Walt Disney World: A Case Study in Anarchy

[__27__]

So I'm on vacation in the Florida area, and we decided to spend a day in the Magic Kingdom yesterday. After walking around for several hours with my family and watching people interact, it suddenly dawned on me that WDW is a great example of functioning private property anarchy.

Now I know some of you are jumping all over your reply buttons to tell me about the corporatism and consumerism, about $90 Mickey Mouse pencil erasers, etc. and I get that. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is the interaction of peoples within the context of WDW.

You see everyday millions of people from all over the world hoof it to WDW to have some fun and let their children's imaginations run wild. Once on the property at WDW, these diverse groups of people are under no rule save that of the property owners. These people who often don't even speak the same language are able to maneuver about the park with relative ease and have a good time without killing each other. How? Because each operates on his/her own rational self interest and honors the rules made by the private property owner. For instance, there are designated smoking areas, and all day long I NEVER saw anyone smoking outside of these areas. Why? Because those smokers were honoring the private property owners rules based on rational self interest. If they decided to smoke wherever they wanted, they knew that they could be forced to leave the private property and ruin their families day, plus be out all of the money they spent just to get in. Even at the end of the night as about 1.25 million of us (just a guesstimate of course) had to make our way down one narrow street together and on to the transportation together, there was no shoving or fistfighting, etc. Again the reason for this is simple, each persons rational self interest motivated them to conduct themselves in a manner which would get them to their destination the fastest.

Everything at WDW was achieved with ZERO government force. There are no Federal Agents or Sheriff's Deputies patrolling the park watching for smokers who aren't in the designated smoking area. The most you would ever see would be WDW's PDA (security), and even they are hardly ever seen. Their largest jobs were checking bags on the way in and jumpstarting cars at the end of the night.

Rational self interest. It will fuel the world if you allow it to.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I thought this was going to be more about the private roadways, safety checks, and security.

 

[__27__]

I thought this was going to be more about the private roadways, safety checks, and security.

It could be, as all are present as well. However I was only there for a day, and I was a bit distracted by the 'fam' and where they were dragging me. I just noticed as I was walking around the remarkable ease with which each person by way of his/her own rational self interest was able to accomplish everything they wanted WITHOUT the need for government force.

If you have some comments on the private roads, etc. at WDW I'd love to hear them. Something like showing the average American how WDW can be an example of functioning anarchy would be a great teaching tool. Imagine if every time Joe Public thought of anarchy he thought of his last trip to WDW rather than the last time he saw Mad Max. It would do a lot to change public perception at least.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So I'm on vacation in the Florida area, and we decided to spend a day in the Magic Kingdom yesterday. After walking around for several hours with my family and watching people interact, it suddenly dawned on me that WDW is a great example of functioning private property anarchy.

Now I know some of you are jumping all over your reply buttons to tell me about the corporatism and consumerism, about $90 Mickey Mouse pencil erasers, etc. and I get that. That has nothing to do with what I am talking about here. What I am talking about is the interaction of peoples within the context of WDW.

You see everyday millions of people from all over the world hoof it to WDW to have some fun and let their children's imaginations run wild. Once on the property at WDW, these diverse groups of people are under no rule save that of the property owners. These people who often don't even speak the same language are able to maneuver about the park with relative ease and have a good time without killing each other. How? Because each operates on his/her own rational self interest and honors the rules made by the private property owner. For instance, there are designated smoking areas, and all day long I NEVER saw anyone smoking outside of these areas. Why? Because those smokers were honoring the private property owners rules based on rational self interest. If they decided to smoke wherever they wanted, they knew that they could be forced to leave the private property and ruin their families day, plus be out all of the money they spent just to get in. Even at the end of the night as about 1.25 million of us (just a guesstimate of course) had to make our way down one narrow street together and on to the transportation together, there was no shoving or fistfighting, etc. Again the reason for this is simple, each persons rational self interest motivated them to conduct themselves in a manner which would get them to their destination the fastest.

Everything at WDW was achieved with ZERO government force. There are no Federal Agents or Sheriff's Deputies patrolling the park watching for smokers who aren't in the designated smoking area. The most you would ever see would be WDW's PDA (security), and even they are hardly ever seen. Their largest jobs were checking bags on the way in and jumpstarting cars at the end of the night.

Rational self interest. It will fuel the world if you allow it to.

Some good observations there.

 

[tremendoustie]

Everything you see here North of the 192 and the 4, and west of the 535, was built and is maintained by Disney. This includes multiple freeways, dozens of onramps/offramps, etc.

If you own a business, you want to enable your customers to get to you.

 

[__27__]

As I said before, I'd really like to see something on this. If we could get someone from LRC, or someone along the lines of Tom Woods or John Stossel to cover the market anarchy of WDW it could go a long way to changing public perception of anarchy.

Anarchy does not mean life with zero rules, it means a life without government force. A life where rules are set by private property owners, and if Joe Public thought of his visit to WDW when he heard anarchy rather than Mad Max, he would at least be more receptive to the thought, and breaking down that percetion boundary is one of our largest barriers. So many people dismiss anarchy before they even understand it or get a chance to think about it because their immediate reaction is mad max.

 

[tremendoustie]

As I said before, I'd really like to see something on this. If we could get someone from LRC, or someone along the lines of Tom Woods or John Stossel to cover the market anarchy of WDW it could go a long way to changing public perception of anarchy.

Anarchy does not mean life with zero rules, it means a life without government force. A life where rules are set by private property owners, and if Joe Public thought of his visit to WDW when he heard anarchy rather than Mad Max, he would at least be more receptive to the thought, and breaking down that percetion boundary is one of our largest barriers. So many people dismiss anarchy before they even understand it or get a chance to think about it because their immediate reaction is mad max.

That's why I really think we should give up on the word "anarchy". There are plenty of anarcho-communists, etc, anyway. The purpose of language is effective communication, and this is just not an effective term to communicate your ideas. It's the same reason a libertarian wanting to be understood shouldn't call himself a "liberal".

 

[__27__]

That's why I really think we should give up on the word "anarchy". There are plenty of anarcho-communists, etc, anyway. The purpose of language is effective communication, and this is just not an effective term to communicate your ideas. It's the same reason a libertarian wanting to be understood shouldn't call himself a "liberal".

But it is anarchy. Don't let TPTB define your terms. If a guy like Stossel did an hour long piece on anarchy in general and used WDW as an example and stressed private property rule, you would see many people who have been afraid of the word embrace it. As Murray said, we need more people to hate the state.

 

[Rancher]

Everything you see here North of the 192 and the 4, and west of the 535, was built and is maintained by Disney. This includes multiple freeways, dozens of onramps/offramps, etc.

If you own a business, you want to enable your customers to get to you.

Free market roads are the most efficient.

 

[__27__]

Free market roads are the most efficient.

Free Market _____ are the most efficient.


(fill in the blank with anything your heart desires)

 

[Deborah K]

Question: Why didn't the Articles of Confederation work if anarchy is the answer?

 

[tremendoustie]

Question: Why didn't the Articles of Confederation work if anarchy is the answer?

Who says they didn't? The federalists wanted more power, and they got it. We've been worse off ever since. The people should have stood against the growth of government power, and nipped it in the bud. I think most here support the AOC over the constitution, even those who are not voluntaryists.

And "anarchy" in general is not the answer. There are plently of kinds of anarchy that would be disastrous. I wish people would stop using the term ...

 

[Deborah K]

Who says they didn't? The federalists wanted more power, and they got it. We've been worse off ever since. The people should have stood against the growth of government power, and nipped it in the bud. I think most here support the AOC over the constitution, even those who are not voluntaryists.

And "anarchy" in general is not the answer. There are plently of kinds of anarchy that would be disastrous. I wish people would stop using the term ...

History says they didn't. If they were so successful, why were they replaced?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Question: Why didn't the Articles of Confederation work if anarchy is the answer?

They did work. The Federalists had their own tyrannical agenda, however. You haven't read Hamilton's Curse yet?
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It’s Time To End Hamilton’s Curse[/FONT]

 

[tremendoustie]

History says they didn't. If they were so successful, why were they replaced?

Because men wanted power. The same reason Hitler attacked Poland. That doesn't mean Poland's second republic was a worse form of government than that of Nazi Germany.

In retrospect, the people should have stood against the power grab of the federalists, but I suspect that what it represented, and would grow into, was not fully understood at the time.

By your logic, the monstrosity we have today is superior to the constitutional republic as it originally existed, simply because it has come later. A free banking system must be worse than a central bank. Federal government control of schools must be better than local control. Otherwise why were these things "replaced"? Clearly we should support Obama, because his ideas and form of government came later than Jefferson's.

Better governments are often replaced with worse ones. It happens all the time.

 

[rancher89]

Free market roads are the most efficient.

Hey! Are we neighbors?



My thoughts went to the recent local push for state toll roads and the vocal but ignored public that has been saying "Why not private toll roads?"

NC is doing a horrible job of taking care of the ones they (or the Feds) paid to have installed, why should we reward them with more roads to mismanage?

It's not just the recent economic crunch, they've been robbing the road money to pay for pet projects.

 

[Rancher]

Hey! Are we neighbors?

Howdy neighbor!

Yes, the state roads are merely jobs programs, and that is why the roads are always in need of repair. And that is why most roads are so poorly designed. Bumper to bumper traffic... stupid.

 

[Deborah K]

Because men wanted power. The same reason Hitler attacked Poland. That doesn't mean Poland's second republic was a worse form of government than that of Nazi Germany.

In retrospect, the people should have stood against the power grab of the federalists, but I suspect that what it represented, and would grow into, was not fully understood at the time.

By your logic, the monstrosity we have today is superior to the constitutional republic as it originally existed, simply because it has come later. A free banking system must be worse than a central bank. Federal government control of schools must be better than local control. Otherwise why were these things "replaced"? Clearly we should support Obama, because his ideas and form of government came later than Jefferson's.

Better governments are often replaced with worse ones. It happens all the time.

Your last paragraph is illogical. Number one, because it's been well over 200 years since the constitution was ratified and it only took 6 years to replace the AOC. We morphed into this mess because we didn't adhere to the Constitution. On the other hand, we replaced the AOC shortly after we instituted it for many reasons. First and foremost was because the states refused to help pay the 70 million dollar debt that had incurred to bring them their freedom. This debt included paying soldiers and even private citizens who had provided supplies. Also, the British and the Spanish were chomping at the bit to invade again and the states gave the federal gov't the finger. They couldn't even keep an army or navy together to protect the new country under the AOC.

There were tariff wars between the states as well. States were imposing taxes on goods from other states. American merchants had a hard time competing with european rivals. States set up their own rules, made their own money and taxed each other. This created an unsound economy because the states refused to acknowledge the laws of other states. And there were no federal courts in place to settle the disputes between the states.

The AOC lacked the necessary basis to run the new country effectively. I think, had we adhered to the Constitution all these years since then, we might have evolved into a society that could handle a premise such as the AOC. We certainly are not a society that could handle it now.

 

[Deborah K]

They did work. The Federalists had their own tyrannical agenda, however. You haven't read Hamilton's Curse yet?
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It’s Time To End Hamilton’s Curse[/FONT]

I don't like Hamilton any more than anyone else. But I believe the Constitution struck a balance between the AOC and Hamiltonian philosophies of the day.

 

[ghotiblue]

I like the example (WDW) to a certain extent, but I would think it could be easily refuted by saying that WDW still has to abide by US law and they are held accountable to the US government. People could claim that were the government not there, WDW could very easily abuse the power it has.