Following some questions I’ve received regarding how law and justice could work in a non-coercive, stateless society, I’m posting one of the best descriptions I’ve read recently of how dispute resolution might take place in the absence of the State. This is from Stefan Molyneux’s Practical Anarchy:

Dispute Resolution Organizations

An essential aspect of economic life is the ability to enforce contracts and resolve intractable disputes. How can a stateless society provide these functions in the absence of a government?

The first thing to understand about contracts is that they are a form of insurance, insofar as they attempt to minimize the risks of noncompliance. If I enter into a five-year mortgage agreement with a bank, I will attempt to minimize my risks by requiring that the bank give me a fixed interest rate for the time period of the contract. My bank, on the other hand, will minimize its risk by retaining ownership of my house as collateral, in case I do not pay the mortgage.

In a world without risk, contracts would be unnecessary, and everyone would do business on a handshake. However, there are people who are dishonest, scatterbrained, manipulative and false, and so we need contracts which basically spell out the penalties for noncompliance to particular requirements.

In modern statist societies, contracts are generally enforced not through the court system, but rather through the threat of the court system. I was in business for many years, at an executive level, and I never once heard of a contract being successfully enforced through the state court system, although I did on occasion hear litigious threats – which is quite different. The threat was not so much, “I am going to use the court to enforce this contract,” but rather, “I am going to use the threat of taking you to court in order to enforce this contract.” The prospect of expensive and time-consuming legal action was always enough to force a resolution of some kind. No actual court compulsion was ever required.

It is quite easy to see that when a process that is designed to mediate disputes becomes itself a threat which causes disputes to be mediated privately, it has largely failed in its intent. State court systems have become like the quasi-private car insurance companies – the threats and inconvenience of using them has caused most people to settle their disputes privately, rather than involve themselves in something that they are forced to pay for, but can almost never use.

This bodes very well for anarchic solutions to contract disputes.

In a stateless society, entrepreneurs will be very willing and eager to provide creative solutions to the problems of contractual noncompliance. As a nonviolent solution, the profits will be maximized if noncompliance can be prevented, rather than merely addressed after the fact.

To take a simple example, let us pretend that you are a loans officer at a bank, and I come in requesting $10,000. Naturally, you will be very happy to lend me the money if I will pay back both the principal and interest on time, since that is how you make your profit. However, such a guarantee is completely impossible, since even if I have the money and the intent to pay you back, I could get hit by a bus while on my way to do so, leaving you perhaps $10,000 in the hole.

What questions will you need to answer in order to assess the risk? You will want to know two things in particular:

1. Have I consistently paid back loans in the past?
2. Do I have any collateral for the loan?

These two pieces of information are somewhat related. If I have consistently paid back loans in the past, then your need for collateral will be diminished. The more collateral that I am able to provide for the loan, the less it is necessary for me to have a good credit history.

The reason that a good credit history is so necessary is not just to establish my credit worthiness, but also to help the bank assess how much I have currently invested into my good reputation. If I have taken out loans for hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past, and repaid them on time, then it scarcely seems likely that I would have gone through all of that just to steal $10,000.

If we say that my good credit rating saves me two percentage points on my interest payments, and that I will need a further $500,000 of loans over the course of my life, then my good credit rating will be saving me at a bare minimum tens of thousands of dollars. Thus, I would end up losing money if I took out a $10,000 loan and did not pay it back, since the cash benefit would not cover the losses I would incur through the destruction of my credit rating. Physical “collateral” is thus less required, since I have the very real “collateral” of a good credit rating.

These kinds of economic calculations occur regularly in a statist society, and would not vanish like the morning mist in a stateless society.

However, there are certain kinds of loans that some financial institutions would be willing to make, despite the high level of risk involved. Young people just starting out – who have no family to provide collateral – would be in a higher risk category, as would those who had failed to make loan payments in the past. As we can see from late-night television commercials for cars, no credit history – or even a bad credit history – does not make one permanently ineligible for loans.

There are two main ways to manage risk in any complex situation – hedging, and insurance. The “hedging” approach is to bet both for and against a particular outcome. In the world of currency trading, this means betting a certain amount that the dollar will go up, and another amount that the dollar will go down. In the world of horse racing, it means betting on more than one horse. This is also why people diversify their stock portfolios.

The “insurance” approach tends to be used where hedging is impossible. When I was an executive in the software world, my employees would often take out insurance in case I got sick or died. It was relatively impossible to “hedge” this risk, because keeping “backup employees” in a basement is not particularly cost-efficient, let alone moral. Life insurance is another example of this.

These strategies are already well-established in the current quasi-free market. However, in one-to-one contracts, state courts retain their monopoly. If I am an employee, I have a one-to-one contract with my employer; I cannot “hedge” the risks involved in this contract, and currently neither can I buy insurance to mitigate the risk that my employer will go out of business, while still owing me pay and expenses.

In the absence of a government, the need for the rational mitigation of risk in contracts would still be there, and entrepreneurs will inevitably provide creative and intelligent solutions to address this.

Breaking Contract

Let us take a relatively small example of how contract disputes can be resolved in a stateless society.

Let us say that I pay you $15,000 to landscape my garden, but you never show up to do the work. Ideally, I would like my $15,000 back, as well as another few thousand dollars for my inconvenience. In a stateless society, when we first put pen to paper on a contract, we can choose an impartial third party to mediate any dispute. If a conflict should arise that we cannot solve ourselves, we contractually agree in advance to abide by the decision of this Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO).

Since I am not an expert in pursuing people and getting money from them, if I had any doubts about your motives, capacity and honesty, I would simply pay this DRO a fee to recompense me if the deal goes awry. If you run off without doing the work, I simply submit my claim to the DRO, who then pays me $20,000.

When I first apply for this insurance, the DRO will charge me a certain amount of money, based on their evaluation of the risk I am taking by doing business with you. If you have cheated your last ten customers, the DRO will simply not insure the contract, thus implicitly informing me of the risk that I am taking. If you have a spotty record, then the DRO may charge me a few thousand dollars to insure your work – again, giving me a pretty good sense of how reliable you are.

On the other hand, if you have been in business for 30 years, and have never once cheated a customer, or received a complaint, then the DRO is simply insuring against delays caused by sudden madness or unexpected death. It may only charge me $50 for this eventuality.

This form of contract insurance is a very powerful positive incentive for honest dealings in business. The cost of insuring a contract is directly added to the cost of doing business, and so if it can be kept as low as humanly possible, the financial benefits to both parties are clear.

The cost of insuring a contract can be kept even lower if you are willing to provide collateral upfront. What this means is that if you cheat me out of the $15,000, and the DRO has to pay me $20,000, you promise to pay the DRO $25,000. If you cheat me, the DRO can then take this money directly out of your bank account.

In this way, contracts can be enforced without resorting to violence, or lengthy and incredibly expensive court battles. The risks of entering into contracts are clearly communicated up front, and honest people will be directly rewarded through lower enforcement costs, just as non-smokers are directly rewarded through lower life insurance costs.

Non-Payment

Suppose I have contracted with a DRO to pay restitution if I cannot fulfill my business obligations in some way, and end up owing them $100,000. What happens if I cannot pay, or simply refuse to pay?

Currently, the State will use violence against me if I do not pay. While this may be a satisfying form of medieval vengeance gratification, it scarcely helps me cough up $100,000 that the DRO actually wants from me. In a stateless society, what options are available for the DRO to get its money?

In any modern economy, individuals are bound by dozens of obligations and contracts, from apartment leases to gym memberships to credit cards contracts to insurance agreements. The costs of doing business with people who are known to honor their contracts is far lower, which is why it seems highly likely that a stateless society produce both DROs, and Contract Rating Agencies (CRAs).

CRAs would be independent entities that would objectively evaluate an individual’s contract compliance. If I become known as a man who regularly breaks his contracts, it will become more and more difficult for me to efficiently operate in a complex economy. This form of economic ostracism is an immensely powerful – and nonviolent – tool for promoting compliance to social norms and moral rules.

If an individual egregiously violates social norms – and we shall get to the issue of violent crime below – then one incredibly effective option that society has is to simply cease doing any form of business with such an individual.

If I cheat my DRO – or another individual – out of an enormous sum of money, the CRA could simply revoke my contract rating completely.

DROs would very likely have provisions which would simply state that they would not enforce any contract with anyone whose contract rating was revoked. In other words, if I run a hotel, and an “outcast” wants to rent a room, I will be immediately aware of this, since I will enter his credit card, and be promptly informed that no contract will be honored with this individual. In other words, if he sets fire to my hotel, steals or destroys property, or harasses another guest, then my DRO will not help me at all. Will I be likely to want to rent a room to this fellow, or will I tell him that, sadly, the hotel is full?

In the same way, grocery stores, taxicabs, bus companies, electricity providers, banks, restaurants and other such organizations will be very unlikely to want to do business with such an outcast, since they will have no protection if he misbehaves.

Economic interactions, of course, are purely voluntary, and no man can be morally forced to do business with another man. People who cheat and steal and lie will be highly visible in a stateless society, and will find that other people will turn away from them more often than not, unless they change their ways, and provide restitution for their prior wrongs.

An outcast can get his contract rating restored if he is willing to repay those he has wronged. If he gets a job and allows his wages to be garnished until his debts are paid off, his contract rating can be restored, at least to the minimum level required for him to hold a job and rent an apartment. A DRO, which is always interested in preventing recurrence, rather than dealing with consequences, may also reduce his burden if he is willing to attend psychological and credit counseling education.

In this way, contracts can be enforced without resorting to violence – the tool of economic and social ostracism is the most powerful method for dealing with those who repeatedly violate moral and social rules. We do not need to throw people into economically unproductive “debtor’s prisons” or send men with guns to kidnap and incarcerate them – all we need to do is publish their crimes for all to see, and let the natural justice of society take care of the rest.

Ah, but what if an “outcast” has been treated unjustly, and is being blackmailed by a DRO or CRA?

Well, remember that anarchism is always a two-sided negotiation. In order to get people to sign up to your DRO or CRA, what checks and balances would you put in your contracts to calm their fears in this regard?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ve had a change of heart! I think it would be great to have a public option for health insurance! In fact, it makes so much sense, I’m also starting a campaign for a public option for shoes! See, the same reasoning applies. Clearly, shoe manufacturers are unable to adequately provide good shoes at affordable prices because they’re beholden to the ‘almighty dollar.’ They don’t want us to have good shoes that last a long time, because then they would run out of customers. They’re naturally driven by evil market forces to produce shoes that fall apart quickly and then charge exorbitant prices for them so they can make more money. Yep, that’s definitely how it works. There simply aren’t many shoes out there, and the ones that do exist are extremely expensive and don’t even really fully cover our feet. That’s why millions of us are forced to walk around barefoot or in crappy but expensive shoes.

Join me in calling for a public option for shoes!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A friend of mine recently commented on one of my libertarian-themed facebook posts, saying that he believed purely free markets only help “businessmen” and harm “labor or the middle and working class.” He wanted to know what examples existed of free market success stories. While there are several issues that could be addressed here, I was a little short on time and limited myself to this response:

As for successes of the free market, pretty much every good or service you make use of in your life is a success story of the free market. The things that make our lives easier, healthier, more enjoyable–these things are the results of a multitude of individuals interacting voluntarily to produce things that people want. These accomplishments are DESPITE government control and regulations, not BECAUSE of them. Think about it on a micro scale. You want to have a yard sale to get rid of a bunch of things you no longer want. You’ll sell them for dirt cheap to people who do want them who would otherwise have to pay a lot more or go without. But imagine if, in order to “protect the consumer,” the government required you to get a state license (costing several hundred dollars and many months of licensing school) before you could hold your yard sale. This would likely prevent you from ever holding your yard sale. Those people who are really hurting for money would have far fewer options for obtaining the things they want, and there would emerge a small group of state-licensed yard sale specialists who would be able to charge much higher prices, thus making use of state violence to obtain a higher-than-market profit at the expense of the financially strapped yard sale customers. This is how government regulation works in EVERY area of the economy. Wealth creation between two parties is maximized when interference with their transaction is minimized. The amount of wealth that government violently destroys or prevents from ever even being created is truly staggering.

Of course, there’s also the fundamental point (made implicitly above) that every transaction, by definition, benefits both parties—otherwise, the transaction simply would not occur. Wealth is created on both sides, because both sides are made better off by the exchange. What every form of government action (taxes, regulations, subsidies, prohibitions, licensing, etc.) does is either outright prevent transactions or distort the decision-making process, resulting either in transactions that would not have occurred in the absence of force (and are thus unproductive) or in the prevention of productive transactions that would have taken place. Either way, there is a destruction of wealth, and society is worse off. Usually, this is compounded by the fact that most government policies actually serve to transfer any wealth that is produced (again, a smaller amount than would be created in the absence of government) to politically favored constituencies, which is both massively unjust and serves to motivate those groups to continue and expand those government policies while everyone from whom that wealth is being transferred fail to launch an effective opposition since each individual policy only transfers a small amount from them.

And just to head off the “OMG we’ll all die if the state doesn’t license doctors and plumbers” contingent out there: relax, we’ll be just fine. State licensing does not “protect” consumers as much as it prevents competition and raises the prices we have to pay for those licensed services. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t hire a service provider of any sort without the knowledge that the quality of their work is sufficient for my liking. And I don’t get that information from the fact that these people have government licenses. I get it from places like Angie’s List, brand identification, references, and general reputation. Just imagine all the ways a truly free market would devise to help us pick out the good doctors and plumbers and home builders. And even if such information is not totally free, think how much more money we’d have without the stifling taxes and wealth destruction of the state.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

After my post yesterday about Harry Reid’s comments, I received some interesting feedback in one particular forum where I linked the post. A couple of people appeared to be amused that I considered the New Deal and the government aggression leading up to it to be destructive. The following was basically my response to them (and it seemed like it would make a good stand-alone blog post):

The Great Depression was the result of the bursting of a government-created inflationary bubble (sound familiar?) combined with government policies pushed first by Republican Herbert Hoover and then by Democrat FDR that prevented prices and wages from falling to their natural market level and prevented unsound investments from being liquidated, which, while being temporarily painful, would have initiated a rapid readjustment of supply and demand and a return to productivity and employment–all without the government programs that plunged the country into permanent (seemingly) socialism and monetary manipulation.

Note that when the same basic initial conditions occurred in the early 1840s, the government did nothing to prevent the necessary price adjustments, and the period 1839-43 experienced a decrease in investment but an INCREASE in real consumption of 21% and in real GNP by 16%, whereas the period 1929-33 (with government controls interfering with the operation of the market) saw a DECREASE in real consumption of 19% and of real GNP by 30% (as discussed by Murray Rothbard in A History of Money and Banking in the United States).

So, the earlier depression came to a swift end when the government did not attempt to ’soften the blow’ or prop up the house of cards, but the Great Depression dragged on for years and caused incredible ruin when the government tried to work its Keynesian voodoo on the economy. Sadly, we appear today to be following the path of oppression and ruin rather than freedom and rebuilding.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Wow. I did a double-take on this one. Senator Harry Reid is claiming that this Congress has “passed more serious, substantive laws than any Congress since President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term.” Harry, Harry, Harry…

FDR’s first term (notwithstanding the incredible damage done by the preceding Hoover administration) did immense damage to our country, both deepening and prolonging what should have been a short-lived depression and laying the groundwork for the quasi-socialist authoritarian state the United States has become.

Harry Reid has just admitted (and is apparently proud of) the fact that our current Congress, in conjunction with the FDR-like authoritarian socialist Barack Obama, is on its way to repeat the catastrophic mistakes of that group of irrational miscreants from the 1930s.

Harry, thank you for doing my job for me by making clear the need to abolish the government before it can destroy any more lives.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Over at Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux once again hits the nail on the head when he points out the foolishness of government control of money through a central bank.

Here’s a snip:

Government bureaucrats with monopoly control over the supply of money can no more be expected to adjust that supply to optimally meet consumers’ nuanced and changing demands for money than could, say, government bureaucrats with monopoly control over the supply of bread be expected to adjust that supply to optimally meet consumers’ nuanced and changing demands for bread.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Obama and the more leftist Democrats in Congress are bound and determined to “fix” American health care with some form of massive federal involvement in health insurance coverage. As with the financial crisis, the government is purporting to fix a problem that stems from too much government interference in the market…by imposing even more government interference in the market.

In industries burdened far less by government tampering consumers get products of ever-increasing quality at ever-decreasing prices. In a free market we would especially expect to see such a pattern in health care, but we don’t. And the reason has nothing to do with “greedy” doctors or drug companies or insurance companies–unless of course you think that greed (that is, the natural human desire to improve one’s circumstances) is limited to the health care industry and that all those cell phone, computer, and coffee maker companies are giving you better and cheaper products out of a sense of charity. No, the reason has everything to do with government actions hindering a free market.

Here are just a few of the ways, in no particular order, that government (often in the name of “protecting the consumer”) keeps you from enjoying the benefits of a free market in health care:

1) Professional licensing. Every state government requires health care providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, chiropractors, etc.) to be licensed by the state. This is simply a barrier to entry that existing providers tend to favor because it reduces competition and allows them to charge higher fees. Rather than protect consumers, it leaves them with fewer (and more expensive) choices.

2) Pharmaceutical and medical device regulation. The FDA regulates drugs and devices and imposes massive costs on their development. The result is that many drugs and devices that could help people never make it to the market, and those that do are delayed by many years, are much more expensive, and usually are restricted even further by being prescription-only.

3) Tax code. The federal tax code creates an incentive for employers-provided health coverage (a practice that originated as a result of totalitarian WWII-era wage controls), thus encouraging extensive third-party medical payments. When consumers pay less for something, they use more of it. Medical providers know that individual consumers are not shopping around, so there’s less incentive for them to be competitive on price.

4) Medicare and Medicaid. Just as with government subsidies for college tuition, the subsidizing of health care through Medicare and Medicaid cause demand to be artificially increased, thus causing prices for everyone else to rise well beyond natural market levels. And of course the increasing prices drain individuals’ income and thus create additional “need” for Medicaid and other government welfare. In addition, when you subsidize health care, you incentivize poor health, increasing demand yet again. Finally, the large number of Americans now on Medicare, combined with the rules governing reimbursements for each procedure or medication, means that medical pricing in America is now grossly distorted by the federal government. On a related point, the government requires hospitals to admit and treat anyone who comes in, thus further increasing demand on these facilities and raising prices for everyone.

5) Insurance regulation. Insurance companies are regulated by state governments, which restrict insurers’ and consumers’ freedom to contract with one another as they see fit. Insurers are forced by law to insure uninsurable risks, thus driving up prices. They are prevented from effectively discriminating between various risk levels among consumers, driving up prices even more.

6) Perpetuating the “right to health care” myth. Government at all levels tends to make pronouncements and take actions that perpetuate the erroneous belief that there is a right to health care. Any regular readers of my blog know where I stand on that–it is logically impossible to have a right to something when the provision of that right requires the forcible confiscation of another person’s property (thus, there can be no such thing as a right to a certain level of health care, housing, wages, etc). But government creates a feedback loop with its health-care-is-a-right propaganda that boosts support for additional socialist measures to control health care.

These are just a few of the government actions that have caused our health care costs to rise so dramatically. And Obama’s solution is more government control of the industry? I can only hope there are enough Americans still possessing enough critical reasoning aptitude and desire for freedom and prosperity that this latest attempt to expand government oppression will fail.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Scientist has this article about how insurance could be used to at least partially mitigate the problems that poor people around the world might face as the result of some potential future climate change (warming? cooling? Krugmaning?).

As well as providing protection from the increasingly unpredictable weather, the premiums could also be a powerful way to get poor people to adapt to climate change by encouraging them to invest in measures like drought-resistant crops. Is this profit-driven endeavour too good to be true?

What’s so sadly amusing about this is that New Scientist describes it as if it’s some brilliant new discovery, but free market economists have been making that exact argument for decades. The magazine even tries to link it to tyrannical statists like former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (saying he’s a supporter of it), with the implication I guess being that it’s not really a free market process (because as the government schools teach us, nothing about the free market can help poor people)!

Now a different type of insurance scheme is being rolled out in Adi Ha and many other places in Africa, Latin America and Asia, backed by corporate giants such as Swiss Re and Munich Re. Instead of insuring against lost crops, “index insurance” protects farmers against the vagaries of the weather. For example, if rain gauges at local weather stations drop below a certain level, insurance companies can automatically transfer a payout to farmers without having to visit them.

The fact is, it’s long been a profitable business to insure farmers against lost crops, and insurance companies have incentives to come up with ever more creative ways to help people manage risk (i.e. this new index insurance). It should be no surprise that they’re doing it again and helping (as free markets always do) the poorest of the poor, those who are preyed on by governments.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

When someone does something so completely and obviously at odds with what he should have done, it’s common to ask him if he is consuming a potent brain-destroying chemical, i.e., “Dude, are you on crack?”

So it’s only fair to ask the same question of Barack Obama and most of the members of Congress since they have been working incredibly hard to make our current economic situation even worse than it already is. In particular, this drive to “stimulate” the economy through public spending and the encouragement of private spending. Even the Republicans (who strangely label themselves the party of freedom and free markets) are, with a few exceptions, actually one-upping the Democrats by criticizing many of the public spending projects for not being “shovel-ready” (that is, not getting money spent fast enough)!

We could be forgiven for thinking that we had suddenly materialized in an episode of The Twilight Zone. We’re in the midst of an economic downturn resulting from the government’s monopoly over money and its manipulation of the supply of money and credit that caused (as it always does) a massive misallocation of resources (which the markets are now attempting to reallocate properly), and our keepers in Washington are doing their very best to put the brakes on the needed correction and prop up an artificial system that is not only unsustainable without violence (government action) but destroys vast amounts of wealth in the process.

I could understand if Obama and Congress came forward and said, “Look, we really don’t think you, our hapless subjects, should be allowed to engage freely with one another in mutually beneficial production and exchange and enjoy the resulting increase in your standard of living, and we’d really like to see you all dramatically impoverished in order to financially benefit us and our politically connected friends.” I mean, then it would all make sense.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I just read a fascinating review by Katherine Mangu-Ward over at Reason Magazine of The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates, by Peter Leeson. The author analyzes the actions and customs of 18th century pirates from the standpoint of their being economic actors structuring their lives to maximize their profit. The results were pirates that, in many ways, were quite libertarian.

Here are some particularly interesting excerpts:

But a pirate’s life had less publicized qualities as well: Ships were known among sailors for their relatively decent living conditions, profitsharing opportunities, democratic practices, and racially integrated crews. Life “on the account,” as pirating was known, was often far more civilized than legitimate seamanship.

…

Pirates…were outlaws, with no recognized authorities to settle disputes. So they invented their own ways of doing business. Decades before the American Founders got their act together, pirates were drafting documents full of voting rights, juries, checks and balances, rules for property allocation, even methods for impeachment. The buccaneers may have been less concerned with natural rights than with survival and claiming their fair share of booty, but the end result feels surprisingly like the kind of self-governance we expect from enlightened modern republics. Perhaps even better, since the deal was truly voluntary (for the pirates if not their prey). No one is born a pirate, and everyone has to swear into the contract on each venture.

…

Captains were elected, and they could be removed by a vote of the crew. Speeches were given for and against candidates…Speeches also contained warnings and reminders of the power of the people: “Should a Captain be so saucy as to exceed Prescription at any time, why down with him! it will be a Caution after he is dead to his Successors, of what fatal Consequence any sort of assuming may be.”

A ship’s captain received the same lodging and rations as ordinary sailors, and very similar pay…Additional payments, agreed upon in advance, went to those who lost eyes or limbs, a primitive sort of workers’ compensation.

Balancing the powers of the captain was the quartermaster, the captain’s peacetime counterpart. Sort of a den mother with a blunderbuss, he oversaw the distribution of loot and generally kept peace on the ship by enforcing the rules and arbitrating disputes. He too could be replaced at any time by a vote.

They may have been outlaws “without government,” Lesson writes, “but they weren’t without governance.” And here’s where Leeson gets to his lesson. The book is actually an argument for extralegal systems of regulation—for ordered anarchy.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!