Book By Francois Trembly
Published by Xlibris 2007
Available at amazon.com and xlibris.com
Reviewed by Kat Kanning

“But who will build the roads?” That's the most frequent question that arises when bringing up the idea of anarchy. Francois Tremblay answers this and many more questions about Market Anarchy in this book. I would like to address this article to the people who believe good can come from the state – those who want state schools, roads, etc. Schools, roads, a relatively secure environment, these are things that most people will agree are valuable, but have you ever questioned whether the state is the best entity to provide them? The resounding answer from Francois Tremblay's book is 'No', these services are better provided by the free market.

Now, I know that many of you tremble with fury at the mention of the free market, but the excesses you see from corporations comes from their marriage with government. It is when governments get involved, giving corporations monopolies, giving them protection from bearing the consequences of their actions – that is where the free market ends and government abuse of the marketplace begins. Tremblay defines the market as the part of society involving “voluntary interactions.” The market, by its nature is anarchic – if force is involved it is no longer a voluntary exchange.

Tremblay's reasons why the state should not provide these services? It is not moral to take from others by force – that's known as theft. He explains, “every State intervention is backed by a gun in some close or distant manner.” “Every single law is, ultimately, a threat of death.” He states two principles which show why governments should not be providing services. The Monopoloid Incentives Principle states that, “Monopolies do not profit as much from improving their services, and thus have weaker incentives to serve their fellows and stronger incentives to exploit or coerce them.” Friedman's First Law states that “It costs the government about twice as much to do anything as it costs anyone else.”

“Better people don't make a better system”, says Trembly. The argument you hear from people many times is – we just need to elect better people. Tremblay points out that statism is based on the belief that man is basically evil and we must have the state to control these evil men. But if one asks his neighbors, “Would you personally start robbing and killing if there were no government to prevent it?” the answer is invariably, “No.” What statism ignores is that it is the evildoers who seek the power to coerce others, and who inevitably wind up in the government. Market Anarchy is the system that recognizes that people work in their own self-interest. It does not give power to one group over another, but sets the stage for people to interact by voluntary means, primarily by trading. Statism puts one group in charge of the rest and has to hope those in charge act in a responsible, humane manner, which does not often happen. The state has been guilty of the worst of crimes. Tremblay lists murder, temporary slavery, theft, kidnapping, extortion, incitation to rape (in prisons).

Should we hold the individuals in government responsible for their actions?
The judges say, “we don't make the law, we just interpret it.”
The cops say, “we don't make the law, we just do what we're told.”
The legislators say, “We're just following the desires of our constituents.”
The jailers say, “we're just warehousing those they tell us to warehouse.”
To this I would add: the voters say, “We don't make the system, we're voting for what we want.”

The book points out the danger of placing your moral decisions in the hands of strangers. He relates the recent case of UCLA police beating a student who refused to show ID, while a crowd of people stood around, wanting to stop it, but prevented by the perceived legitimacy of the police. He asks the bombshell question: “Should we trust people who commit the worst of atrocities at the drop of a hat, merely because they were supposed to and just following orders?” In the book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Tolstoy talks about about how this division of responsibility benefits the state, “It is the custom among assassins to oblige all the witnesses of a murder to strike the murdered victim, that the responsibility may be divided among as large a number of people as possible. The same principle in different forms is applied under the government organization in the perpetration of the crimes, without which no government organization could exist. Rulers always try to implicate as many citizens as possible in all the crimes committed in their support...Just as in a wicker basket all the ends are so hidden away that it is hard to find them, in the state organization the responsibility for the crimes committed is so hidden away that men will commit the most atrocious acts without seeing their responsibility for them.”

When Tremblay gets around to the actual question of who will build the roads, if the government does not do so, he sensibly says that it can't be predicted. He gives the example of trying to predict the airline business back in the days of the Wright Brothers – would anyone have predicted the need for baggage handlers, stewardesses, etc. back then? In the same way, the free market would find some solution to the question of who's going to provide roads. He gives some examples of how private roads have been built in the past and how they're currently built (I live on a private road in Keene: it's paid for by the mobile home park fees. I noticed it was repaired months before the city roads this spring – it was a hard winter for the roads. In fact, the city roads haven't finished their repairs yet.) Many private roads were financed by local landowners and merchants. But Tremblay does try and outline how competing private road businesses could provide the services we need, and provide them at lower cost with better quality than the government services.

“But Who Will Build The Roads?” is a insightful analysis of what Market Anarchy is (and isn't) and why it is superior to the statism currently in favor. It would be enlightening reading for anyone, though you might have to hold your nose to get through it if you're Christian. Most people would come away with the thought that the State and its propaganda machine are not what they once supposed them to be.