David McElroy

One of the insidious things about the state is that it fosters dependence and a sense of entitlement. In one Alabama community that was hit hard by a recent tornado, survivors met last night to complain that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wasn’t doing enough for them. (This story is on the front page of the Birmingham newspaper.) Some of the people complaining about being denied money by FEMA were fully covered for their losses by insurance, oddly enough.

I’m a big believer in charity. I’m a part of a church where giving and volunteering are big parts of the theological culture, and I strongly believe in that. But nobody is entitled to other people’s money without consent. Our system of government takes what should be people helping people and turns it into another entitlement program.

Until last Friday, there was a huge tree that dominated a section of my back yard. From everything I could tell, the tree was healthy and vibrant — tall and lush and beautiful. But a brief thunderstorm Friday brought strong wind and rain. I happened to point my iPhone through the screen of an upstairs window to shoot a few seconds of video of the storm just in time to see that huge tree collapse like a toothpick.

When the rain ended, I was able to look at the tree. It turned out that the inside was rotten and dead. The outside of the tree and all the branches and leaves above were green and gave every indication of being healthy. But the core had apparently been dead for a long time.

Is the same thing going on in the United States today? The U.S. government appears strong. It has the world’s most powerful military. It still has influence far beyond the population that it rules. But decades of borrowing and spending are gutting the U.S. economy. Is the U.S. state more dead than we realize? Is it just going to take one powerful, sudden wind to knock it over, leaving its dead trunk lying around waiting to be cut up and carted away?

There was a time in the distant past when I was naive (or delusional) enough to believe we could set the whole world free if we just worked hard enough. Today, I believe that the best we can do is to change little corners of the world and hope others decide to copy the successful models.

One of the more interesting “halfway” ideas I’ve heard about lately is that of establishing “free cities” inside existing nation-states. The idea is a head-scratcher at first, because you wonder why a government would see the value of real freedom, but limit it to just certain zones. For whatever reason, though, the idea is gaining strength. Zachary Caceres sent me a link to a story he wrote for the Adam Smith Institute about the development of free cities. (The Adam Smith Institute is considered the leading libertarian think tank in the UK.) He also points to an article by Michael Strong that looks at attempts to establish zones of freedom within very restrictive countries. He looks at attempts to do this in China, India and the United Arab Emirates. There are also videos of a recent conference devoted to trying these ideas in Honduras, which recently changed its constitution to allow such efforts.

Strong is working with Caceres and others on a “Free Cities Project website and a non-profit organization that will exist to promote the concept. Strong is also the author of a book that sounds like one I’d like to read, called “Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World’s Problems.”

So-called “free cities” that exist at the permission of a state can’t necessarily be long-term solutions for those of us who would like to get rid of the state entirely, but they might be transitional solutions that can lead the way to something more radical. They certainly sound as though they’re worth investigating further.

What do you think? Is this a viable alternative that could lead to more freedom? Or is it too limited to make a difference?