Curley: A New Hampshire town tried libertarianism. Then came the consensual cannibalism.

When A taxes B to help C, both A and C benefit; only B gets screwed. This is standard procedure.

You might have watched or might have heard because it’s been in the news, and I know we’ve been talking about it continuously, because the state income tax is a very, very big deal.

It happened in New Jersey. It happened in Connecticut. In New Jersey, this started out high, and then it went low and gathered a bunch of other people. Same thing in Connecticut.

“Oh, we’ll get these people,” but then they continue to expand it, so people got upset about it.

And I think the majority of people who are thinking and rational see what’s happening in Olympia, and they know that it’s starting out with a “millionaire tax.” Even the term “millionaire tax” isn’t honest.

It’s not a “millionaire tax,” it’s a household tax.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith together combined is a household. Are they over a million? Well, there you go.

So it’s not even a millionaire tax. They’re calling it that. So people like, “Yeah, well, I’m not a millionaire, so screw the millionaires.”

That’s basically what’s happening.

So it’s dishonest, even in the name, so most people see and smell the dishonesty that’s coming, especially with the fact that we’ve had senators say, “Well, listen, even Larry Springer, who has been serving there in Olympia for many, many years, says, ‘Well, yeah, there’s no reason you should trust us.'”

The libertarian experiment that went wrong

So that’s why people are outraged by it. And I had somebody text me saying, “Oh, OK, Mr. Libertarian, you know everything, so why don’t you create like the perfect libertarian state where no one has to pay any taxes?”

We can’t have something like that. It was tried in about 2000, 2001 in Grafton, New Hampshire, but there was a call that went out across the internet for people who were libertarians.

“Come to New Hampshire. And if we can get like 2,000 people, little town of 1,000, if we can get enough people here, we can take control of the local government, and then we can cut taxes and reduce a whole bunch of stuff.”

So they did, they’re able to get about 300 people who came. They then got a chance to serve on the city council there in the little town, and they cut taxes.

First thing they did was they cut about 30% of the little town’s taxes, which also included police. And then they decided they were going to cut garbage pickup and cut this and cut that. And eventually, what happened was the whole town found itself a very free place for people to have as much freedom as they wanted. And that’s where the problems began.

Because when you put on the internet, “Hey, come to this little town, we’re going to have a perfect libertarian free world,” well, you do attract some nuts, like a guy, Zack Bass.

Zack Bass, the ultimate libertarian and a little bit of a kook, was really into freedom. He imagined this. You ready?

Backyard duels and consensual cannibalism? All fair game.

Imagine living in a town where Mr. Bass has control, and here are some of the things that he wanted to do: eliminate local enforcement of victimist crimes.

You’re like, “OK, Larry got me there.”

How about this? How about if you’re mad at your neighbor, and your neighbor is upset with you, and you both agree to go in the backyard and have a duel, that would be OK if one killed the other.

Like that? That was one of his ideas.

He thought there should be no control, no government control, over bum fights. If you wanted to get two bums to fight, and people could gather around and bet on a bum, and which bum would do better in the fight, there’s no reason for the government to be involved in that either.

He also said that he was OK with consensual cannibalism. If both parties agree, “Hey, what’s for dinner? I’ll have you over.” You gotta check and see what they mean by that.

Also, he was OK with the sales of organs. I guess that’s after the cannibalism comes in, that if you got a kidney and you want to sell it, it’s OK for you to put it in a cooler, move the ice and the beer away, and take it over and sell it. I’m kind of OK with that one.

But basically, the idea was ultimate freedom. So I have my property, you’ve got your property, HOAs or DOA, and you just have everybody live in their totally free life.

The woman who fed bears donuts and the chaos that followed

And here’s what happened. There was an old lady who liked the black bears. There are a lot of black bears in New Hampshire, and she also liked donuts, and she didn’t mind taking her money, that she had squirreled away, and buying as many donuts as she could. She put little stuff on top to make it a little healthier, but basically, it was like a chocolate or a strawberry donut.

And the bear started coming to her property, and she would sit there and feed them. Well, more and more bears showed up. And then after they’d leave her property, they went over to another person’s property and ate the cat. And then another bear went over and attacked the lady, and another bear went over and attacked another lady. So they’re like, this isn’t fair. You can’t keep feeding the bears donuts, because now they’re going over and they’re eating cats and they’re eating your neighbor.

So the woman says, “Well, that’s my property. I have a right to do whatever I want with it. I like the bears, and they like my donuts. So shouldn’t we be able to live this way?”

There’s a certain point where all of a sudden you do need everybody to agree to certain standards by which everybody will live, and it’s sort of a live and let live, without actually allowing people to have their cats and dogs be eaten by bears. But in the state of Washington, it’s out of control.

Olympia keeps feeding the seagulls

Isn’t it ironic that the government puts up signs don’t feed the seagulls? Why? Because they know seagulls will continue to go there, and they’ll poop all over the place. The only solace we get is the fact that seagulls only mate once a year. Now, if it were hamsters, they have sex 75 times a day.

Back to seagulls, the sign says, “Don’t feed him, because if you feed him more, then we’ll show up.”

We got a chance today to watch the folks in Olympia talk about feeding more and more seagulls. I’m not saying that the individuals themselves aren’t worthy and honorable people who want to do good things, but isn’t it interesting that the U.S. government has spent $20 trillion since the 1960s, and the poverty level stays just about the same.

We are giving, caring people, Americans are. We spend, we give away almost half a trillion dollars, to charity. In fact, we give away more to charity than any other country.

You think Canada is a great country? They give away about $15 billion. Now we are eight times bigger than they are. But Canada, with its great caring individuals, only $15 billion, while the United States gives $563 billion to charity.

So when the state of Washington asks for more and more money because they have more and more programs — they’ll have more and more programs, and they’ll ask for more and more money, and then they’ll ask for more and more money, and they’ll ask for more and more programs. And will anything be solved? Probably not. So get yourself a U-Haul, and let’s give those hamsters some credit.

Listen to John Curley weekday afternoons from 3 – 7 p.m. on KIRO Newsradio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.

Follow @http://twitter.com/curleyseattle