The Probability Broach: Robert’s rules of order

Members of the press raising their hands to ask questions

The Probability Broach, chapter 19

Now that the Continental Congress is in session and other business has been dealt with, Win and his friends finally have a chance to inform the North American Confederacy about the enemy at the gates. President Jenny Smythe is on their side, so she yields the gavel to her vice president and addresses the delegates.

(The North American Confederacy’s vice president is a sapient gorilla, Dr. Olongo Featherstone-Haugh, pronounced “Fanshaw”. I’ve commented on this before, but it’s hard not to read racial undertones into the fact that L. Neil Smith never depicts a single Black person in his anarcho-capitalist utopia, but does have multiple named characters who are talking apes.)

“Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Assembled delegates,” she addressed the cameras, “people of North America and the System. Twice in the last century, our culture has embraced new peoples—peoples we had long known, but failed properly to understand. I refer, of course, to simian beings and to the people of the seas, the cetaceans. Today, we anticipate a time when new life is discovered on a distant world, life that shares with us that sum of values we call Civilization.”

“…Fate has chosen me to bring you that news—with two shocking qualifications: the new world is called Earth, its location, anywhere you look around you, for it shares space with our own, existing at a different point along one of the several dimensions of time.”

The delegates are already buzzing over this shocking news, but Jenny has more:

“Ladies and gentlemen! We shall be at war with this new Earth within days—weeks at the most a terrible new kind of war, ending only when all life on both our planets is utterly extinguished!

…Therefore, I move that Congress declare a state of emergency to deal with this situation before civilization itself is destroyed.”

It’s important to include this excerpt for later, because it shows that no one in the NAC wasn’t informed about exactly what level of threat they were facing.

Upon hearing Jenny’s ominous news, the assembly is in an uproar:

A tidal wave of noise swept over the crowded room. Lucy grabbed her mike, punching for recognition. This too was pre-arranged. “Mr. Vice President!—Shuddup, you varmints!—Mr. Vice President!” In exasperation, she drew her enormous pistol, triggering three devastating blasts into the timbered ceiling. Sawdust fell, and with it, silence.

“The Chair recognizes Lucille Kropotkin.”

“About bloody time, too, Fanshaw, old ape. Okay, I second Jenny’s motion, so’s we can explain to all these yahoos here exactly what’s been going on!”

But the Hamiltonians are attending this Congress too, and they’re not standing idly by as their plot is exposed before the world. John Jay Madison rises to speak and is recognized by the chair:

“Mr. Vice President, we have just witnessed the introductory maneuvers of an unprecedented criminal conspiracy… I myself have been accosted by these lunatics, and have some acquaintance with what they’re trying to sell. In the interests of decency, I demand that their fantasies be dismissed immediately, so that we may all go home.” Boos, hisses, interspersed with a cheer or two. One of his henchman rose and shouted, “Second!”

“Out of order, Dr. Skinner. There’s a motion already on the floor.”

This gambit having failed, the bad guys try another one, offering a formal amendment to Jenny’s motion to reconvene as a “committee-of-the-whole” in order to study the problem at length before making any decisions. After a back-and-forth of dueling amendments, it passes:

Slam! went the gavel. “The amendment passes by a majority of 99.44 percent. This body is recessed and reconstituted as a committee-of-the-whole!”

I groaned. Had we lost?

“Great goiters, no!” said Lucy. “We were hoping for something like this, but couldn’t figure a way to swing it ourselves. Those Hamiltonians did it for us, bless their cruddy little hides.”

Win is baffled, but she explains: The bad guys’ plan was to do the NAC version of a filibuster—trying to tie the Congress up in endless debate so they could never actually vote on anything. But, as Lucy says gleefully, the villains played right into their hands. Until that motion passed, any speaker was limited to ten minutes, which would have severely limited their options on how to make their case about what should be done. Now all time limits on debate are suspended, and the good guys have as much time as they want to present their evidence.

L. Neil Smith intended all of this to be boring and convoluted, since he hates politics. But it points to a different problem that I want to flag: None of this parliamentary procedure should exist in an ancap society.

This stuff about “the chair recognizes” and “second the motion” and strict time limits on how long people get to speak are vestiges of a political order that Smith says he doesn’t accept. I thought this society had no laws and no rules!

In an anarchy like this one, which is “free” in a might-makes-right, law-of-the-jungle sense, the way it should work is that when you want to talk, you stand up and start yelling, and the loudest yeller wins by drowning out everyone else. After all, Lucy fired a gun into the ceiling when she wanted to talk! Why is she the only one who’s doing that?

Of course, if they followed this procedure, Congress would be an incomprehensible roar of noise. It would be impossible to agree on anything or take any action, so nothing would ever get done.

That’s an inadvertent demonstration of a philosophical point that this book otherwise staunchly refuses to admit: complete and total freedom isn’t always the best option. Sometimes, you need rules and regulations to get things done. Robert’s Rules of Order, the classic manual of parliamentary procedure, makes this very point to justify its own existence:

Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series:

New on OnlySky: Conservatism is hazardous to your health

I have a new column this week on OnlySky. It’s about how American conservatism is slowly killing its adherents.

As recently as the early 2010s, there was no significant difference in American death rates by political affiliation. But sometime within the last decade, that started to change. Conservatives have started dying at higher rates than liberals, not just from COVID-19, but across all causes. This pattern holds true even after controlling for confounding factors like race, income, or geography.

What could be causing this? Here’s one answer: COVID conspiracism, like a malignant cancer, has mutated and spread throughout the ideology of the conservative body politic. They’ve come to mistrust not just the COVID vaccine, not just vaccines in general, but all medical science – and they’re paying the price for it. The Republican party has long fostered a mistrust of science and expertise among its adherents, and now it’s coming back to bite them.

Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the full piece. This column is members-only, so consider signing up! Members of OnlySky also get special benefits, like a subscriber newsletter:

Even as the world was going into lockdown and hospitals were swamped with the dying, conservatives refused to believe any of it. They told themselves that the timing was suspicious; that the pandemic must be a plot to oust Donald Trump from office by causing economic and social disruption just before the election. To that end, they concocted all manner of conspiracy theories to convince themselves that the virus wasn’t real or wasn’t a threat.

But while Fox News pundits and QAnon podcasts could sway conservative voters, they couldn’t alter reality. The virus was real, and it was a threat. Many who refused to believe this fact paid with their lives.

A famous example was the conservative talk show host Phil Valentine, who decried lockdowns, promoted quack therapies, and streamed anti-vaccine documentaries from his website. He argued that it was “common sense” that the coronavirus wasn’t a serious threat and that no drastic measures needed to be taken to stop it.

He then got sick with COVID, was hospitalized, was put on a respirator, and died.

Continue reading on OnlySky…

The Probability Broach: Law of unintended consequences

A beautiful waterfall in the middle of a verdant forest

The Probability Broach, chapter 19

We’ll get back to the proceedings of the anarcho-capitalist legislature soon, but Smith opens this chapter with another quote from one of his fictional mouthpieces that I want to discuss:

I often wonder why the ecology movement attracts leftists—there’s a lesson there you’d think they’d avoid at all costs: the economy is like any other part of the environment, small interferences create elephantine dislocations in later years and unpredictable places. If altering algae populations can cause an Ice Age, it’s equally true that minimum wage laws can cause mass unemployment. If they can learn such things about nature, why can’t they learn them about their own society?

—Mary Ross-Byrd
Toward a New Liberty

This is an argument I haven’t seen before, so let’s spend some time analyzing it.

It’s a clever rhetorical tactic on Smith’s part to compare the economy to nature. It’s true that humans’ well-intentioned interference in nature has sometimes backfired and caused worse outcomes than if we had just left things alone.

The classic example is forest managers being vigilant about stamping out small wildfires, which allows dry tinder to build up on the forest floor. Eventually, this results in catastrophic mega-fires that are impossible to extinguish and cause far more destruction.

Obviously, Smith wants to argue that what’s true for the natural world is also true of economics, and that everyone would be better off if we stood back and stopped trying to interfere with the invisible hand of the market. However, there are some important points of dissimilarity in this metaphor.

The first one is that the economy is a human creation, shaped by human decisions, and therefore it’s more under our control than nature is. We can’t control either one completely or perfectly—as pundits have noted, the president can’t dictate whether the stock market goes up or down, nor is there a dial in the Oval Office he can turn to raise or lower prices—but we do have the ability to create incentives which affect people’s behavior on a large scale.

For example, we can discourage consumption by raising taxes (like with “sin taxes” on alcohol and cigarettes). We can encourage saving and investing by raising central bank interest rates, or stimulate consumer spending by lowering them. We don’t have the ability to influence natural cycles in a similar way.

The second point is that most of us believe we have a moral responsibility to protect our fellow humans, in a way we don’t for other species.

When a lion kills a gazelle or a parasitic wasp lays its eggs in a living caterpillar, we don’t consider that an evil that needs correcting. But most of us do feel an obligation to do something when child laborers are mangled by machinery, or sweatshop workers burn to death in a blaze because there are no fire exits. This tips the balance toward intervention in human affairs, whereas we consider nature to be amoral and not obligated to abide by our notions of right and wrong.

The third point is that, despite what Smith seems to believe, no one—not even the most dedicated ecologist—argues that there should be no interference with nature under any circumstances.

After all (unless you’re an antinatalist), we all agree that human beings have to live on this planet. That means we don’t have a choice about interfering with nature. Whether we take up a lifestyle as cave-dwelling hunter-gatherers, grow crops in industrial monocultures and live in skyscrapers, or build a solarpunk utopia with windmills and organic fields, we can’t avoid having an impact on the planet. The question is what kind of impact we’re going to have, and what interventions we should or shouldn’t allow.

Ecologists and environmentalists do believe that human interference with nature is warranted in some cases. For example, when a deadly pandemic arises, even though that’s a “natural” phenomenon, we still create vaccines and treatments. We breed crops and livestock to be more productive to serve our needs, even if those varieties would go extinct without us.

We also advocate interference in nature to undo our past mistakes. This may take the form of removing invasive species from ecosystems where they didn’t evolve and don’t belong, such as the effort to catch lionfish in the Caribbean, or to stop the spread of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes.

Many ecologists also work on captive breeding programs to restore species that were driven to the brink of extinction by human errors. The successful reintroduction program for the California condor, or the attempt to develop chestnut trees that are resistant to blight fungus, are two high-profile examples.

If I can speak on behalf of ecologists, I’d argue what they really believe is we shouldn’t intervene unwisely. Before we take an action that will interfere with natural patterns, we have to study the downstream consequences, weigh the balance of potential harms and benefits, and act only when we have reason to believe it will yield a better outcome than not acting. Not coincidentally, that’s the same thing we’d say about the economy.

Last but not least—and this is the biggest point Smith glides past—these aren’t separate and unrelated questions. To refuse to interfere in the economy is to interfere in nature, and vice versa.

When chemical plants dump cancer-causing sludge into rivers, developers bulldoze storm-absorbing coastal wetlands to build beach resorts, or factories spew ozone-destroying CFCs or climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere… Smith’s libertarian logic would have us shrug our shoulders and do nothing, despite the clear consequences that result from letting these industries run amok without regulation. Often, allowing capitalists to ravage nature in the name of profit destroys more value than it creates.

In an earlier chapter, he hinted that individuals could sue polluters. But there are obvious reasons this won’t work, such as the near-impossibility of proving their pollution definitively caused harm in a single case, even if we know it’s harmful in general.

Before taking any drastic action, either with regard to the economy or the environment, it’s always good to cultivate humility and to study the results thoroughly. But that doesn’t mean we should never intervene for fear of unforeseen consequences. That’s not sound ecological thinking; it’s the bad-faith “doubt is our product” marketing used by tobacco companies, oil drillers, and other merchants of death to evade regulation as long as possible.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series:

The Probability Broach: Heads in the sand

The Probability Broach, chapter 18

Win and Lucy are twiddling their thumbs in the meeting chamber, waiting for the Continental Congress to formally convene. Win is upset about how flippant everyone seems to be acting, given the scale of the crisis:

“But it should be taken seriously,” I finally protested. “It’s only the seventh Continental Congress in—”

“Even so, I’ll bet more folks’re watching that Mike Morrison western on channel 962 tonight. Everybody’s got a right to ignore the state and be safe doin’ it. Makes up for fanatics, like me.”

This is a clear demonstration of why anarcho-capitalism is a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too fantasy. Smith believes everyone should have a right to ignore the state, and be safe doing so.

Obviously, this is impossible. It’s pure wishful thinking. The reason we have a state is that there are collective-action problems that affect everyone and that can’t just be ignored or wished away. Someone has to organize an evacuation if there’s a flood or a wildfire; to set up quarantine and contact tracing in case of a plague. This whole book is another example: the prospect of an invasion by a Hamiltonian army with nuclear weapons.

You can’t make a problem like that go away by ignoring it. But if you do choose to ignore it, you can’t insist that you have a “right” to be safe from it regardless. Dangers don’t disappear just because you stick your head in the sand so you can’t see them.

As more time drags on, Win gets impatient. He fears for the lives of his friends who’ve been kidnapped by the Hamiltonians, and it’s exasperating that the Continental Congress seems to be in no hurry:

New names blinked onto the screen, the room gradually filled. Important-looking people stopped by to greet Lucy like a long-lost friend. Apparently I’d underestimated this batty little old lady. We ordered a meal. More nothing happened. Finally: “When does this show get on the road anyway?”

… “Ain’t no certified regulation starting time. How could there be?”

“God damn it, Lucy! Clarissa and Ed are prisoners! Maybe dead already.” I cringed inwardly at the words. “And we’re sitting here on our—”

“I know. But whatever happens—even to them—is gonna happen right here, and not until at least nine-tenths of North America’s represented.”

As Lucy explains, the Continental Congress can’t begin until 90% of North America is represented, either as in-person attendees or virtually by proxy votes. Win checks the big board:

I looked: 0.83901256. “Eighty-three percent?”

“Closer t’eighty-four, and no Congress till it hits ninety.”

I brought this up last week, but I’ll reiterate it here: It’s glaringly obvious that this can’t possibly work in Smith’s anarchist politics.

The only way to know if 90% of people are represented is if there’s an authoritative record of how many people live in the North American Confederacy. But Smith has consistently said that no such thing exists. In fact, people there are so fanatical about privacy that they’d shoot a census-taker on sight.

This is a problem that’s dogged the entire book, like with Smith’s discussion of traffic fatalities, or his belief that large, heavily armed corporations would voluntarily obey an unfavorable ruling from a private arbitrator. It’s cargo cult anarcho-capitalism: he assumes that the state can vanish, but all the state functions that he takes for granted would persist as before.

(Also, who decided 90% was the threshold? Everyone treats that number as suspiciously official. Why not 95%, or 85%?)

Win frets that this could take weeks, but Lucy says to give her some credit. She and Jenny Smythe, president of the NAC, have been working behind the scenes for weeks to wrangle enough delegates to get this show on the road. Sure enough, just as she says it, the number hits 0.9:

Jenny entered without fanfare, punching in at her terminal.

Her image appeared overhead as she said softly, “The Seventh Continental Congress of the North American Confederacy is now in session. Mr. Parliamentarian, may I have the protocols?”

Win is eager to speak, but unfortunately, he and his friends aren’t the only ones who have agendas to bring before the Congress. There are other people who get time, too, as Lucy explains:

“I thought we called this Congress to warn—”

“That’s where you’re wrong. This is just us good ol’ folks, whose number ‘happens’ to be ninety percent, remember?

…everyone’s entitled to speak, and in practice, they reserve space on Jenny’s agenda, in case we ever have a Congress. Some been waiting for decades, carried over from her predecessors’ lists. Offering ’em this rare shot helped us put it together. Lucky there ain’t ten times as many.”

Win grouses, but sits impatiently as other delegates take their turn at the podium. One group (the “Franklinites”) wants Congress to agree to meet every year – a notion that’s roundly booed and quickly voted down. The next to speak is a woman who identifies as the leader of the Dissolutionist faction:

“Madame President,” said a pretty, honey-haired girl with a wry smile, “I move that Congress adjourn—”

Catcalls and curses filled the room.

Shouting over the tumult, Jenny exclaimed, “I’ll remind the delegates that a motion to adjourn is always in order! Second?”

“Madame President! May I be allowed to finish my motion?” She was still on her feet, others around her standing in their chairs. The noise died down—what can you add to a motion to adjourn? “Madame President, delegates assembled, I move that this body adjourn—permanently!

These people are the anarchists’ anarchists. They believe there should be no legislature at all, even this vestigial one, and they’re proposing that it be dissolved permanently. They either don’t know—or, more likely, don’t care—about the threat of nuclear annihilation. It’s head-in-the-sand politics at its finest.

What should be shocking is that Lucy votes for them, despite knowing the stakes:

Lucy had leaped up, shouting, “Second, Second!” Now she came back to herself, grinned sheepishly, and sat down. “Always did have a radical streak, I guess.” She relit her cigar. The Dissolutionists lost, three to one, but for some reason they cheered again, and Lucy beamed.

She treats this as a noble effort that deserves support, even though she was one of the people who worked to get this Congress together – and knowing that if the Dissolutionists succeed in abolishing it before it can do anything, her kidnapped friends will be killed and her world will be annihilated by nuclear bombs. Yet again, Smith’s characters put ideology over common sense.

One more group, the “Neoimperialists”, want the NAC to go to war with any remnants of government left anywhere in the world:

“Nothin’ new,” Lucy explained. “The Neos, mostly war vets, start with a good enough idea. Government’s morally repugnant to any decent person. But how’d they avoid killing a lot of the very folks they’re liberating? Just won’t wash.”

A very common tactic on the right wing – from evangelical Christians to right-wing libertarians – is that they refuse to admit the existence of moral philosophies other than their own. They treat good-faith disagreement about what’s right and wrong as equivalent to vicious indifference to right and wrong.

This passage is an example of that. Lucy says that government is repugnant to “any decent person”. Because the author holds that view, he writes as if it’s the only possible view. Although he wants this book to be a work of persuasion, he’s not trying very hard to appeal to anyone who doesn’t already agree with him.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series:

New on OnlySky: Don’t look now, but Ukraine is winning

I have a new column this week on OnlySky. It’s about how, after four years of war with Russia, Ukraine is turning the tide.

In 2022, at the beginning of Russia’s all-out invasion, Ukraine was fighting for its survival. Western weapons allowed it to stymie the Russian advance, at which point the war bogged down into WW1-style trench warfare. Russia willingly sacrificed enormous numbers of soldiers for minimal territorial gains, but Ukraine was unable to recapture most of the territory they’d lost.

This was the status quo for years. But in the last few months, even without American aid, Ukraine has been slowly gaining the initiative. Rapid innovation in drone technology has allowed them to overcome Russia’s air defenses, leading to a steady tempo of strikes on oil refineries and other strategic targets, as well as the embarrassing spectacle of Ukrainian drones attacking Moscow. How long can Russia sustain this punishment before their economy collapses?

Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the full piece. This column is free to read, but members of OnlySky also get special benefits, like a subscriber newsletter:

At the beginning of the invasion, Vladimir Putin believed he’d conquer Ukraine in just three days. Russian soldiers were so confident of meeting no resistance, they packed their dress uniforms for a triumphal march through the streets of Kyiv.

It wasn’t just Russians who held this opinion. Many American conservatives counseled Ukraine to surrender because they argued that Russia was invincible, Ukraine had no hope of victory, and the sooner they capitulated, the easier it would go for them.

In May 2026, four years later, Russian refineries are going up in flames and Ukrainian attack drones are buzzing over Moscow.

How the tables have turned.

Continue reading on OnlySky…

The Probability Broach: Who speaks for me?

Two buttons reading "Vote" on a folded flag

The Probability Broach, chapter 18

The Seventh Continental Congress of the North American Confederacy is about to get underway. Win and Lucy file into the delegates’ chamber, which is half legislative chamber and half stadium, complete with vendors hawking overpriced snack food:

I don’t know what I’d been expecting—the U.N. General Assembly or Flash Gordon’s Bathroom—it was a barn: weathered pine, rough beams, dominated by a huge Telecom screen up front. Somewhere a vendor was crying “Peanuts! Piñons! Fried Grasshoppers!” My belly rumbled and I tasted greasy hamburger. Two walls were stepped into tiers of upholstered benches. Thousands of desks cluttered the football field-sized floor.

“Thousands” of desks in a space the size of a football field? I think L. Neil Smith needs to check his math.

An American football field is 360 feet long by 160 feet wide, or 57,600 square feet. Assuming the delegates’ desks are the size of a standard office cubicle, they’d be 6×6, or 36 square feet. That works out to 1600 desks at most, and that’s making the unrealistic assumption of zero space for aisles.

It turns out Lucy has connections, as much as anyone can have in this anarcho-capitalist society. She’s there in an official capacity as a delegate, so they’re not stuck in the nosebleed seats. They have a reserved desk out on the floor, where the action is.

Her name appeared at the front of the room, among a few others already present, followed by a number: 6076. “My constituency, such as it is, six-thousand-odd people—odd enough t’let me stand for ’em at this quiltin’ bee, anyway. Sure y’won’t have a grasshopper?”

Ulp!” I shook my head, taking the extra seat. “Lucy, you continue to amaze me. You represent some district in Laporte?”

“No district to it, son. We’re all ‘at large’ here. Though there’s some as shouldn’t be. Anybody can represent anybody else or nobody but themselves. Not even themselves, if they just wanna sit in the gallery and be entertained.”

As Lucy explains to Win, everyone in the NAC is free to attend the Continental Congress, either to participate as a delegate or just to watch. All the proceedings are live-streamed, but only people who are physically present can vote. That’s on purpose, because, as Lucy puts it, “This place is supposed to be inconvenient!”

If you don’t want to attend in person but you do want your voice to be heard, you can assign your vote to someone who is there, and they can cast it on your behalf. There’s no limit to how many proxy votes a single person can have, so any delegate might be only representing themselves, or they might represent a small handful of others, or they might represent thousands or millions. Lucy’s constituents are mostly old friends and fellow veterans whom she fought alongside in the Prussian war.

“Most folks just show up representing friends, neighbors, people in the same trade. Maybe half a dozen are professionals, with a million proxies each.”

“That many?”

“Don’t get sarcastical! Votes don’t amount to much, anyway. It’s what gets said here. Though nothing guarantees anyone’ll listen.” The screen changed again, more delegates arriving, vote-strengths shifting as viewers all over the continent punched in proxies and cancellations. Totals were revised moment by moment; many a politico with thousands of supporters might suddenly discover that, through the miracle of electronics, he was representing no one but himself.

This is the most detailed picture Smith gives of how he thinks government should work, so I want to spend this week discussing it.

Let me start with the good: On paper, I like this idea a lot. It would be tricky to get right, but it has some major advantages.

Organizing government this way would put an end to voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other anti-democratic tactics. Since anyone can show up and vote, there’s no need for expensive campaigns—a chronic flaw of our system that limits political participation to the wealthy. If your representative acts contrary to your interests, you don’t need to impeach them or hold a recall election—just switch your proxy to someone else.

It would mean real choice for voters. You wouldn’t be limited to choosing one of the handful of candidates who are willing to run in your district, nor are you stuck with the person who wins 51% of the minority who vote. No one would be shut out of representation because their preferred candidate loses. Everyone can pick the representative who best shares their views, which would mean a legislature that truly reflects the popular will.

That’s the praise. Now the criticism.

This would never work in the kind of anarchist politics L. Neil Smith favors. It should be screamingly obvious that it would fail catastrophically.

Start with the most obvious problem. Smith tells us that Lucy represents 6,076 people. How do they know that?

Remember, in the North American Confederacy, there’s no census. (In fact, Smith specifically says the people of the NAC would shoot a census taker on sight.) There’s no Social Security list or any other official database of the population. There’s no authoritative record of how many people live in this society, where they live, or what their names are.

So, how do they know that a delegate speaks for the number of people they claim to speak for?

If I show up at this meeting and say I represent a million people, how could anyone prove or disprove that? If I gave them a list of names, how would they know I’m not voting on behalf of dead people, or people who don’t live in the North American Confederacy, or outright inventing people who don’t exist? What records would they consult?

Also, even if I could somehow prove my proxies were real people, how would they verify that those people want me to represent them, and I’m not voting on their behalf without their permission? Smith says it’s all done electronically, but any computer system can be hacked.

There are problems in the other direction too. If I’m a voter who wants to influence the Congress, what stops me from assigning my proxy to multiple delegates to boost my views? Or if I have two Telecom setups at home, can I cast two votes?

You can imagine unethical interest groups setting up bot farms—thousands of servers run by software impersonating real people, automatically casting votes for whoever the person in charge wants. It happens all the time on social media, and you can be sure it would be tried here, where the stakes are higher.

Ironically, this system might work with a centralized authority that maintains a voter registration database. But in an anarchy, it never would.

Smith glosses over all these problems. It’s possible that they never occurred to him. That’s a common blind spot afflicting utopian political theorists of all stripes. They’re so sure that everyone would embrace their system and play fair, they never give any thought to dealing with people who are willing to break the rules.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series:

The Probability Broach: The art of war

Cavalry soldiers charging into battle

The Probability Broach, chapter 18

Gallatinopolis, normally a sleepy rural town, is jam-packed with delegates arriving for the Continental Congress. Win and Lucy elbow their way through the crowds to get to their hotel room, which fortunately they reserved in advance. Win says that many late arrivals are sleeping in their cars. (But why wouldn’t the innkeeper cancel their reservation and give the room to someone else who offered more money?)

Over lunch at a cafe (“THE JEFFERSONBURGER—IT’LL SET YOU FREE”), Lucy reminisces over past congressional meetings. While they eat, she explains more about this society’s history, including some details Win apparently didn’t absorb before.

As I’ve previously mentioned, the North American Confederacy’s largest military engagement was a “Prussian war” in Europe, which was this timeline’s equivalent of World War I. In this chapter, Smith narrates a full account of it:

In 138 A.L. [1914], Prussia decided to emulate North America by confederating Europe—even if it didn’t want to be confederated. In brief campaigns, the other German states, France, Benelux, and the Italies were gobbled up. Spain and Portugal fell to fifth channelists, and England, as usual, was in trouble.

An agitated Congress assembled, the first since 1900, a disheartening sight to Europeans who’d come begging for assistance: even the assembly hall was roughed out of pine planks. The Old World was mystified at the vital barbarity of the New, but they had good reason to ask for help: Scandinavia was threatened by a Czar emboldened by the Prussian distraction, the Finns fighting a gallant but futile guerrilla war against the Cossacks; two great barge fleets stood ready to invade England—under Hamiltonian leadership, the Irish were preparing their final revenge.

Despite Europe’s pleas, the NAC Congress voted to stay neutral. But immediately after the vote, legions of Americans volunteered to go and fight, giving rise to “the fabled Thousand Airship Flight”. That force—including some of the delegates who voted for neutrality—went to Europe to fight the Hamiltonians.

After just a hundred days, the better-equipped and better-armed Confederate force routed the Prussian army and turned the tide:

Wherever they went, Confederates left anarchy behind. Gallatin’s ideas carried them fully as far as the force of their arms; enemy and friendly nationals alike learned quickly. Many a nobleman returned home to find his castle turned into a resort hotel by some local enterpriser. The Germanies and Italies remained fragmented. Spain fractured into a dozen polities. Brittany seceded from France. Armed at Prussian expense, Eire returned to her ancient tribal anarchy. The Balkans sub-subdivided until every village was a nation.

Leave aside the mystifying altruism—in an anarcho-capitalist society premised on self-interest and profit—of people volunteering to fight, at their own expense and risk. No doubt Smith would justify that by saying that the Confederates loved freedom, or some such.

I have a different objection to this. Obviously, Smith wants us to believe that the Magic of Anarchy makes his people superior combatants. He’s said as much before. But if there’s anything that’s inherently a state enterprise requiring centralized control and hierarchy, it’s war. You can’t have an army with no one in charge!

It’s true that a guerrilla force fighting on their own turf can stymie a superior foe and defeat them by exhaustion and attrition. That’s how the American colonies beat the British in the Revolutionary War, and it’s how America was defeated in turn in Vietnam.

But that’s not the same as saying that a country can muster an invasion force, equip them, arm them, and send them across an ocean to fight a near-peer adversary in combined arms warfare—all without anyone in command to decide who should be doing what.

Winning a war requires strategy. There has to be someone to make the broader decisions: when to attack and when to defend; which points of the enemy line to target and which to bypass; how subdivisions like brigades and battalions should coordinate their efforts to support each other; which units should be held in reserve as reinforcements, which should be thrown into the fighting, and which should be sacrificed to achieve a more important goal.

If every soldier is a sovereign individual who answers to no authority, this is impossible. The NAC’s assault would be a chaotic, disorganized melee, failing to concentrate enough pressure at any one point of the enemy line to break through. The brave or foolhardy ones who wanted to be heroes would charge into the fray alone and would likely be massacred. They would constantly argue about where artillery or air support should be aimed. Valuable resources like missiles (Smith alludes to “Goddard rockets”) would be squandered without any coherent plan of which enemy assets they should be used to target.

Smith makes a big deal of how anarchist forces are almost impossible to defeat, since they have no leader who can order them to surrender. In reality, morale would be a constant problem. Since no one was forcing them to be there, the NAC combatants would abandon the battlefield and flee the first time they thought it wasn’t going their way. Who wants to be the last one to die for the losing side?

TPB previously mentioned one more war, with Russia. This section expands on that, saying that it began in 1956, when the Russian czar and NAC prospectors came to blows over mining rights in Antarctica:

The Czar declared war, attacking Alaska, occupied the Kingdom of Hawaii, and invaded Japan, shattering her centuries-old isolation. The Confederate hoverfleet, a small-but-deadly 250-mile-per-hour navy, won decisively at the Bering Strait.

…By 1958, the real war was being waged by advertising people. Broadcasts into the Russian homeland told serfs that their lives were their own, and disputed the fatherly intentions of a ruler who’d let them perish by the millions. Fusion-powered space-planes rained propaganda into the streets of Saint Petersburg.

The flood of propaganda inspires the Russian people to rise up, and the Czar flees. Smith concludes, “The war was over, the last significant nation-state on Earth destroyed.”

I’ll give Smith this much credit: defeating a tyrant by undermining him with propaganda is at least a conceivable way an anarchist society could win a war, as opposed to the virtually-inconceivable scenario of winning a straight-up fight. But what I’d like to know is: who paid for all this?

Two years of round-the-clock broadcasts and leaflet drops couldn’t have been cheap. There are no taxes in the NAC to fund this, so was it funded by the selfless donations of private citizens? If so, how did they overcome the Prisoner’s Dilemma logic of people concluding it’d be rational to sit this out and let some other sucker pay for it?

Or was it funded by corporations who foresaw the opening up of a new market? It would be very much in keeping with real-life shock-doctrine capitalism to participate in overthrowing an existing government, in order to create a captive audience of new customers.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series:

New on OnlySky: Petrostates fade, electrostates rise

I have a new column this week on OnlySky. It’s about the world transitioning away from fossil fuels, with or without America’s help.

Last month, a coalition of fifty-seven countries held an international conference to discuss their plans for phasing out fossil fuels for good. Petrostates like Russia and the Gulf nations weren’t invited. Neither was the United States.

This so-called coalition of the willing is fed up with the mainstream U.N. climate track, where a single holdout can stall progress forever, and even when agreements are reached, they’re toothless and non-binding. Countries that actually care about climate change are opting out of this designed-to-fail diplomacy and moving forward with what they can do right now, from funding renewable energy development and battery storage to banning ads for fossil fuel.

This conference shows that petrostates are losing their influence over world affairs. In their place, we’re seeing the rise of the electrostate – countries that secure their own energy independence through renewable and zero-carbon power sources. With their decades of investment in green energy, China has surged to a lead, but countries around the world are racing to catch up. This century will belong to the nations that win this green marathon – and in a massive irony, America’s war on Iran has turbocharged the competition.

Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the full piece. This column is free to read, but members of OnlySky also get special benefits, like a subscriber newsletter:

Against this backdrop, the biggest story is America’s colossally stupid war on Iran and Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This conflict has cut off 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas supply, most of which had been going to Asia.

The supply shock and overnight price spike was a rude awakening for Asian nations that depended on Mideast oil and gas. In this interview with Deutsche Welle, energy analyst Sam Geall calls it their “Ukraine moment”. First Europe, and now Asia, have realized the folly of basing their economies on a volatile commodity that can be cut off at the whim of a dictator.

And Asia is responding. The magnitude of the crisis has broken through political inertia and cut across partisan divides. As the DW story puts it, “decisions that might have once taken years are being made in weeks”.

Continue reading on OnlySky…

New on OnlySky: Is there a quiet revival?

I have a new column this week on OnlySky. It’s about the alleged trend of young people going back to church, and whether there’s any substance to these claims.

America’s nonreligious population – the “nones” – grew rapidly in the first two decades of the millennium. But in the last five years or so, that previously red-hot growth seems to have slowed down, if not plateaued. Religious apologists have pounced on this, claiming that atheism has reached its limit and that Gen Zers are about to turn back to God in a massive, spontaneous religious revival. One published survey, the so-called Quiet Revival, claims that it’s already happening.

Is there any reason to believe this? You can probably guess.

Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the full piece. This column is members-only, so consider signing up! Members of OnlySky also get special benefits, like a subscriber newsletter:

After years of declining church attendance, aging and dwindling congregations, and a widespread falling away from faith, revival has come to the West. Faith is cool and countercultural again. More young people are rediscovering God, and they’re flocking back to church in droves. There’s going to be a new Great Awakening very soon.

At least, that’s what religious apologists want us to believe. They’ve written no end of stories insisting on it. For example, there’s this triumphal headline from the alt-right, anti-feminist magazine Evie, “God Is Back And Gen Z Is Leading The Revival”.

There’s plenty of room to debate why the growth of the nones might have leveled off. Are there natural limits—a core of American religiosity that can’t be overcome? Are there broader economic or cultural trends pushing people back to church—as an antidote to the loneliness epidemic, or people in search of a safety net? Was the New Atheist movement the catalyst, and now that it’s faded from prominence, the growth of the nones is stalling?

Continue reading on OnlySky…

The Probability Broach: Tangled in red tape

Yellow-and-black caution tape

The Probability Broach, chapter 18

Win’s airship has arrived at the capitol city of the North American Confederacy:

Gallatinopolis, geographic and political center of North America, is a crusty little patch of buildings surrounded by an entire planet of wheat fields. A lone highway stretches from the south: Greenway 200, an emerald ribbon in a sea of gold departing northward until it’s covered with a springy mutated moss.

As they disembark, Win is in a gloomy mood. He and Lucy made it, but their friends Clarissa and Ed are gone, kidnapped by the bad guys en route. If they’re not already dead, they’re hostages, and Madison will be sure to use them as bargaining chips to sway the upcoming congressional meeting in his favor. (So much for “the hostage kills you“.)

This section recounts a little of the NAC’s fictional history. In its early days, as Americans expanded westward, the capitol moved with them, but not to a fixed location. It wandered all over the country for years, switching from one city to another. Often, wherever the president lived was treated as the capitol by default. Finally, it was “dumped” at a fixed location in the Dakota Territories, at the exact geographical center of the continent.

Given the huge skyscrapers and other advanced technology he’s seen in this world, Win was expecting something with more gravitas. But the NAC’s capitol looks like a primitive backwater town. It’s all rustic shacks and slapdash buildings, with few creature comforts:

I snorted. “This is progressive, modern, space-age Gallatinopolis?”

“This is miserable, backward, rustic Gallatinopolis. Ain’t it swell?”

I eventually learned not to look down at my feet: the city is preserved exactly as it was eighty-seven years ago—its chief and only industry the much-to-be-despised operation of occasional government. The place looks like a mining boom town: tarpaper shacks ready to burn given thirty seconds of warm weather and a mild breeze, streets narrow runnels of churned mud—but frozen, under two inches of transparent plastic.

Win asks Lucy why it’s in the middle of nowhere and why it looks like this:

“To make it just as inconvenient as possible to everyone! If Tucker’d had his way, the poxy thing’d be in Siberia! Government needs to be tiresome. Folks think twice before they agree to come up here. We’ve met only six times since the capital was moved. That’s six times too many, but anarchy takes practice.”

(“Tucker” is Benjamin Tucker, a socialist anarchist who served as president of the NAC in Smith’s alternate history.)

This isn’t an aside; it’s a key fact about L. Neil Smith’s political philosophy. The North American Confederacy is an anarchist society with only a vestigial government. It has a legislature, but it can’t make laws as we understand them, only recommendations with no coercive power. And even at that, Smith situates the capitol out in the boonies, far from all major population centers, so that it’s as inconvenient as possible for Congress to get together and meet.

This makes it difficult for the government to get tyrannical ideas and start oppressing people, which is presumably the point. However, it also means that in a crisis, there’s a built-in disincentive to action. If the NAC is facing a threat, it’s essentially impossible for it to respond in an organized way. As we’ll see, that’s exactly how things play out.

This doesn’t cross Smith’s mind, because it’s central to his ideology that there are evils that arise from too much government, but no evils that arise from too little. He says so in the fictional quote that opens this chapter:

I am less concerned with good and evil than with freedom and non-freedom. Good and evil may both exist within a free society, But given sufficient time, all that remains under tyranny is evil.

We seek only a consistent application of the principle of liberty, without exception, without excuse, without compromise. We do not promise infallibility, but are determined, against the trend of six thousand years of human history, to make our errors on the side of individual rights.

—Albert Gallatin
Rule of Reason

That sounds very noble and principled. But it runs smack into collective-action problems: situations in which, when each individual makes the self-interested choice, it produces bad consequences for everyone.

There are many examples of this, which I’ve been discussing as we go through the book. I previously wrote about quarantine to fight pandemics; about air and water pollution; about the Dust Bowl, which arose from destructive overfarming; and about irrigating the desert and how to settle the question of water rights.

Most of all, there’s the question of emergencies. If a natural disaster was bearing down on the NAC, or a hostile foreign power was massing its forces to invade, what would they do? How could they muster the organization to respond to a danger that threatened every citizen, when they’ve intentionally made it as difficult as possible to do so?

We never see any large-scale emergencies of that kind in this book. Smith stacks the deck in his favor, writing the plot so that his fictional society never faces a disaster beyond its ability to overcome.

But the real world isn’t so obliging. Nuclear reactors melt down and spread contamination; hurricanes and tsunamis flood coastal settlements; earthquakes shake the ground; volcanoes erupt and wildfires burn; and even the most peaceful country sometimes gets bombed or invaded by a larger, imperialist power through no fault of its own. At times like these, people – including libertarians – quickly rediscover the advantages of having a competent, efficient government to muster defenses, coordinate emergency responders, set up shelters, distribute aid, and take charge of evacuation.

New reviews of The Probability Broach will go up every Friday on my Patreon page. Sign up to see new posts early and other bonus stuff!

Other posts in this series: