21A050 A Re-Write of the 1900s by Jim Davies, 12/28/2021  


Sometimes, I'm challenged by a person lacking imagination, who suggests a zero government society could not possibly "work." That's one reason I wrote the book "A Vision of Liberty" and if by chance you've not read it, please do. I can't make it any cheaper, so go now to download it here. It's a short attempt to show how such a society would work, and do so with vast improvements.

The illusion persists, though, among those who haven't done that - so here is another way to prove the point: to look back, instead of forwards. Suppose that one prominent country had, in the year 1900, sunk its government without trace. How, then, would world history have developed during the following hundred years?

It's tempting to pick a European country for that, since the world at that time was still Euro-centric; but no, let's assume that it was the USA that went anarchist. Now consider how that blood-soaked century would have fared.

Probably, WW1 would have begun as it actually did. The combatants were all European, and not much interested in the conduct of the upstart across the Atlantic, so that bloodbath would have started and after a year or so would have become bogged down in a stalemate - as it actually did. That's when each side would have looked Westwards for assistance.

Britain had cunningly anticipated such a need: before the War was a week old, the Royal Navy had cut the undersea telephone cable connecting Germany to North America - so London alone had easy access. Brits grabbed the opportunity and lobbied hard and well for the US to intervene.

But in this Revised Version of history, nobody would have been there to listen. Nobody with any serious clout, that is; some newspapers might have taken up the Anglo-French cause, some foolhardy young men might have volunteered, some banker might have risked extending a loan, as J P Morgan actually did (after making sure his friend President Wilson would bail him out if need arose) but there would have been no government in D.C. to hear the plea or marshall any army to venture Over There. Not even if a Lusitania had been steered into the path of a German U-boat.

So by 1915 the British, French, Italians and Russians would have known they were on their own. The latter were in trouble, and all the others were stuck. The two sides were equally matched and without the prospect of American help, even the dummies in charge could not have failed to grasp that they needed to patch up a peace, to abandon the senseless slaughter.

In November 1915 a cease-fire would have led to a peace agreement that left both sides standing - even monarchist Russia - and so minimized resentment. Germans had captured a lot of French territory as well as Belgium, and some of those gains would have become permanent. But all the soldiers would have gone home to resume normal life, and half of the 16 million deaths would not have occurred; that's a net saving of eight million lives. Just because the US FedGov wasn't there to answer the phone. Still think anarchism cannot work?

There's much more. Since nobody in the US was making laws, nobody could have written one prohibiting alcohol, and therefore the wave of organized crime that formed in the 1920s could not have happened. Yet that's nothing compared to the gain overseas; for while none of the WW1 combatants might have been satisfied, none of them would have been resentful or destitute, either.

Hence, there could have been no Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. Had one been attempted, it would have been put down as another was in 1905; the Tsar's forces would have been intact.

Hence also, and most crucially, Germans would not have felt cheated, as they certainly did after the 1919 Versailles settlement was imposed upon them; they would have gained some land instead of losing some, and would have known they had fought the enemy to a "draw" instead of a loss in 1918 following the US intervention. Therefore, no public outrage would have existed to avenge Versailles. No Hitler could have excited voters enough to acquire power.

Therefore, no WW2 would have taken place and the 60- to 80 million people it killed would have gone on to live full lives. Still think anarchism cannot work?

No FDR would have been in power to manipulate the US into that non-existing War, so no US-Japan conflict would have arisen and no atom bomb would have polluted history in August 1945. Then, since Russia would have had no occasion to occupy Eastern Europe, there'd have been no Cold War.

Hence, no Korean War and no Vietnam. Further: since there'd have been no WW2 Holocaust, there'd have been no wave of sympathy to encourage the Jews in Europe to establish the State of Israel; so there'd have been no displaced Palestinians to disrupt the Middle East for the rest of the Century and beyond - nor, of course, any US Government to intervene on its behalf even if one was established. Any Israel would have had to stand on its own feet. Still think anarchism cannot work?

After 1915, a century of peace; and a saving of close to 100 million lives. Not a bad achievement, for just one country disposing of the crushing burden of government. Now it's your turn: how much more yet would have been achieved, if every country had become a zero government society?

What the coming free society
will probably be like
How freedom
was lost
How it is being
The go-to site for an
overview of a free society
Freedom's prerequisite:
Nothing more is needed
Nothing less will do

What every bureaucrat needs to know
Have them check TinyURL.com/QuitGov

How Government Silenced Irwin Schiff

2016 book tells the sad story and shows that government is even more evil than was supposed