, we need to explore, we need to define what we understand by a free city.
It is a special economic zone with a distinct legal structure.
A free city that is successful will increase its size and be able to expand the scope of its reforms.
While the concept of a free city has only been discussed in the recent years as an alternative to modern society,
we find that it has existed in history.
There were auto-governed cities during the Hellenistic and Roman imperial areas.
So, once we get to a free city, what kind of government is possible?
Some people misunderstand the concept of a free city because their perception of a lack
of coercive force as a state is that inevitably it will lead to chaos where there will be
no rules and no form of governance.
Now, let's try to explore what are the governance possibilities within a private city.
Basically, we will explore three kinds of organization, totalitarianism, democracy and the republic.
In order to explain this, I will ask you to imagine as an example a condominium community.
In the first case, totalitarianism, we can imagine a company or a person owning the condo.
It will be totally private and people moving into it by voluntary choice.
The owners keep their rights to decide the rules and the rates to be paid.
In this organization, there will be a coercive use of force into the private property.
Of course, the authorities are not going to have any input and we all know what that means.
They lack the ability to possess all the knowledge to organize such a society and as a matter
of fact, let me say that Aristotle considered this to be tyranny, a form of government.
The second scenario, the democracy, and we will not discuss the origin of this word,
But we all know that it implies the rule of the majority.
Thomas Jefferson referred to the democracy as the rule of the mob, since the majority
of the people can take away the rights of the minority groups.
Let us go back to our condo example and consider a case presented by a Spanish TV show.
In this building, a community, a condo building, where a family or a person owns a property,
there are some communal areas such as pool, an elevator, halls, the parking spaces, the
roof, and all that one can imagine such a condo could have.
A kind of government is instituted since the very beginning to administer the common areas
and to set the rules.
It perfectly demonstrates the idea
that Jefferson had about democracy.
Each tenant had to ask for the permission of the community
to make basic change even inside their ownership.
It gets to a level where they have to consult
the rest of the community to approve or deny upgrades
or enhancement to their houses, or even if they want to have a barbecue on a Friday night.
Of course, this implies a lack of respect for individual rights.
We see that it is not the most efficient way to administer the common property.
In a funny way, we get to see the President calling himself the Almighty because people
are applauding him. Of course, it is all in a satiric way to represent what democracy
can do, but in reality, as the United States has started to move and abandon the principles
of the republic to become a democracy, we see it daily, to a point that Obama is saying
Now, let us explore the last form of government we have proposed for the administration of
the common property.
The term republic means the public matter, or respublica.
Now what public matter are we talking about?
We said that the condo has private and common areas.
So the Republic will be a form to administer the common property of the owners.
Aristotle considered the Republic as a result of the combination of two systems, oligarchy
and democracy.
The Republic should maintain characteristics from both forms of government, perhaps to
the point where there is some overlap, but not to the point where one form is confused
or Interpreted as the Other.
Considering again our case of the condo,
considering again our case of the condo,
a kind of government could be elected by universal suffrage.
And let us not confuse this mechanism with democracy,
which is a different kind of system.
This government is going to have its power delegated
by the people.
This government will only administer their common property.
The fact that a government is instituted does not mean it is going to hold the monopoly
of force.
Security and justice within it is going to be enforced by private companies.
The very important feature of it is that it is not a government of people but a government
of law.
Law as Frederic Bastiat understood it.
This might seem impossible for some people.
However, let me tell you, in my country, in Guatemala, this structure has been in existence for a long time.
All services are provided by private companies.
Most of these communities have their own rules, and one must accept them to buy your property.
In most cases, the results are very positive since it is a voluntary act.
In the same way, in a free city, all individuals moving in will be assuming their responsibilities freely.
So, now let us conclude that free cities represent a whole new world of possibilities,
and we as libertarians must explore the alternatives.
Every attempt to limit the state has not been possible.
Benegas Lynch, Jr., as well as other intellectuals,
believed the United States of America
was the closest we have ever been to set a free society,
even though we get to see how the state has kept growing
as a black hole in the space, swallowing all kind of resources.
This essay was written as a way to start an investigation
about the way a free city can be governed.
The main purpose is to start a debate on this topic
as well as to contribute to explore the alternatives we
have.
A completed plan to make a transition
from our actual organization to a free society
must require the deconstruction of the idea
of Needing an External Government.
And that is why we consider Veneta Lynch Jr.'s idea
on auto-government is accurate and more precise
than the concept of anarcho-capitalism.
Thank you very much.