textfiles/magazines/MISC/kaos01.txt

          



           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&        
           &&                                             &&        
           &&                                             &&        
           &&              THE CHAOS ADVOCATE             &&        
           &&                                             &&        
           &&       An Electronic Journal Advocating      &&        
           &&        Personal Freedom In All Things       &&        
           &&                                             &&        
           &&                                             &&        
           &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&        


     *-------------------------------------------------------------*      
     |      THE CHAOS ADVOCATE is copyrighted by Mack Tanner.  You |   
     | may review and read sections of this electronic publication |   
     | to determine whether or not you would like to read the      |   
     | entire work.  If you decide to read the entire magazine, or |   
     | if you keep a copy of the magazine for your own personal use|   
     | or review for more than two days must pay a SHARELIT fee by |   
     | mailing $2.00 to                                            |   
     |                                                             |      
     |          Mack Tanner                                        |      
     |          1234 Nearing Rd.                                   |      
     |          Moscow, ID 83843                                   |      
     |                                                             |      
     |      If you want a receipt, include a self-addressed and    |    
     | stamped envelope.                                           |    
     *-------------------------------------------------------------*      

PAGE 2 
                                       
     
                                        
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS        



     Letters to the Editor........................page 3
     Editor's Page ...............................page 4
     Chaos and Social Engineering.................page 6
     The Common Good and the Voter's Paradox......page 10
     Bad Citizens and Freedom.....................page 18
     Getting All You Want.........................page 23
     Wanted: A Few Good Writers...................page 28


PAGE 3
         
                     *---------------------------*
                     |   LETTERS TO THE EDITOR   |
                     *---------------------------*

     Obviously, as this is the premier issue of THE CHAOS ADVOCATE, we 
don't have any letters-to-the-editor to publish.  We hope that we will 
have some to publish with the next issue.  Letters to the editor 
should be sent to one of the following E-mail addresses and marked as 
letters to the editor of THE CHAOS ADVOCATE. 

    Compuserve: 72037,2673 
    Delphi:  MACKTANNER
    The Rational Life Bulletin Board    
        615-433-7869
        Fidonet node number 1:116/38
    Internet: Mack.Tanner@f38.n116.z1.fidonet.org
   
     Letter writers must identify themselves with their real identity 
and include a telephone number or an E-mail address which will permit 
us to verify identity.  We will, however, publish letters anonymously 
at the request of the author. 

PAGE 4

     
                        *--------------------*
                        | THE EDITOR'S PAGE  |
                        *--------------------*
     
     Freedom is the natural state of every creature.  No human being, 
no law, no constitution can give another human freedom.  It can't be 
granted, it can only be taken away. 

    Freedom is not necessarily beautiful nor comfortable.  It is never 
predictable and always chaotic.  A free life can be dangerous, 
unstable, and sometimes violent, but always unpredictable. 

     A lot of people don't like freedom very much.  It scares them.  
They want a predictable world in which they can trust that things will 
always turn out just the way they want them to turn out.  They delude 
themselves into thinking that humans can create a world in which there 
will be no anger, sorrow, hunger, sickness, violence, or hurt.  Why 
wait for heaven when they can create heaven here on earth? 

     But to create that wonderful, mythical world, they must first 
force everyone to obey a long list of rules, laws, regulations, 
morals, and ethics, all designed to insure that no one will do 
anything that might upset the harmony and predictability of the world 
they want to live in.  
     
     The kind of world they want isn't possible if humans remain free.  
So while they are writing their morals, ethics, and laws, they also 
write out a new definition of freedom.  They tell us that to be free 
we must be free from want, from pain, from fear, from hunger, and even 
sickness.  They call the slave a free man because the slave master 
promises to provide for every need. 
   
     The priests, politicians, and teachers tell us that we are free 
individuals while they feed us myths designed to make comfortable, 
well-fed slaves think they are free.  The tragedy is that the kind of 
world they want also isn't possible if people are not free.  So, while 
they take freedom away, the brave new world they promise never 
appears.   

     No one owns your life but you.  The only way you can be happy is 
by making the choices you want to make about what you do with your 
mind and your body.  
     
     Because we live in a highly complex society, neither you nor I 
are every going to be able to do *everything* we want to do.  Life is 
a constant bargain in which we give up some things we might like to 
have, so that we can have other things we want even more.  
     
     The atomic basis of a happy, healthy society is the voluntary 
exchange.  I give someone my time and my work for eight hours a day 
and he or she gives me money so I can make other voluntary exchanges 
to buy my bread, drink, shelter, and entertainment.  But the exchange 
must be voluntary, not dictated by some priest or politician.  If you 
are free, you get to choose what it is that you give up in order to 
get what you want to make you happy. 
     
     We are sick of listening to people telling us how our 

PAGE  5

institutions of church, government, school, and medicine are going to 
make us happy.  We think it's time we started talking again about how 
we can each maximize our own freedom in our own daily life.  
     
     We think it's time to advocate freedom now.  That's why we have 
started this journal and why we are distributing it through the 
electronic media.  We're going to take a tough minded, no nonsense 
approach to freedom with no compromises.  We expect to make a lot of 
people mad at us.  A lot of people don't want to be free.  
     
     Because they don't want to be free themselves, they don't want 
you or me to be free.  We think it's time we started telling those 
people where they can go. 

     We want to talk about freedom on both the philosophical level, 
and on the very practical level.  How does one help his children 
survive the compulsory public education system?  How do you protect 
your privacy from spying police thugs?  How do you avoid troubles with 
the child welfare authorities?  What legal ways can you avoid taxes, 
and how do people get away with illegal tax cheating? 
     
     We intend to challenge the very limits on the first amendments.  
No subject will be taboo or forbidden, as long as it is directly 
related to the concept of individual freedom.  We don't want to go to 
jail, so we won't advocate that anyone break any law, but we will 
describe how other people have broken the law in pursuit of personal 
freedom, and sometimes, how they got away with it.  We will respect 
the copyright laws.  Anything that appears in this journal will be the 
original work of the author and computer encoded with his permission, 
and we do understand the difference between free speech and libel. 
     
     But with those caveats we will advocate the chaos of freedom.  
Welcome to CHAOS.  We are the organization that Max Smart was out to 
stop.   

*-------------------------------------------------------------*           
|      THE CHAOS ADVOCATE is copyrighted by Mack Tanner.  You |
| may review and read sections of this electronic publication |
| to determine whether or not you would like to read the      |
| entire work.  If you decide to read the entire magazine, or |
| if you keep a copy of the magazine for your own personal use|
| or review for more than two days must pay a SHARELIT fee by |
| mailing $2.00 to                                            |
|                                                             |           
|          Mack Tanner                                        |           
|          1234 Nearing Rd.                                   |           
|          Moscow, ID 83843                                   |           
|                                                             |           
|      If you want a receipt, include a self-addressed and    |         
| stamped envelope.                                           |         
*-------------------------------------------------------------*           

PAGE 6  
     
     
     
     
                  *--------------------------------*
                  |  CHAOS AND SOCIAL ENGINEERING  |
                  |                                |
                  |              by                |
                  |          Mack Tanner           |
                  *--------------------------------*

"Law of the Perversity of Nature:  You cannot successfully determine 
beforehand which side of the bread to butter." --Anonymous   

     Most of you have probably heard the story about the clever young 
man who offers to go to work for a businessman on a try-out basis in 
which the young man will be paid only one cent on the first day, two 
cents for the second day, four cent on the third day, and so on, the 
salary doubling each day until the businessman decides whether or not 
he wants to hire the young man on a permanent basis.  
     Thinking he's getting a good deal, the businessman takes on the 
kid and a month slips by before the businessman decides he won't keep 
the young man on.  When the young man presents the bill for his wages 
for thirty days, the businessman discovers it's cheaper to sign over 
the company than paying the wages.  
     The businessman has just learned the truth of compound interest.  
By doubling a single cent thirty times, you end up with $5,368,709.12 
on the last doubling.  The business man owes the young man over 10 
million dollars for the thirty days of work. 
     While this common mathematical principle has long been 
understood, it's only been in recent years that scientists have 
examined and explored what impact compounding small sums can have on 
what are called chaotic systems.  
     A chaotic system is any dynamic physical, biological, or 
mathematical system in which a complicated set of data interact in 
non-linear and non-repetitive way.  (Anyone interested in a more 
technical explanation of chaos theory should check out a library book 
on the subject.) 
      Until recently, the philosophy of determinism was the basis 
for much of scientific thought and direction.  The concept was that if 
we only knew the equations and had the precise data, the future 
could be predicted.  This concept is best summarized in Laplace's 
famous statement: 
 
     "An intellect which at any given moment knew all the       
     forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of     
     the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast   
     enough to submit its data to analysis, could condense      
     into a single formula the movement of the greatest
     bodies of the universe and that of the lightest atom:      
     for such an intellect nothing could be uncertain; and      
     the future just like the past would be present before      
     its eyes." Pierre Simon de Laplace, 1749-1827     
 
     Chaos theory now shows how naive and ridiculous this 
statement is.  What scientists have come to understand in only 
the last few years is that in all chaotic systems, very small 
variations in input data can have a profound impact on the future 
development of the system.  The more the variables at the 

PAGE 7

initiation of the system, the greater the difficulty in 
predicting what impact tiny increases or decrease in a single 
variable will have on the progress of the system.  In a perverse 
sort of way, the longer term the prediction attempted, the 
greater and more accurate the amount of initial data that is 
required to make the prediction.  As the thousands, or millions 
of different variables act upon each other, no human, nor human 
manufactured computing machine can predict what the smallest 
change to any single variable will do to the future of the 
system. 
     The most commonly cited example of a chaotic system is the 
weather.  Other chaotic systems include hydraulic turbulence, 
biological species interaction, epidemiology, and all human societies 
and economies. 
     Understanding chaos theory explains why scientists have such a 
difficult time predicting the weather more than twenty-four hour in 
advance and why they now realize that they will never be able to make 
trustworthy long-term weather predictions.  It is simply impossible to 
collect the in-put data in the quantity and with the degree of 
accuracy necessary to make a credible long term prediction.  (Of 
course, the government will never admit this is good reason to stop 
spending billions trying to do so!) 
     Understanding chaos theory also explains why it will be 
impossible for humans to ever control the weather to produce a desired 
result with no danger of unexpected and undesirable results.  Cloud 
seeding may make it rain over a dry Iowa corn field, but the impact of 
that intervention might result in an hurricane destroying a coastal 
city in Florida six months, or six years in the future. 
     Given the complexity of the non-linear equations in describing 
weather patterns, no scientist will ever be able to prove that it was 
the cloud seeding that caused the hurricane, nor, for that matter, 
that the cloud seeding didn't contribute to the hurricane's 
development.  
     Humans can impact on or redirect a chaotic system, but we can not 
prove or disprove exactly how the human intervention impacted on the 
system over the long term.  We will know we changed the system, but we 
can never know how we changed the system, nor what the system would 
have done if we had changed nothing. 
     All human societies and all human economic systems are chaotic 
systems.  They develop and progress as a result of an incredible 
amount of input in which any single individual may do something that 
will have an unexpected and unpredictable multiplier impact on how the 
system will operate at some future point in time.   
     Chaos theory explains why social engineering can never produce 
the expected result and why such schemes will always produce 
unintended results.  Chaos theory also explains why neither the social 
engineers nor the critics of social engineering can ever prove what 
real impact an attempt at social engineering actually had on the 
economy and the society. 
     We have been listening to a lot of political debate about what 
caused the riots in Los Angeles.  The conservatives blame the 
deteriorating situation of the city on social programs of the Great 
Society, welfare dependency, government regulation, minimum wages 
laws, high taxes, and moral decline while the liberals blame the 
failure of the government to spend enough money, racism, police 
brutality, illegal immigration, and the entire American corporate 
cultural. 
     The entire debate is total bullshit!  
     There is absolutely no way anyone can scientifically establish 
what things might have been done differently that could have prevented 
the deterioration of our cities into the current social morass.  
Furthermore, there is no way anyone can scientifically demonstrate 

PAGE 8

what new proposals for social engineering will produce intended and 
only intended future results. 
     The entire political debate over the domestic agenda that goes on 
in connection with the current presidential election is also total 
bullshit!  
     Nobody can explain scientifically exactly what caused the recent 
recession nor place with any scientific certainty the blame on any set 
of government actions.  And nobody can predict what impact all of the 
different proposed economic solutions will actually have on the future 
world economic situation. 
     Yet every politician is demanding that we spend a trillion 
dollars on programs that they can't demonstrate will work and they 
won't ever to be able to prove that they did work once they are in 
place. 
     The national economy and its interrelation with the world economy 
is a chaotic system even more complex, unpredictable, and unmanageable 
than the world weather and climate patterns.  Any politician who 
claims he can control it for the benefit of everyone without damaging 
large groups of other people is either a fool, or a crook, or more 
likely both. 
     The government can do lots of things that will have short term 
impact on the economy.  Political leaders can lower interest rates, 
shift investment opportunities, legislate prices, regulate exchanges, 
and all those things will alter the economic future of the economy.  
But chaos theory explains why we can not predict what the long term 
result of such action will be and why the unintended results may well 
be much more disastrous than the original problem could have ever 
become if left alone and free of government intervention. 
     All of this is scientific fact that can be described by 
observation of prior events, the examination of mathematical formulas 
and demonstrated with computer modeling. 
     But don't expect any political candidate, office holder, member 
of congress, bureaucrat, or scientist working on a fat government 
contract to admit the truth of this.  For them to do so would be for 
them to admit that the American federal budget is being wasted on 
social engineering projects with no guarantees that they will work or 
that they won't produce disasters.  
     Chaos theory not only explains why economic central planning 
can't work, it also explains why government bureaucracy grows so fast.  
     Because political leaders and the bureaucrats refuse to recognize 
that what they are trying to do can't be done, they work under the 
delusion that they only thing preventing ultimate success is more and 
better data.  They excuse their repeated failures by insisting they 
didn't have enough data, *which is right*, but they refuse to 
understand that no matter how much data they collect, it will never be 
enough to allow them to predict and control what the economy is going 
to do.  
     Instead, they collect and quantify increasingly greater amounts 
of data as the cost escalates much like the salary of the boy who 
stated out at a penny for the first day's work.  The more information 
they collect, the more difficult the task of correlating, 
interpreting, and analyzing the information they have.  They hire ever 
larger numbers of people who can be put to the task of collecting and 
handling the information.  
     When things go wrong, the excuse is always a failure in 
intelligence and the proposed solution is to hire more people and 
gather more raw data.  The more things go wrong, the more money they 
spend trying to fix it.  A fascinating conclusion of chaos theory is 
that you cannot predict the result of the fix, even if you try to put 
everything back exactly like it was!  When we used DDT to kill the 

PAGE 9

bugs and found out that it did more harm than good - in unexpected 
ways - the decision to quit using DDT may have resulted in greater 
damage than would have been the result of continuing its use. 
     
     But if the government can't control the economy for the benefit 
of all, what is the government doing? 
     
     Our politician leaders and the bureaucrats they hire play exactly 
the same role in the modern secular state that pagan priests and 
shamans played in ancient civilizations.  Except, where ancient pagan 
priests and shamans promised to magically control the weather, stop 
the earthquakes, and curse the enemy with disease and pestilence, 
these modern wizards and magicians promise us that everyone will have 
a good job, decent medical care, and a useful education while avoiding 
drugs, unwanted pregnancies, and crime in the streets. 
     Fortunately for us all, the weather generally does treat human 
populations pretty well, and despite the bungled attempts of 
government interference, millions of free people, all looking out for 
their own selfish interest, usually succeed in creating a chaotic, but 
healthy economy that provides most of us with all the good things of 
life and a few of us the chance to get rich. 
     Like their ancient counterparts always claimed credit for spring 
rains, sunny weather, and good harvests, the modern political wizards 
and magicians claim credit for the successful economy and insist that 
the taxpayers contribute even more money to guarantee continued 
success in the future.  They are taking credit for things they didn't 
do and charging us high prices for not doing it. 
     The amount they take for themselves and for those whom they 
decide to bless with entitlement programs continues to grow.  Most of 
us are working five full months a year for the sole purpose of feeding 
our monstrous and useless government beast.  And still the wizards are 
telling us they need more money. 
     They will keep demanding more money for as long as the taxpayer 
will pay it.  The debt will grow like the wages owed the clever young 
man until it reaches the point where the whole government system will 
collapse under the weight of it's own debt.  
     But don't worry.  Just like the good weather stuck around for 
long after humans gave up on paying pagan priests to guarantee good 
harvests, the basic economy, the sum total of all human interactions 
and economic exchanges, will still be around long after the collapse 
of big government. 

    *-------------------------------------------------------------*       
    |      THE CHAOS ADVOCATE is copyrighted by Mack Tanner.  You | 
    | may review and read sections of this electronic publication | 
    | to determine whether or not you would like to read the      | 
    | entire work.  If you decide to read the entire magazine, or | 
    | if you keep a copy of the magazine for your own personal use| 
    | or review for more than two days must pay a SHARELIT fee by | 
    | mailing $2.00 to                                            | 
    |                                                             |       
    |          Mack Tanner                                        |       
    |          1234 Nearing Rd.                                   |       
    |          Moscow, ID 83843                                   |       
    |                                                             |       
    |      If you want a receipt, include a self-addressed and    |     
    | stamped envelope.                                           |     
    *-------------------------------------------------------------*       

PAGE 10


              
           *----------------------------------------------*
           |    THE COMMON GOOD AND THE VOTER'S PARADOX   |
           |                                              |
           |                       by                     |
           |                  Leon Felkins                |
           *----------------------------------------------*
         
"If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."
--Graffiti

     How many times has someone told you that everyone would be happy, 
healthy and content *if only* people would forget their selfish 
desires and work for the common good?   By serving the common good, 
don't we also serve our own enlightened self interests because the 
common good guarantees the maximum benefit for every individual?  
Wasn't the *me* generation a tragic mistake?  Isn't it time we 
returned to the ideal that each individual puts the community 
interests above his own selfish interest?  
     
     Does working for the common good give a person greater benefits 
than working for one's own selfish behavior?  
     
     If the answer is *yes*, then we should to be able to demonstrate 
that an individual sacrifice has a real effect on the common good.  If 
my single, personal sacrifice can alter the final result, then I can 
say that my sacrifice produces more in rewards than my personal costs.  
But if my sacrifice makes no difference to the final result, why 
should I make it, especially if I receive the benefits of the 
sacrifice of others even if I make no personal sacrifice? 
 
     The truth is that an individual sacrifice for the common good 
never produces a personal reward equal to the cost of the sacrifice.  
Let's look at some examples to demonstrate what we are talking about. 

     Almost everyone will agree that voting is an important civil 
duty.  Moreover, it's a duty that requires little personal sacrifice 
in our society.  For most of us, it takes no more than a few minutes 
of time.  Polling places are easy to find, almost always near the 
place where we live, registration is simple, the process is painless 
and most of us have pretty definite opinions about whom we want to 
elect.  So how come only about half the eligible voters actually get 
to the polls?    

     Let's say that on election day you find yourself 150 miles away 
from home on a two day meeting.  (The meeting was scheduled after the 
final date for requesting an absentee ballot.)  Your have a choice: 
you could do your duty, drive home, vote and drive back. Or, you could 
just forget the whole thing. 
     
     Most likely you will chose the option of forgetting about it--
this time.  Your reasoning is sound.  The cost for you to vote is 
substantial while the return is, for all practical purposes, zero.  
Why is that so?  Because your vote will not actually make a difference 
in the results of the election!  While you may have other reasons for 
voting or not voting, as far as the election process itself is 
altered, your vote is just not significant. 


PAGE 11

     You won't be alone in deciding not to bother to vote.  As many as 
half the voters will not only decide voting is not worth the sacrifice 
of driving two hundred miles, they'll decide it's not worth the 
sacrifice of the risk of getting rained on, missing a favorite TV 
show, being late for dinner, or driving six blocks out of the way on 
the way home from work. 
     
     Let us look at the voting situation more carefully and examine 
some of the counter arguments often made for why you should vote. 
 
     *What if the election resulted in a tie?  Would not my vote count* 
*then?* 
 
     Sure, if that ever happened.  But ties don't ever occur in large 
elections and if they did there would be a re-count. Your vote would 
still get obliterated! 
     
     *But I like to vote.  I really don't care whether my vote does* 
*any good or not - I get an internal feeling of having done my duty.* 
*And, if the candidate I vote for wins, I can brag about how I help him* 
*get elected.* 
 
     This is the real reason why most people do vote.  They have 
bought into a group of myths that make them think that their single 
vote really does count.  Because they believe those myths, voting 
makes them feel good.  If voting gives you a good feeling, by all 
means do it, if it doesn't cost you a lot of time or money.  But what 
if you don't like any of the candidates, you know they are all crooks 
and that not one of them will do what he or she is promising they will 
do?  Do you really feel good when you are forced to choose between 
Slick Willy, Read My Lips, or a rich Texas shrimp? 
 
     *What about the possibility that my employer may reward me for* 
*voting and/or there are other rewards for being a registered voter?*  
 
     If the reward exceeds the cost of voting, then vote.  That is 
rational.  But how often does that actually happen? 
 
     The question is not why do so few people vote, but why does 
anyone bothers to vote at all.  Voting may be a fun and pleasurable 
experience but it doesn't make rational sense as a way of getting a 
payoff for the effort and sacrifice. 
     
     *If my voting will do nothing, what can I do to help get my* 
*candidate elected?*  
 
     Simple: get other people to vote, lots of them.  If you can get 
10,000 people to vote the way you want and your personal reward for 
doing that exceeds the cost of your doing it then, rationally, you 
should do it.  It doesn't pay to vote, but it does pay to donate a 
great deal of money to a political candidate which is then used to con 
less intelligent and less rational people into voting for the 
candidate who will promptly ignore the desires of those who voted from 
him but do everything he can to serve the desires of those who made 
big contributions to his campaign. 

     That is why it's so easy to buy elections.  The thinking voter 
gets no real, tangible rewards for voting; the bought voter gets 
whatever pay-off he/she is offered.  
 

PAGE 12

     But if a single vote makes no difference to the outcome, what 
about the other things our leaders ask us to do as a civic duty?  
     
     Let's look at another example of civic duty, one in which we 
could argue that the personal sacrifice has a much greater impact on 
the public good than the simple act of voting.  Suppose you live in a 
California city that happens to be running out of water.  The mayor 
declares - among other things - that the residents are to take baths 
only two days a week.  Although this is not your day to bathe, you 
have just finished making a plumbing repair in the basement and you 
are feeling really grungy.  The desire to take a bath weighs heavy on 
your mind. 
     
     You consider the options.  They can best be stated by the 
following "payoff matrix". 
     
                            | Direct      |Member of Community | 
                            | Impact      |  Impact            
 
  ----------------------------------------------------------
  Take Bath                 | Great       | - negligible       | 
  ----------------------------------------------------------
  Don't Take Bath           | Awful       | + negligible       | 
  ----------------------------------------------------------
  (The '-' means slightly negative; the '+' means slightly  
  positive)    

     When I take any action that uses community resources, it impacts 
me in two ways.  I am impacted directly by my action and I am impacted 
as a member of the community.  
     
     With regard to the bath water example, the pay off matrix would 
provide enough evidence to a rational person to conclude that the net 
pay off is heavily in favor of taking a bath.  The loss that he/she 
would get from cheating as a member of the community is 
insignificantly small.      

     Both of these scenarios present examples of a situation sometime 
referred to as "The Voter's Paradox".  Basically that paradox states 
that the return to an individual from a group contribution that is 
beneficial to the group will be less than the direct cost to the 
individual.  The paradox results from the fact that while the 
individual may have a positive personal gain in not voting, if 
everyone declines to vote, or to conserve water resources, we have a 
disaster on our hands. 

     The two scenarios actually present two classes of the problem. 
     
     With regard to the voting dilemma, the problem is that there is 
no return *at all* to balance the voter's cost of voting.  The reason 
why this is so is because elections are a binary (to use a term from 
the computer world) event.  Your candidate is either elected or not.  
We do not put 55% of candidate A in office and 45% of candidate B.  It 
is all or nothing, which means that one less vote simply has no impact 
on the final result.  The very improbable case of a tie vote is 
statistically insignificant.  
     
     The second example of a water shortage is not binary in that 
every little bit of water in the reservoir does help, even if the 
actual difference one bath may make is down in the noise ( to borrow 

PAGE 13

another term from electronics).  But one always gets a significant 
reward for cheating, i.e. instant cleanliness.  Yet, if half the 
population does as I do, the impact is disastrous. 
     
     *What if everyone did that?* 
   
     Experience tells us that everyone won't.  We can be pretty sure 
that a significant segment of any human population will believe the 
myths and do their duty.  Like the sheep they are, they will vote, 
conserve water, and offer every sacrifice for the common good that the 
preacher, teacher, or politician tells them to make.   
 
     But we are not writing this for the sheep who do what they are 
told to do.  We're addressing this to those who think and act 
rationally in their own self interests.  The rational individual is 
first concerned with the results of his/her actions as it impacts on 
his/her own happiness and well being.  Such a person may decide to 
make a sacrifice in the common good, but will do so only if he or she 
is certain that the personal sacrifice will produce a common good 
result that is at least equal to or, hopefully, greater than the value 
of the personal sacrifice.  
     
     What we are arguing is that such a situation almost never occurs.  
Most of the time, a personal sacrifice never produces an impact on the 
common good that would justify the personal cost.  

     The final paradox is that if everybody did as I contemplate 
doing, then it would me even less sense for me not to cheat.  The more 
people who cheat, the less rational it becomes to be one of those 
sacrificing personal good for the common good.  The more rational, 
self directed, selfish people there are in a community, the less 
likely that appeals that everyone should work for the common good will 
produce results.   
     
     This dilemma is sometimes called *The Tragedy of the Commons* 
which refers to the early New England practice of establishing a 
grazing commons used by everyone in the village.  The commons pasture 
was a limited resource which all members of the village could use for 
grazing their milk cows and horses.  The assumption was that the good 
citizens of the community will each limit their use of the commons to 
a fair share that would insure that the grass was not overgrazed.  It 
never happened that way.  In every case the commons was overgrazed 
into a dust patch.  The reason was simple.  Too many people recognized 
that as the grass was a limited resource, they had to get the maximum 
amount into their cows before some one else did.  The expectation was 
always that if one didn't take more than his or her fair share, the 
next fellow would. 
    
     The *Tragedy of the Commons* poses an extremely serious dilemma 
to those who would try to design a society based on the assumption 
that individuals will contribute to the group's well being rather than 
looking out for their own selfish interests.  If we recognize that 
individuals are driven by selfish desires and we are looking for a 
rational basis for voluntarily contributing to community welfare, we 
are in serious trouble. 
     
     Faced with the reality of the tragedy of the commons, society 
usually opts for one of two different methods for insuring the common 
good as well as the preservation of community resources.  These two 
methods are not complimentary, but contradictory. 
     

PAGE 14

     One of these is the pay-as-you go method, that is, the free 
market.  In the free market approach, every common resource, whether 
managed by private owners or by a community government, is sold to the 
public at a price high enough to insure that the resource is not 
depleted.  If there is a water shortage, then the price of water is 
jacked up until people have no choice but to limit the amount of water 
they use for bathing.  This not only has the advantage of insuring 
that water consumption goes down, it also gathers capital that can be 
used to increase the supply of water through the creation of new 
sources.  
     
     But the modern advocate of *socially responsible* government 
objects to the market place approach because it results in an *unfair* 
situation in which the rich wash their cars while the poor can't take 
a bath at all.  Such advocates of the common good claim that the only 
way to fairly distribute a common necessity is by regulation.  That 
means that you jail people who take baths on the wrong day and the 
only fair way to gather capital to finance new public projects is by 
taxation.  You not only have to collect enough tax to pay for the 
water system, but you must also collect enough to hire the water cops, 
pay the judges, and to build the jails where you will put both water 
and tax cheats. 
     
     But does such government action really solve the voter's paradox 
or the tragedy of the commons, or does it simple create a new commons, 
a public treasury, that then becomes the target of plunder for selfish 
people who will always put their own selfish interest above the common 
good?  
 
     If we look at recent political history, it is obvious that the 
tragedy of the commons could also be called the tragedy of the public 
treasury.  No matter how much we collect for the public treasury, it 
will never be enough to meet the demands of those who claim a right to 
use the money from the treasury.  
 
     It is not remarkable that each individual describes the public 
good as those things that are in his own best interest.  The elderly 
want more social security and medical benefits, the trucker better 
roads, the farmer crop subsidies, the investor bank guarantees, and 
the politician every single benefit that will result in more votes for 
him at election time.  The inevitable result is that the government 
never spends the revenue in the public good, but only for the benefit 
of those clever enough to manipulate the system to their own benefit.   
     
     We can see the result in America today.  The entire political 
process has degenerated into a mad scramble over what should be 
financed with public funds as our politicians spend us into national 
bankruptcy.  
 
     This paradox affects our lives in a variety of ways every day. A 
few more examples are provided for your amusement and to further 
illustrate the general nature of the problem: 
        
        -- The congressman votes for more spending and higher taxes 
   because his direct reward is greater than the small loss to himself 
   of having to pay higher taxes.  Further, the electorate of each 
   district continues to encourage the congressman to spend for the 
   benefit of their area, while complaining about the ever increasing 
   national debt!  
    

PAGE 15

       -- Even though free trade would benefit all nations and most 
   consumers, I, as an auto worker or textile mill owner, will 
   personally benefit more if I can elect politicians who will set 
   high tariffs and limit competitive imports.  
    
       -- The ecology of the earth will not be measurably affected by 
   my actions. The destruction of the mahogany forests does not really 
   depend on whether I buy this mahogany table or not.  In any case, 
   not much is likely to happen in my lifetime.  
    
       -- If I somehow know that a chemical company stock is about to 
   gain $5, and I decide not to buy because the company makes 
   chemicals that end up in toxic dumps, two things happen: I lose a 
   chance to make $5 for every share I could afford to purchase and 
   the chemical company will feel absolutely no additional pressure to 
   abandon the production of these chemicals.  In fact there will be 
   no impact on the company, nor their policies, whatever I decide to 
   do.  
    
       -- Currently the government is encouraging all of us to buy all 
   we can in order to stimulate the economy.  It makes much more sense 
   for me to cut my spending and pay off my credit bills. If everyone 
   does that, the recession becomes a depression. 
     
       --  Young people who want to use their credit cards demand that 
   the government lower interest rates even though that cuts the 
   income of the elderly who are living on the interest off their 
   savings. 
    
       -- Should I contribute to Public Television?  Not only will my 
   $25 contribution not impact whether the station stays on the air or 
   not, but my use of their service costs them nothing more than what 
   they already spend.  Rationally, I use but don't pay.  
    
       --Consider the situation of a bank near possible failure. 
   Suppose that you know that the bank's situation is precarious and 
   that if several people suddenly withdraw their deposits, it will 
   have to close.  You have $5000 in deposit.  What should you do?  
   The bank will not close because of your individual action so your 
   withdrawal will not hurt other people.  But if there is a "run" on 
   the bank, you lose $5000.  

    If the above arguments are correct, we can only conclude that a 
rational and selfish individual will not voluntarily contribute to 
community welfare even though he/she would share in that welfare.  We 
could even suggest that the only people who do voluntarily sacrifice 
personal rewards for the public good are nothing but patsies.  The 
person who refuses to contribute to the common good gets a double 
reward.  He or she gets the immediate reward of the money or effort 
saved, and the long term reward of collecting whatever public good the 
patsies created.  
     
     *But doesn't altruism have it's own rewards?* 
 
     There are very convincing arguments that living human beings are 
rarely altruistic.  It is easier to believe that positive civic 
actions by individuals result from stupidity, intimidation, bribes, or 
the success of propaganda campaigns rather than true altruism! 
     

PAGE 16

     But can't we educate our children through the school system about 
the importance of working toward the common good?  
 
     We have been trying to do that ever since the beginning of this 
century.  Education hasn't converted children into altruistic adults 
in this country and it certainly didn't work in the Soviet Union where 
the school system tried desperately to create the new socialist man 
who would always work for the common good.  Indeed, it seems that just 
the opposite happens, the more educated a person is, the more he/she 
is likely to take rational actions and less likely to be easily 
convinced to sacrifice his own good for the common good. 
     
     What is the solution to this dilemma?  Do those of us wise enough 
to recognize the mythologies and the bull shit that priest and 
politicians hand out decide that we have no choice but to go along 
with the program of inducing guilt, intimidating the ignorant, 
propagandizing the uneducated, and bribing the electorate as it has 
been practiced by the churches, governments, and teachers for 
thousands of years?  

     Or, do we shout out the truth?  Do we admit to ourselves, and 
tell anyone who wants to listen that sacrificing for the common good 
makes no rational sense, that the only way to achieve the common good 
is to make every thing a pay-as-you-go proposition with the free 
market place determining what the price of every commodity and benefit 
will be?  Moreover, do we make a rational decision to take every legal 
advantage of the common good and the common treasure for as long as 
others are willing to believe in the myths that teach it is better to 
serve the common good rather than look out for one's own selfish 
interests? 
 
     Indeed, do we dare examine the very concept that there even is 
such a thing as the common good?  Or is that idea as mythical as the 
morality that claims humans must put aside their own interest in order 
to serve the interest of the community?  
 
     In reality, society is always a chaotic mixture of competing 
needs in which the needs and wants of no two individuals ever match.  
No matter how much you may want tax supported public schools, I'll 
remain convinced that public schools are a failed social experiment 
that should be junked.  Some argue that the war on drugs does more 
damage to society than drug addiction could ever do.  Do agricultural 
subsidies really serve the common good of the consumer who must pay 
higher prices at the food counter?  
     
     There is not a single major political issue in modern America in 
which there is anything approaching a consensus agreement about what 
action must be taken in the common good. 
  
     *Would a society in which no one gave a damn about the common* 
*good, be such a bad place to live?*  
 
     Such a society would not put the butcher, the baker, or the 
farmer out of business.  We all must count on other people, but the 
best way to make sure that someone does what we want them to do is to 
return the favor by performing for them what they perceive to be an 
equal favor.  That's what the free market is all about.  

     If you really think about it, we already live in a society in 
which every individual is really looking out for their own self 

PAGE 17

interest.  It's just that we've allowed too many people to glibly lie 
that they were supporting the common good when all they are really 
interested in is their own selfish rewards.  They lie about their love 
for the common good because they want to take advantage of our 
gullibility to get what they want out of the system.  That includes 
every person who now holds political office and every person who is 
trying to get elected.  Throwing the current bunch out and replacing 
them is not going to solve the problem.  

     But what about the voter's paradox?  How do we solve that 
problem? 
 
     Why bother?  If we give up the idea that people should sacrifice 
for the common good, we take away most of the justification for the 
politician.  In a free society, voting shouldn't count for much.  If 
people take full responsibility for their own lives, that leaves 
nothing for politicians to do.  It's only when we allow the politician 
to make us slaves of the common good that we have to worry about whom 
we elect.    

    *-------------------------------------------------------------*       
    |      THE CHAOS ADVOCATE is copyrighted by Mack Tanner.  You | 
    | may review and read sections of this electronic publication | 
    | to determine whether or not you would like to read the      | 
    | entire work.  If you decide to read the entire magazine, or | 
    | if you keep a copy of the magazine for your own personal use| 
    | or review for more than two days must pay a SHARELIT fee by | 
    | mailing $2.00 to                                            | 
    |                                                             |       
    |          Mack Tanner                                        |       
    |          1234 Nearing Rd.                                   |       
    |          Moscow, ID 83843                                   |       
    |                                                             |       
    |      If you want a receipt, include a self-addressed and    |     
    | stamped envelope.                                           |     
    *-------------------------------------------------------------*       


PAGE 18

         


                 *-----------------------------------*
                 |   BAD CITIZENS AND GOOD FREEDOM   |
                 |                                   |
                 |                 by                |
                 |           Jefferson Mack          |
                 *-----------------------------------*

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every 
class is unfit to govern." --Lord Acton 
     
     If every class is unfit to govern, then who will lead us?  The 
answer is obvious.  No one! 
     Free, independent, competent people don't need leaders.  A truly 
free society is disorganized.  Nobody is in charge.  Nobody takes 
orders.  Everyone does exactly what he or she wants to do, taking 
orders from nobody else.  If you want something from someone else, you 
make a voluntary trade or exchange in which both of you are happy with 
the deal. 
     The people who preach the need to organize don't want you to be 
free.  What they want is for you to pay their bills and do their dirty 
work so they can be free to do what they want to do. 
     The last thing someone who wants to boss others wants around are 
independent, competent people who want to left alone to live their own 
lives.  Such people never make good citizens, not the way a politician 
talks about good citizens.  
     A political leader will tell you a good citizen obeys the law--
every law.  A good citizen works hard--at whatever job the government 
tells him he is suppose to work at.  A good citizen pays his taxes--
even if he doesn't have enough left over to feed his kids.  A good 
citizen volunteers his or her time to work on civic projects the 
leader designs.  A good citizen goes off to fight and die in wars with 
people he doesn't know so that the leader can win a place in the 
history books.  The good citizen never complains--no matter how stupid 
or crude a government official treats him nor how much a leader asks 
him to sacrifice.  
     Give a politician enough good citizens and he will rule forever, 
fat and happy, while the good citizens sweat and suffer and die to 
make sure the political leader keeps the good life. 
     Politicians and bureaucrats spend a great deal of time and effort 
trying to convince the people they rule that a moral person must be a 
good citizen.  Back in the dark ages they called it the "Divine Right 
of Kings".  Now days it's called patriotic duty, or civic 
responsibility, but it all adds up to the argument that every decent, 
honorable person must put the interests of the state and the 
government above their own personal interests.  

        BAD CITIZENS HAVE MORE FUN BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE FREE. 

     A free society is supposed to have free citizens, not good 
citizens.  The day you wake up and realize you don't have all the 
freedom you want, the first thing you want to do is bad citizen. 
     A bad citizen may love the place where he lives.  He may love his 
country and respect his neighbors.  But a bad citizen won't love or 
respect the people who run the government.  A bad citizen will always 
put his own interest and the interest of his family and friends above 

PAGE 19

the interest of some common good as described by the people who hold 
political power. 
     We are not talking here about violent criminals or rebels.  
Political leaders love those kinds of people.  They love pulling their 
guns, arresting people and putting down riots.  If you don't think the 
politicians loved the recent events in Los Angeles, you haven't been 
watching the TV news.  Every single politician in the country has 
jumped on the band wagon by promising us they'll solve the problem if 
we'll just give them some more of our money and a little more of our 
freedom.  
     Political leaders love big trials with lots of newspaper space.  
It gives them a chance to show how powerful they can really be.  They 
are expecting open confrontation and they will be prepared to deal 
with it.  They have detention camps, secret police, riot control 
equipment, and the army ready to go after all those who dare openly 
confront the government.  
     But any political leader who's got a country full of peaceful bad 
citizens has got a serious problem.  Bad citizens work hard to support 
themselves, they treat their neighbors with respect, they won't cheat 
others for their own gain, and they don't do violent acts that hurt 
innocent people.  
     What bad citizens won't do is help the government make his or her 
life miserable.  They continually try to maximize the freedom they 
have, even if they have to break or ignore a few laws to do it. 
     Too many bad citizens make government almost impossible.  That's 
one big reason why the Soviet Union didn't work.  Too many Soviet 
citizens realized they were never going to get a fair share out of 
socialism and they stopped being good citizens.  They looked out for 
themselves rather than the good of the State.  

                 GOOD CITIZENS MAKE TYRANTS POSSIBLE. 

     Nazi Germany wasn't filled with people who wanted to throw Jews 
into bonfires, make slaves of eastern Europeans, or rule the world 
from Berlin.  Nazi Germany was filled with good citizens and Hitler 
did everything he could to make all those good citizens think they 
were better off with him in charge, even if they did have to give up a 
few freedoms.  Hitler was more frightened that all those good citizens 
might stop being good citizens than he was of the allied armies.  
     North Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, Iran, and Iraq are filled with good 
citizens, all of them hoping that by being good citizens, they will 
help things get better.  Only things keep getting worse.  The good 
citizen works harder but gets less to eat, has less fun, enjoys life 
less, and has less hope for a better future. 

            BAD CITIZENS HAVE KEPT THE UNITED STATES FREE. 

     Back in 1917 a majority of the voters in the United States 
decided they knew what was best for everyone and passed the Eighteenth 
Amendment, taking away the freedom of a man to relax with a beer after 
an honest day's work.  Hundred of thousands in this great country 
suddenly turned into bad citizens.  They didn't organize into a let's-
bring-back-the- booze political party or start blowing up police 
stations.  All they did was to keep on drinking.  Some bad citizens 
were more than willing to smuggle, distill, or brew the booze and sell 
it for a profit. 
     In 1933, the social manipulators and the do-gooders finally gave 
up, agreed to throw out the great experiment and a tens of thousands 
of people went back to being good citizens. 
     These kind of things keep happening all over this country.  Have 

PAGE 20

you tried driving a fixed fifty-five along our highways?  A whole 
industry has gotten rich selling us radar detectors to give us a 
chance against the modern technology of the Highway Patrol.  
Eventually, the wizards in Washington had no choice but to up the 
speed limit to 65, at least in a few places. 
     The Drug Enforcement Administration, and every State and local 
police department spend billions each year to try and stamp out the 
use of recreational drugs.  Yet every year, the price of the drugs go 
down, while availability go up.  Anybody who wants to smoke pot, can, 
any place in the United States. 
     Other freedoms are under constant attack.  Take the issue of gun 
control.  The people who tout this totalitarian principle keep telling 
us that the majority of Americans want some kind of gun control.  So 
what?  No majority in a free country has the right to take away the 
freedoms of any minority.  That's what freedom is all about, and 
owning a gun is a damn good way to help make sure nobody starts 
interfering with your personal freedom.  As long as the people who 
understand and believe that principle insist on keeping their guns, we 
are going to be able to keep them. 
     In California the state government outlawed a whole collection of 
different kinds of semi-automatic weapons and demanded that every 
citizen register those weapons and turn them in.  Non-compliance has 
been almost total. 
     Americans used to be pretty good tax payers, way back in the 
forties and fifties.  But one day we woke up and realized that the fat 
cat friends of Congress had all been given special privileges and were 
paying less than their fair share.  
     So a whole lot of good taxpayers have turned into bad citizens.  
We are now a nation of tax evaders.  We figure every angle, both legal 
and illegal to bring down our own taxes.  Every increase in the tax 
structure is matched or exceeded by losses as more ordinary middle 
class citizens figure out ways to cheat on their taxes or join the 
underground economy.  We've now got the politicians against the ropes.  
They are bankrupting the treasury, but they can't raise taxes any 
farther because the know all us bad citizens aren't going to take it 
any more.  
     If we keep protesting and evading new tax increases, eventually 
the politicians will have no choice but to start cutting the waste if 
they want to leave enough money in the treasury to keep paying them 
their fat salaries.   
     Each of the above examples shows just how much we are a nation of 
bad citizens.  That's why we have as much freedom as we do.  That's 
why in recent years, this country has been moving in the direction of 
more freedom, not less.  The politicians are finally beginning to 
understand that you can't take an American's freedom away and make it 
stick.  There are two many bad citizens in this country. 

                    HOW TO SURVIVE AS A BAD CITIZEN 
      
     Once you realize that you are not living in a free country and 
that there is no go reason why you should be a good citizen, there are 
a few rules you need to learn so you can get the most benefit out of 
being a bad citizen without suffering more loss of personal freedom or 
even going to jail.  
     A smart bad citizen won't let himself get caught being bad.  He 
won't brag to his friends and neighbors about what a bad citizen he 
is.  He won't tell the local newspaper how proud he is of being a bad 
citizen.  He will not deliberately confront the government, and he 
will avoid doing anything in public that will warn any government 
official he is not a good citizen. 

PAGE 21

     The bad citizen tries to be the invisible man or woman, the 
person the government official would never expect is denying the 
government his help and cooperation. 
     That means if you want to be a bad citizen, you don't want to 
stand on any street corners making speeches demanding revolution and 
you don't want to run with a mob throwing rocks at police vehicles.  
You just want to live your own life, doing everything in private you 
want to do, exactly the way you want to do it. 
     You want to look like a good citizen.  You will even want to do 
some things that all good citizens do, like vote. 
     Only once you are in the voting booth, you vote against every 
bond issue, every politician who's in office, and every new initiative 
that will increase government power or raise your taxes.  If the only 
choice is between two common thieves then a bad citizen writes in 
someone else's name, or even his own. 
     You insist on getting every possible government benefit you are 
eligible for and demand every government service the law says you are 
entitled to receive.  If you are eligible, you'll collect social 
security, unemployment benefits, use food stamps, dip into Medicare, 
claim farm subsidies, and try to get the government to pay you for 
drawing obscene art or writing nasty stories.  
     You may even decide to take a government job, if you can make 
more money doing that than working for some private firm.  But a bad 
citizen who's got a government job takes all his sick leave, goofs off 
every chance he gets, and does everything he can to minimize the 
damage the government can do to other bad citizens.  
     But don't cooperate with the bastards when it's not to your 
advantage to do so.  Except when it's in your direct, economic 
advantage, you ignore the government.  Never voluntarily do anything 
that will help the government in any way. 
      If bad citizens know someone who is cheating on their taxes, 
violating a business license law, working in a job paying less than 
the minimum wage, or selling a little dope, they don't call the 
authorities. 
      A bad citizen files his income tax return but cheats in ways 
that take advantage of IRS incompetence.  Bad citizens work off the 
books and don't declare the income.  They'll drive one hundred and 
fifty miles to buy a truck load of groceries in another state that 
charges less sales tax. 
     A bad citizen loses his census form, or fills it in wrong.  Bad 
citizens don't provide the government any kind of information unless 
they get an immediate benefit or there is a government official 
standing there insisting that they do it. 
     Bad citizens don't sacrifice their own pleasures or happiness 
just because the government tells them such sacrifices are in the 
common good.  They don't volunteer their services for anything the 
government is trying to do, no matter how worthwhile the project 
appears to be.  If the politicians tell them there is an energy 
crisis, they don't turn the heat down and the lights off if they can 
afford the electricity.  
     Bad citizens enjoy the freedom of driving their own personal cars 
instead of riding tax-subsidized mass transit systems or subjecting 
their personal schedules to the demands of car pooling.  Bad citizens 
don't waste time sorting garbage unless there is a direct economic 
benefit for doing so.  They don't man a voting booth, support the 
local sheriff, waste time in town meetings, donate to political 
parties, report poachers, nor contribute to the Community Chest and 
United Fund.  They recognize that a government that steals freedom 
shouldn't get any voluntary help.  

PAGE 22

     Of course, there is a chance that someone will show up at your 
door pointing a gun to make you volunteer for some civic duty like 
jury duty.  When that happens, don't argue, go.  But a bad citizen 
won't do anything more than what is absolutely necessary.  On 
something like jury duty, it may even be possible to help screw up the 
system even while pretending to act like a good citizen.  
     It the person on trial is accused of tax evasion, drug offenses, 
bootlegging, pornography, non-violent sex offenses, a failure to 
obtain a business license, or any other crime that shouldn't be a 
crime in a free society, a bad citizen can always find some 
justification for voting not guilty, even if every other member of the 
jury is convinced he's guilty.  
     Such a bad citizen is exercising the right of jury nulification, 
that is, the right to set a person free because the juror thinks the 
law is not constitutional.  But the bad citizen won't admit that to 
the judge, the jury, nor the press.  Instead, he or she will insist 
that he or she was not convinced by the prosecutor's evidence.  
     When the government confronts a bad citizen, the bad citizen will 
insist that the government official respect every right that the 
Constitution and the law gives every citizen.  The bad citizen makes 
sure he knows what rights the law gives him, and then he demands they 
be respected.  The bad citizen will be polite, he will fight the urge 
to get angry, he will never, ever, initiate violence against a 
government official, but he will insist on his rights.  Unless he is 
presented with a warrant, he won't let a government official into his 
house, he won't give permission to any officer of the law to search 
any of his belongings, and he won't answer any questions, even 
apparently innocent questions without first checking with a lawyer. 
     Even in the United States with all the protections against self-
incrimination, most of the people in jails are there because they 
talked too much.  
     When questioned by a government official, the smart person in 
such a situation becomes the dumbest citizen in the county.  He hasn't 
been reading the newspapers, doesn't listen to the radio, doesn't know 
a thing about what is going on, but he loves the government, and loves 
doing his civic duty, and he knows his rights. 
     If bad citizens are asked a direct question, they won't lie, but 
they give as little information as possible.  They never gives any 
information that they are not required by law to give.  But the do it 
all courteously, never suggesting by tone or attitude that they are 
being anything but totally cooperative. 
     All you have to do is say, "I don't want to answer that 
question."   If the government official insists you answer the 
question, then you say, "I want to speak to my lawyer before I answer 
that question."   
     But most of the time, the bad citizen will never be bothered by 
some government thug because he will learn how to maximize his own 
happiness without having to have any dealings with the politician or 
the bureaucrat. 

PAGE 23



EDITOR'S NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING WILL NO DOUBT ANGER MANY OF OUR WOMEN 
READERS AS WELL AS SOME MEN.  WHEN YOU GET SO ANGRY YOU REFUSE TO READ 
ANY FURTHER, PLEASE JUMP TO THE LAST PAGE AND READ OUR OFFER.  
 

          
                      *------------------------*
                      |  GETTING ALL YOU WANT  |
                      |                        |
                      |           By           |
                      |     Roger Victor       |
                      *------------------------*

      All you want of what?  Come on!  You know what I'm talking 
about, the thing that most of us spend every waking hour thinking 
about when we aren't getting all we want.  
      I'm talking about the one thing that women have a one hundred 
percent monopoly on.  And don't they know how to use it to get what 
they want?  As the old country song says, they learn it in the cradle.  
They tease us, threaten us, deny us, bribe us, and get us to act like 
cretins and idiots before they hand it out in small batches. 
      Most of us men will do almost anything to get it.  We'll lie, 
steal, pay, and even promise to love the little darlings. 
      Now unless you're rich, or so handsome that Greek Gods hide when 
you walk by, there is only one way you will ever come close to getting 
all you want.   
      You have to have a wife. 
      That's the deal men made for thousands of years.  We brought 
home the meat, fought off the wolves, plowed the fields, and held the 
ladies when they were scared, all so that when the cooking fire burned 
down, we'd get access to the treasure cave.  The girls didn't just 
furnish loving either.  They cooked our food, sewed our clothes, 
chewed leather to make our moccasins, and generally made themselves 
handy all day long. 
      I've never known a bachelor who was getting all he wanted. I 
certainly never did during those times in my life when I didn't have a 
wife.  The feminine libbers like to call it prostitution these days, 
but call it what you like, most husbands paid well.  Perhaps, they 
paid too damn well.  
      Men didn't like to come home to find the creature with whom they 
wanted to roll with the ground too exhausted to move because she had 
spent the day scraping deer hides, stirring the mastodon stew, or 
pounding the clothes on a rock to get them clean.  The answer was a 
credit card, a gas stove, a stainless steel pressure cooker, and 
automatic washers.  All the sweetheart really had to do was to push 
the buttons on the dishwasher, run a vacuum cleaner across the floor, 
throw the clothes in the Maytag, pop dinner in the microwave, and get 
ready to make hubby's day as soon as he came home. 
      Leave it to Eve.  She kicked herself out of paradise. She got 
the idea that loverboy was having nothing but a good time all those 
hours he was out making a living so she decided she wanted a career 
too. 
      Instead of looking on men as great guys who did so much for a 
woman just so he could get a bit of loving, they suddenly decided we 
were oppressors, the people keeping them from discovering their true 
selves. 
      Look what we have now, a real war between the sexes.  If you are 

PAGE 24

an educated American male between the ages of twenty-five and sixty, 
if you went to college, and if you work with brains instead of brawn, 
there is an eighty-three per cent chance you're not getting all you 
want, even if you have a wife. 
      You're spending hours in singles bars pretending you're the 
"new" male; you're changing diapers and washing the dishes after 
you've cooked the meal; you're learning how to cry; and you're 
watching TV reruns alone because your wife's out of town on a business 
trip.  You may not even be reading this in your own home because the 
current woman in your life won't let you keep "sexist trash and 
pornography" in the place.  Whether you're married or single, the 
*new* woman has got you jumping through hoops in so many different 
directions that some of you are opting out, learning to live without 
any of it at all.  
      Isn't it about time you stopped worrying about what women want, 
and started to think about what you want? 
      Most men have pretty damn simple wants, a stomach full of tasty 
food, a place to put our feet up in the evening, and all the loving we 
can handle. 
      So, how do you do it, how do you get all you want? 
      The answer is so damn simple, it's surprising more of you 
haven't figured it out. 
      
                         YOU GET A HOUSEWIFE! 
      
     The word is housewife, like helpmate, a woman who accepts you as 
the supplier of the good life and thanks you for being that by giving 
you all you want--a woman who cooks your food, washes your clothes, 
takes care of the kids, and crawls in beside you every night. 
      I'll bet you thought that wonderful creature didn't exist any 
more.  Your wrong, they are not extinct.  But they don't hang around 
the places the average modern American male lives.  
      Whether you're a twenty-two year old just drawing your first pay 
check, a thirty-five year old that's about to renounce sex forever 
rather than risk one more put down, or a forty-five year old with a 
divorce settlement that makes the sex his wife handed out for fifteen 
years the most expensive thing he ever bought, there is a woman out 
there who can make you a good housewife, if you know where to look. 
      You are not going to find that woman in the senior class at the 
local university.  You won't find her in the corps of junior 
executives in the corporation you work for, nor at the country club 
your folks belong to.  She won't be waiting for you in a bar where the 
drinks start at $5.50 a shot.  If you're young and you grew up in a 
middle, or upper income family in the United States, there is a good 
chance you have never met the kind of woman that makes a good 
housewife. 
      If you want a housewife, you'll have to find a woman who is 
living such a miserable life that she'll grab the chance of cooking 
your meals, cleaning the house, spending your money, and playing 
cotton tail in bed at night just to get out of the mess she hates. 
      For thousands of years, women gladly jumped at becoming a 
housewife because that was a hell of a lot better life than anything 
else they might do. 
      Now days, the modern, college educated, American women sees 
herself as having a lot of other options that she thinks are better.  
      So where do you find a woman who doesn't have those options.  
Here's a few suggestions where you can start looking. 

PAGE 25

      
                           THE AMERICAN POOR 
      
      There are thousands of women working in jobs that pay minimum 
wage with no prospects for moving up the salary scale.  They are not 
working because they like their career, they're working because they 
will go hungry if they don't.  Most of them have been working since 
they were teenagers in drudge jobs that leave them dragging their ass 
back home to small apartments and tasteless meals.  They are the women 
that never saw the inside of a disco, who read the funny papers and 
romance novels, not THE SATURDAY REVIEW nor the Sunday edition of the 
NEW YORK TIMES.  
     That's right, one way to find the perfect housewife is to slide a 
few steps down the social ladder.  Look for a woman who never went to 
college, and maybe didn't even get a chance to finish high school.  Go 
hunting for a poor thing who will be only too happy to get pulled up a 
ladder she never thought she could climb.  
      Make sure she understands what the bargain is when you find her.  
You want a housewife that will stay a housewife, that will stay home 
with the kids figuring out ways to make tasty but economical meals, 
patching the hole in your sock instead of throwing the pair in the 
wastebasket. 
      I'll admit that with the joys of the American education system, 
the poor young ladies are much rarer than they used to be.  But there 
are still some of them out there.  All you have to do is look.  Belief 
me, they will be happy you found them.  
     But where do you look for them? 
     You can't hunt deer in Central Park and you can't catch fish in 
the bathtub.  If you want to find a woman that will happily sign up as 
a housewife, you'll have to go to the kinds of places they gather. 
      One place to look is the small cities and rural towns of 
America.  For every run-a-way from Minnesota that ends up selling it 
on Times Square, there are a hundred more back home still keeping it 
as a private stock and dreaming about a prince charming who doesn't 
have black grime under his finger nails and won't insist that she keep 
working at her job as a waitress or a construction crew flag girl so 
he can afford a six pack every evening. 
      Save the money you would have spent on a Club Med vacation, and 
drive up for a weekend to one of the rural towns of the state you live 
in, not one of the places the tourist all go, but someplace where 
everybody, especially the women, know that a male stranger is in town. 
      Take a summer vacation in the mid-west or one of the mountain 
States.  Forget about the girls sitting at the bar, or eating in the 
fancy restaurant.  Talk to the waitress, the girl checking out 
groceries, the counter girl at the motel, or the meter maid putting a 
parking ticket on your car.  
      You may not even have to go that far from your own home.  Most 
big cities have working class neighborhoods where parents often don't 
have the money to send their children to college.  Instead of sitting 
at home watching the Celtics play basketball, take in a high school 
game in the part of town where the fathers all carry lunch boxes off 
to work every day. 
      The secret is making it clear from the very beginning exactly 
what you are interested in--a housewife.  When you meet a girl a 
couple of social classes down the way, make sure you work into the 
conversation early on how much you like the old fashion way, how badly 
you want a wife that will be a housewife.     
      Making them understand that has a double advantage. First, you 
weed out those girls who have read so much modern junk they think a 
jump up the social ladder should mean an exciting career, not a life 

PAGE 26

of luxury tending house and waiting for a man to come home for some 
tender loving.  The second reason is that you create a situation of 
trust.  Too many lower class women have been burned by the man with 
money in his pocket who was looking for variety, not a lifetime diet.  
You want to to convince them you're for real.     
 
                           THE FOREIGN BRIDE 
      
      If you've made it in this country you wear Italian shoes and 
suits from a London tailor.  You use a Japanese camera and watch a 
television set made in Korea.  You drink German beer and French wine 
and who with any money drives an American car?  So why not look for a 
wife in one of those countries that producing everything else that 
makes life so nice to live. 
      You've seen the adds in the back of magazines.  "Asian women 
want to meet American men."  It's not just the Asian women who are 
jumping at the chance of becoming American housewives.  There are 
women waiting for someone like you in Mexico, Spain, any of the 
recently communist countries, all of South America, and even Australia 
and New Zealand too. 
      Don't just answer a magazine ad.  Learn all you can about the 
different foreign cultures.  Pick the one that appeals to you most and 
spend some vacation time visiting there.  If possible, learn the 
language of the country you focus your attention on. 
      I've spent years living overseas and I know dozens of American 
men who have married foreign women, some as a first wife, and many as 
a second try.  It doesn't work every time, but most of the men I know 
with foreign wives are a lot happier than the boys back on Madison 
Avenue who are still trying to figure out what the American model 
they're living with really wants. 
 
                           THE NOT SO PRETTY 
      
      Every one likes a pretty girl on his arm and all cats aren't the 
same in the dark, not if one weighs one hundred pounds and the second 
one breaks the scale at three fifty. Still, homely women can make damn 
fine lovers, and grateful ones too.  There are thousands of women who 
have given up the hope of ever being held, cuddled, and loved because 
their parents never paid to get their teeth straightened, their 
features don't quite fit together, their breast are too small, their 
hips are too thick, or their hair too thin.  When you meet one, make 
her day and give her a smile.  You might find there is a nice person 
there, one that would be only too happy to play the old fashion game 
of helpmate, if some man would only give her a chance.  You'll be 
surprised how pretty they can be in the dark. 
      So what if your friends smirk whenever you show up in public.  
When they're home begging the stunning beauty they married for another 
tiny bit of the loving she hands out once every two weeks, you'll be 
sacked out and sound asleep, the dark hiding the silly smile on your 
face the same way it hides your wife's crossed eyes or dumbo ears.     
      If you absolutely have to have a stunning blond hanging on your 
arm whenever you show up in public, hire one for the occasion.  
Believe me, it will be cheaper in the long run. 
      
                          THE RELIGIOUS LADY 
      
      Don't forget about the woman who thinks Phyllis Shafley is 
right, the girl who believes that God intended for the man to rule and 
the woman to obey.  However, move carefully here, unless you share 
those same religious beliefs.  If you don't, expect her to spend half 

PAGE 27

her life trying to save your soul.  Worse yet, sometime the religious 
ones have been so sold on sex being evil, they never get over it being 
a no-no.  They'll let you, because the priest tells them they have to, 
but they won't enjoy it, and neither will you.   
 
                     THE DIVORCED AND THE WIDOWED 

      The older you get, the more of these there are going to be in an 
age group that fits your needs.  There will be so many of them by the 
time you reach sixty, you may not even need to take a housewife to 
make sure you get all you want. Way back when I was a kid I knew a 
fellow named Chester who was sixty-five.  He had a stable of women 
hauling his ashes that would have done a Mormon patriarch proud.  His 
only problem was scheduling which one was putting out on what night. 
      Still, it's not just sex we're talking about, it's the other 
goodies that go with living with a woman.  If you're still healthy, 
able to pay the bills that come from supporting a woman, and look like 
you have a few more years, the widows and the divorcees, especially 
the ones with children, will be lining up to listen to your offers. 
      
                    ONCE YOU'VE GOT ONE PICKED OUT 
 
      The real problem isn't finding a helpmate, it's the hard 
bargaining you have to engage in to make sure you get what you want.  
No matter where you find the woman, the key point is making it clear 
before she moves in exactly what the deal is.  You'll be the one who 
earns the salary, she'll take care of the housework, and you decide 
when it's time to not make love.  If you want to really be smart, 
you'll put it in writing, along with some very clear understandings 
about how you divide up the property and the kids if you decide she's 
no longer living up to her share of the bargain. 
      The modern American woman working beside you at the office will 
hate you for it.  She'll sneer at you, call you a pig, and try to talk 
your wife out of the happiness you both have.  She will also spend a 
lot of time wondering why she can't have what that poor, foreign, 
uneducated, homely twit waiting for you at home has--a man who acts 
like he wants to act, not like NOW thinks he should act. 
      I ought to make it clear here that I like the modern, educated, 
career oriented American woman.  I've always liked bright, intelligent 
ladies.  I agree they must be paid exactly what a man is paid if they 
are doing the same kind of work, and I have absolutely no problems 
taking orders from one if she happens to be the boss.  At different 
times, I've worked for three different women and I got along great 
with all of them and promotions from two of them.  I agree that they 
have every right to work free of sexual harrassment with the full 
respect of their co-workers.  
      Some modern, educated American women even make good housewives.  
There are those who have figured out that being a wife and a mother 
can be just as rewarding and certainly as important to society as any 
job they could ever find.  If you find one of those, you may have 
found the best of everything. 

EDITOR'S OFFER:  EVERY HUMAN BEING IS ENTITLED TO FIND HIS OR HER OWN 
HAPPINESS, INCLUDING HAPPINESS IN MARRIAGE AND FAMILY LIFE, THROUGH 
THE BARGAINING PROCESS.  WE WOULD LIKE TO PRINT A COUNTER-PIECE TO THE 
ABOVE ARTICLE, WRITTEN BY A WOMAN AND SUGGESTING HOW THE MODERN 
AMERICAN WOMAN CAN BEST FIND THE KIND OF MAN SHE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE 
HER LIFE WITH AND WHAT KIND OF BARGAIN SHE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE WITH 
SUCH A PERSON.  WE PROMISE WE WILL PUBLISH IN A FUTURE ISSUE OF *THE 
CHAOS ADVOCATE* THE BEST SUCH PIECE SUBMITTED TO US.      

PAGE 28
  
     
                    *----------------------------*
                    | WANTED: A FEW GOOD WRITERS |
                    *----------------------------* 

     We are looking for a few good creative writers, philosophers, and 
political theorists who are committed to the idea of personal freedom 
in all things.  If you have something to say on this subject, let us 
include it in this electronic magazine.  We are especially interested 
in personal experiences and practical advice that explain how an 
individual can maximize his or her own personal freedom in confronting 
and surviving the suppressive institutions of culture, state, church, 
school, and corporate business.  We will also consider good fiction 
that deals with the same set of problems.  
     
     For legal reasons we will not publish anything that advocates 
specific criminal activity nor anything that libels or slanders a 
living human being or legal person.  Other than that, we will give 
serious consideration to any manuscript that advocates chaos and 
freedom. 
     
     We can not offer authors any recompense other than the chance to 
get published in an electronic medium.  We welcome articles that have 
been previously printed in other medium, provided the person making 
the submission has the legal right to put the manuscript into 
publication.  
     
     Anyone submitting an article for publication in THE CHAOS 
ADVOCATE will retain all rights to the article or story except for the 
electronic publication of the article in a single issue of this 
electronic magazine. 
     
     Writers wishing to submit articles and essays for publication can 
upload them to any one of the following E-mail addresses. 
    
    Compuserve: 72037,2673 
    Delphi:  MACKTANNER
    The Rational Life Bulletin Board    
        615-433-7869
        Fidonet node number 1:116/38
    Internet: Mack.Tanner@f38.n116.z1.fidonet.org 

     We welcome queries and comments.