How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps

117 thoughts on “How to Fix Detroit in 6 Easy Steps”

1. Good column! As long as we’re thought-experimenting, imagine what the mainstream media would do if this plan were put into place.

   . They’d interview and give complete credence to every whiner in Detroit who longed for the gravy train of the old days.

   . They’d play up every crime committed in Detroit.

   . They’d somehow manage to find some kids whose parents were neglecting their education, and make out as if this was the fate of every child without compulsory schooling.

   . They’d say nothing at all about the successes of the scheme, whether they be in commerce, education, or quality of life.

   On the other hand, the real story would be told by people like you who aren’t beholden to the MSM. So yes, the powers that be would never consider allowing such a scheme to be put into place out of the fear (certain knowledge) that it would expose their illegitimacy and irrelevance.

   1. Detroit’s main mistake was being centered around only one large commodity–cars and trucks. When that was gone, they had zero to base an economy on.

      1. Detroit was the first recipient of LBJ’s ‘Model Cities’ program– free money from DC– and elected an openly Communist Mayor for 20 years. And you think it was because of Autos?
         The taxing authorities saw the huge investment and thought the auto makers could never pull up stakes and leave so they taxed them to the HILT!.. and eventually, even the most productive automakers could not survive the taxation and unionization rules. They pulled up stakes and left for greener pastures.

   2. Don’t let the MSM INTO Detroit while the building of the “Experiment” is going on.
      One of the first NEW Businesses would be “WDET”, “TV and radio news as it happens. Hire only “Visionary” Staff and reporters. They would tell the world the REAL story as it happened, focusing on the positive outcomes only. They would broadcast off a 100,000 watt antenna.– remember– we are SUSPENDING ALL Federal and State LAWS for 100 years.
      If it were me, I would put into that agreement, the ability to extend that moratorium 100 years at a time with a referendum of the people who owned property in the city, and LIVED there too.
      One of the New City laws would be: Right To Work. Another would be, No “Fair” housing or “Fair” employment or “Fair” College entrance laws. Property owners would have the RIGHT to sell to those whom HE wished to sell to. Colleges would have the right to permit those who could pass their entrance exams to study there, and businesses would have the right to employ those whom THEY felt would work out for the best interests of the BUSINESS!!

2. And imagine the health benefits: no more stress due to greedy government carting off your hard-earned wealth; guilt-free living as there’d be no need for tax avoidance schemes; your family need not be deprived of necessary sustenance and life-sustaining luxuries that would otherwise go to fund warfare and welfare.

   Now if only we could wish this idea to life.

3. The problem is that this doesn’t solve the problem. The 700k dysfunctional people(including the large, violent criminal class) will disperse into neighboring cities and start “Detroiting” them. So you have Detroit, which becomes something like a northern Monaco, surrounded by a bunch of little Detroits. The problem still exists, you’ve just spread it.

   1. But that isn’t the case in Hong Kong, where a capitalist free-for-all took place for years. Sure there are slums, but they are made up of people coming to the city to start their lives, move up, self-improve.

      Inner-city areas are usually the least appealing areas. If that inner-city has been elevated by an influx of cooperative, productive people, then logic demands that the surrounding areas would exhibit increasingly cooperative, productive suburbs.

      1. You will turn over the population. Its called gentrification. The poor ne’er do wells leave as the upwardly mobile move in raising cost of living and insisting on effective crime prevention.

         my point is that this idea doesn’t fix the problem, it just relocates the problem to other cities, cities that already suffer from a lesser version of the same problem.

         1. Thus, let’s not do anything precipitous, else those poor ne’er do wells will move into MY neighborhood. Roger, that.

            1. Yes, I don’t want them here, we have enough. The larger point is that you are just buying time before you have to actually deal with the problem.

         2. You mean the “problem children” would go where there is a strong government and hand outs? Good! Let ’em go!

   2. Those “dysfunctionals” would cease being a problem when their main sources of income – drugs and other black market activities – are no longer black market.

      The mob withered on the vine when the Volstead Act was repealed. Go figure.

      1. I replied to this, but it isn’t here. I’ll try again:

         Extortion: pay “insurance” or your business/house/whatever burns down

         Search Marcus Licinius Crassus

         Hijacking: lots of goods going into and out of New Detroit, which would be a destination for goods hijacked elsewhere.

         1. Pure speculation. The fact that this sort of thing happened once before (again, the repeal of the Volstead Act) and resulted in a complete collapse in violent (that is to say, actual criminal) activity by organized crime lends far more credence to my implication than yours.

            Also, comparing the Roman Republic to a hypothetical anarchist Detroit, is asinine.

            1. Not the Roman Republic, just one clever extortionist. Why are libertarians so anti-history? Is it because it doesn’t support your theory?or is it that libertarianism can only be taken on faith?

            2. First, ad hominems will get you nowhere.

               Second, you have clearly missed the point. The obvious point I was making (as opposed to the baffling one you inferred), is that someone saying, “‘one clever extortionist’ took over the Roman Republic and one would therefore take over an anarchist Detroit”, is an asinine comparison. The two examples have nothing in common. Why make the comparison?

               I could just as easily speculate all kinds of silly things about Detroits actual future, all or none of which, could pan out. At least it would be speculation based on something not so asinine in that case, though. So there’s that.

            3. One clever extortionist didn’t take over Rome, he controlled a fire brigade and used it to make himself one of the wealthiest men in the ancient world by extortin people who’s houses were on fire. Google him, its not a asinine as you think.

               I apologize for the ad hominem, I’m kind of a dick.

               I am not a libertarian because I don’t have the faith in humanity that being a libertarian requires and i don’t see any indication that an appreciable amount of people are interested int he philosophy.

               Consider that even today, under an undeniably tyrannical government, we still have more freedoms than anybody else in history with the caveat that today the gov can enforce its edicts more thoroughly than monarchs of the past. Consider, also, that most governments outside Western Europe are much more restrictive than ours and, yet, few rebellions. I just have a hard time getting excited about economic theory when I see happt Swedish socialists and happy Hong Kong capitalists, and happy Amozon Indians still living in the stone age. I am more interested in good enough, and minding my own business, the gov can do what it wants as long as it doesn’t inconvenience me too much.

               I do enjoy picking at libertarians, though!

            4. Sorry but you are wrong, his name was Genghis Khan. He extorted and ended the Roman Empire, Constantinople, and other places also. He was great at extorting the riches from the people of those places.
               One man was the end of an empire. And no one ever stood up against him. If the empire would have not been ruled as a monarchy then there would maybe something left of it today. But power corrupts, and money corrupts. That is true throughout history in every way imaginable. However there was one society that stood for freedom to the utmost and died because of it. The Sioux Nation. The tribes lived in harmony and freedom and were prospers and no central government. They lasted until the settles decided they had a right to their land and saw fit to kill them for it. This includes 120 unarmed women and children, Wounded Knee Massacre.

               This government from the start has been one of war and death, it is time for a change. Let’s try peace. Out of the country’s 243+ years we have been at war 213+ years of that existence. It seems that what Libertarians are proposing is nothing more then the belief in giving peach a chance where the people are responsible for themselves not to hide behind some pretense.

               Here is why I come to that conclusion, if you are busy working and earning your own money that you keep and not having to worry about if you will have enough to pay taxes this month, than you are not worried about having to support 1/3 of the people that work in governmental jobs of this country or the 1/2 that is unemployed because of the new laws spewing out from the government that takes more money away from those that would hire us. They do nothing but complain and have time to complain and start fights because they are ‘unskilled’. Here is what I see, I see the nation of the Sioux was great because the members of each of the tribes was taught at an impressionable young age to carry their weight. As now the children at an impressionable age are forced in to Schools where they really do not learn any trades or skill and become unskilled workers.

               In the Libertarian society the children at an impressionable age will be taught the skills needed to survive rather than being left to the government to make them unskilled workers. What do you do with the current unskilled workers? Treat them as children, and offer them the same pay a child would accept for the same job. There is no minimum wage, health insurance, or other stuff they would really have to worry about except in the areas that require it like a mechanics shop and so on where there is actual danger. Even than, there is an expectation of the workers to work and pay in the society would be a result of skill rather then some governmental idea that you should earn a minimum of a monetary sum that the employer of the unskilled has to pay.

               In the society like that it would result in more skilled workers and less unskilled workers. And depending on how well you exceed at the expectation, depends on how much you are payed. That is the idea and driving force of a free market. I am 40 years old, I have painted helicopters, worked on them, worked on cars, worked as security officer, computer repair tech, roofer, plumber, phone tech engineer, phone tech support, and many more in the professional area as jobs. I have the skills to do any of those jobs again. But I do not choose to and try to learn more as I age. I am not unskilled, but than again I am not as skilled as one would call a professional. There is always something open it may not be $20-60 and hour, but I have always made ends meat. Even if I have had to work two jobs at once.

               I learn by doing and not really by reading, I have run circles around some Engineers that have gone to Collage and received a degree, and I have been out classed others. To me it means nothing, but to others that have been built up by this government, have an idea of what to expect. Even though life itself has no exceptions except one, expect to die.

               Never expect more then you worth and the idea that you can always be more is not a good thing. Do not expect to be more, do it. It leads to false expectations and demanding things you will never have. Here it is cut down to the bone in every way possible. Democrats are taught to expect things and they are entitled to it. Republicans are taught the same thing. Libertarians expect nothing and are entitled to nothing.

               It boils down to one thing:

               Here is the difference, if you expect nothing and receive something you are always grateful. If however you expect something and only get it you are never grateful and end up demanding more.

               Meaning that those who believe in Libertarianism there is always something open and you are never unskilled. However if you are a Democrat or Republican or any other party, your ideas that someone owes you something, you are unskilled.

               This is why the free market will always out preform any government controlled BS. The you will probably mention that leads to pollution, You are sadly correct but the offense you should be more worried about is the pollution that the great government makes on the idea that it is for the betterment of society.

               I have heard mentioned in this post issues about fluoride, I agree it is a poison. Granted most of the world has realized the use of fluoride as a poison, the United States claims it is harmless. It was used in Germany in the camps to decrease intelligence and to influence behavior, and takes 10 or more years to clear out of the body, but the government claims it is for your teeth. Baking soda does the same thing and is a lot safer, and not as toxic. But this is a kicker, the reason the government will not ban fluoride is because for the government to produce nuclear weapons has to use tons of fluoride and is a byproduct of nuclear weapons. The first court cases against the government when dealing with nuclear material was the use of fluoride, not radiation poisoning. They will not ban something they need an ample supply of fluoride for to produce nuclear weapons in secret or against the peace treaties the government has signed. Sorry I know I talk to much sometimes, I will leave it at that.

   3. Why wouldn’t they stay right there to work their scams or whatever, rather than migrate to an unknown city with police on duty? Inertia and knowing the familiar neighborhood are also factors.

      1. Welfare benefits. They go where the free money is, they aren’t worried about the cops, clearly.

   4. I think you mean “America-ing” them. Your premise rests on the patently false assumption that Detroit is the only city with the problems Detroit has. Are we supposed to believe that “Detroiting” is any worse that “Chicago-ing”, “St. Louis-ing”, “Cleveland-ing”, “Philadelphia-ing”, etc,etc. Hilarious.

      How is it that “Detroit-ing” happened in many places before it happened in Detroit? Stockton CA declared bankruptcy long before Detroit. NYC and LA were crime cesspools decades ago. The entire state of California was on the brink of bankruptcy a decade ago. And Chicago leads the nation in gun violence right now. But by all means, keep pushing your dead-end talking points. We know you believe them faithfully.

      1. You are correct. My point, for the obtuse libertarians here, is that this is not a solution to the problem, just a relocation of the problem. The problem is the people who can’t, or refuse to, compete in the modern economy. New Detroit might run them out, but they just relocate to other cities on the same trajectory, exacerbating the problem, leading to more detroits, ie totally failed cities.

         1. Those people and cities are the result of your implicit support for the government that created them.

            That makes them YOUR problem – not ours.

   5. You’re making several very erroneous assumptions, here. Or perhaps better stated: you’re succumbing to the widespread collective amnesia regarding much of reality.

      First, are you truly arguing that the status quo is preferable to the possibilities, even if overblown (in your mind,) described above. More specifically, are you really arguing in favor of a system that includes an overclass of politicians, bureaucrats, cops and other govt agents who operate under a different set of rules than the rest of us? That is, the rules (laws) don’t apply to them. The simplest, but not the only, example is: I, as one of the rest of us, can’t take people’s money from them by force. I mean, mugging is illegal……for me. The state has legalized it for itself and calls it taxation. As an aside, let’s pretend everything the state does with those ill gotten means is good, effective, helpful to the ‘greater good,’ etc. All of that positivity is wholly negated by the fact that the means were stolen from those that earned them.

      Second, read “The Road to Serfdom.” Where capitalism(read: freedom) went wrong in the minds of the majority is that, in their eyes, it wasn’t instantly gratifying enough. The people under the free market system experienced different results. That is, while the “rising tide did lift all boats,” some people, with more talent, energy, ambition, work ethic, what have you, matriculated to the top of wealth-creation. The majority saw this, childishly, as unfair and unequal. They wanted the promised equality of outcome promised by socialism. They wanted to deny the reality that people are different, more or less talented, etc., much in the same way feminism wants to say women aren’t different from men. And those who resent their betters always seek means to exalt themselves above their betters.

      Third, at best, we’ve only ever really seen a mixed economy, like the U.S. in the late 18th century. The constitution gives congress the right to tax and regulate, so, what they created wasn’t what’s described above. But people like you seem to not realize that. Your definition of capitalism includes our current system where Wall St and other big businesses are in cahoots with govt in that they are privileged and exempted, etc. by govt, to roadblock any competition. there’s a whole host of factors, including the Fed and its control of interest rates, their payment of private debts and their monopoly control of currency-printing, all of which is considered capitalism by most people. And they’re right to hate it. But it’s not freedom. It’s not capitalism.

      1. You are actually making my point. Those who aren’t able to compete in a free market system aren’t going to support a free market system. Your second point will still exist, those people will still be jealous, they will still want what the successful have and they can’t get by honest means and they will still outnumber the successful. What do you do with the jealous underclass?

         1. If they function within the bounds of natural law, you do nothing. If they attempt to use force to get what they want, you react in kind.

            1. A paragraph that speaks volumes.

         2. Actually, Liberals and Progressives for decades have told us we have an “underclass” (creating the class system in the process) because people DON’T have opportunity. So, if they are given opportunity like everyone else and still fail? Or, SHUDDER THE THOUGHT SUCCEED!

            What happens when someone Succeeds in Detroit today, the FORCE of Government IMMEDIATELY comes against them. Whether it is someone trying to supply fresh fruit and vegetables or CRACK. And usually with EQUAL FORCE.

            1. Evidence?

            2. Lincolns own WRITINGS!

            3. What does that have to do with the government squashing success in Detroit?

            4. The point of Federalism is control. Control is about squashing success.

               PS. I lived in a suburb of Detroit right off 8 mile for 6 months, I wanted to open a small business and hire a couple people, they crushed the business before the first customer had to CHOICE of whether or not to buy my product. And the point is Detroit is the FUTURE of America at this point as well as it’s current reality. It is also why we have such a great disparity of incomes today, as today it is about how much you can take, not how much you can make (as in provide for others by creating value). IF you have been to Detroit in the last 10 years, you can see the VALUE that the government, and that is the people working for the City, Wayne County, and the State of Michigan have CREATED!

               The sad part is they are reaping what they have sown, and it is a horrible fruit.

            5. I replied to this, earlier, but its never posted.

               I agree with your low opinion of Federalism and Lincoln.

               However, I own a business and I am considering a second. Gov regulation and hoops are annoying, but its just another problem to solve. All business is is problem solving. How was yours crushed?
               Businesses exist for the benefit of the business owner, not for the good of society. The thing with today is that large businesses have pretty much sewn up the easy retail markets, like groceries or appliance sales, and most manufacturing. If you want to go into those industries you need to find a niche, sometimes thats hard. So, service businesses are the only viable businesses for most people. I own a hair salon, and I am considering looking for something to export/import, it sounds like fun.

               Detroit’s gov is also corrupt, from the news I’ve seen, ours isn’t so bad.

            6. The start up cost from the multiple layers of government and insurance and “required” updates (to use the building for the exact prior use) would have cost over $200,000… the reality is to recoup the startup cost I would have had to sell a Doughnut for near $5 to make it pencil out. It simply priced it out of the market, and that is what had happened to the prior owner of the building. There was no reasoning with them they really did not want a white guy to open a business in a mixed race neighborhood.

               So instead of my bringing something, or at least trying to, I simply understood that it was not possible.

               This was in 2005 before the big crash. So, I understand WHY they are in the problem they do. Oh, and dealing with the government workers in Michigan especially the City of Detroit was one of the most miserable experiences in my life.

               And I have run businesses in other places, just some make it impossible.

            7. “they really did not want a white guy to open a business in a mixed race neighborhood.”

               That’s not a problem that you can solve. Did you move?

            8. Actually, I never finished moving to Detroit. I had high hopes but my 6 months there showed me more about Detroit than I ever wanted to know.

            9. I hear detroit has cheap housing, though! 🙂

            10. LOL the taxes, fees, and crime make up for it 🙂

            11. http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110609/STAFFBLOG06/110609868/mobile-food-trucks-downtown-not-with-detroits-archaic-vending-laws#

            12. Be a libertarian, vote with your feet and don’t try to start a business in Detroit, its obviously a bad place for business.

         3. Great! Those who can’t compete are absolutely welcome to vote with their feet and leave.

            All I’m talking about is outlawing anyone’s (including and especially the govt’s) ability to force anyone else to do or not do anything. Force is inappropriate in every situation except in defense against someone who’s physically attacking you.

            And I reject the idea that the majority in an anarchocapitalist system would be dishonest and, what, individual crime would run rampant and they’d steal their betters blind? The majority is not that way today, nor have they ever been. Individual crime, as a problem, is miniscule compared to govt crime. And there you’re right. Many if not a majority are at least benefiting from the warfare/welfare state. But it takes the state for mass criminality to prosper. Crime must be made legal for the overclass- the govt.

            And besides, self-defense and/or hired private security would be available and widely used against individual crime.

            So anyway, the jealous underclass that refuses to work toward prosperity in a free-market system wouldn’t be a problem because there wouldn’t be a govt there to steal from the rich and give to them. In fact, they’d have to work or perish. There’d be no massive safety net. I think there’d be charity from churches and such. But that lifestyle, of living on the dole, any dole, has never been that great. I think most people, like they do now, would work and do their best. And their best would be richly rewarded- as it is now…only better.

            You need to lose this mindset that you have to DO something about anything that’s not your business. In reality, doing nothing isn’t enough, either. All the govt has done must be undone. Read Murray Rothbard at mises.org or lewrockwell.com to gain an understanding of what all of this would look like.

            You’re actually bringing up questions I asked before I evolved. So, I can relate.

            1. On reflection, though, what we had under the Articles of Confederation was as close as anything else to what this article describes. And that led men greater than I to long for more central control and write the constitution.

               But I definitely don’t think that’s a reason to give up and embrace the suckiness that exists today.

               We must strive for more freedom; for all of the same reasons our forefathers did at the declaration and at the secession of the confederacy in the south.

            2. The Article were pretty good. They should have just tweeked them and left it at that.

            3. Voting with their feet and leaving is my point. the problem folks will always go where the freebies are. Saving Detroit doesn’t solve the greater problem,its just kicking the can down the road. You need a plan for making unskilled, uneducated people productive.

               I never said that the majority would be dishonest, only that many would be, just like today.
               How is private security better than public police? Private security answer to one person or group. At best, its the same as public cops, at worst its a private army that can be used to coerce.
               You say the underclass would have to work or perish, I say burglary is a trade. Your system only allows for defense, not investigation and arrest, so if they get away, they’re pretty much free. The criminal class today is almost always caught, yet they continue to pursue their trade, why would it be any different in New detroit?

               I don’t feel I need to do anything, in fact there’s nothing i can do.

               I’ve read Rothbard and all the other libertarian saints, they aren’t convincing.

            4. Um. you’d better read your post above. You did say they’d outnumber us.

               And the ‘plan’ is very well laid out before you in this article.

               You may not even know it, but you’re arguing, in effect, for your right, albeit through some govt agent, to point a gun at me and take what I’ve earned. Or is there another reason you persist in ignoring and failing to address most of my arguments?

               Your arguments against private police are excellent. You just need to turn them around and apply them to public police…to public anything. Private police wages aren’t paid from proceeds extracted at the point of a gun.

               Please ask yourself, “Why do I so blindingly trust big govt men over big business men?” What’s the difference, other than the legalized mugging to pay public salaries. Honestly, do you really believe govt workers have some inhuman altruism at their core that none of the rest of us possess? If so, why are they so well paid? Why are they paid at all? People with such big hearts should volunteer their time. Or is it the fact that they’re nonprofit? Ponder the meaning of that word, profit.

               Burglary is a trade? You ARE lost. I’m sorry to have wasted time on you.

               You’ve read Rothbard? Yet you betray your lie by saying that under “my” system, there’d be no investigation and arrest.

               What a cop out it is for you to say you’re not convinced by ‘libertarian saints’ and yet you fail to even attempt to refute any of their arguments. To ignore an argument is to concede its veracity, notwithstanding cowardly little blanket statements which carry no weight or meaning.

               Notice how I answer each and every one of your arguments. That you don’t respond similarly tells me all I need to know about your moral or mental bankruptcy.

            5. I said the jealous people outnumber you, not the criminals.

               The article doesn’t address making non-productive people productive. Its a sink, swim or leave proposition, people who can’t read are only able to sink or leave. Or steal, I guess.

               Pointing a gun at you and taking what you’ve earned is a reference to taxes, I assume? I think we pay too many taxes and I am no fan of welfare, but I don’t see cutting no skill, un educated people off and expecting them to suddenly develop valuable skills.

               “Please ask yourself, “Why do I so blindingly trust big govt men over big business men?” What’s the difference,” I don’t see a difference between govt men and big business men, they seem to work together. What difference do you see?

               Crime is a trade. It takes some skill and some special tools and techniques.

               Let me start over. I am not a libertarian, I am not convinced by libertarian thought. I am not arguing libertarianism, though.

               At the founding of this country, the underclass was mostly slaves. They were not free to roam and got their room and board from their masters. At the time of abolition, the underclass had the minimal skills needed for agriculture and manufacturing, which were both very labor intensive.

               Today, you have a larger underclass, with less skills and less need for unskilled labor due to modern technology. I don’t care if Detroit goes libertarian, or if the whole State of michigan does, my point is that the 100 million or so people in this country who are unable to compete are still there. Libertarianism doesn’t solve the problem of excess labor.

               My point has continued to be that Detroit’s problem is not one of economic theory, its a people problem and its a problem that the entire developed world shares. We have a lot of people who aren’t economically useful and unless we figure out how to change that, we’ll always have a large group trying to take from producers.

               I will admit to having drifted from my main point in a few comments to take shots at libertarians, but I have really tried to resist! 🙂

            6. The underlying flaw in these so-called ‘shots’ you are making at Libertarians is that you are assuming that we are responsible for (we aren’t), and have a need to address (we don’t) the well being of such an unskilled and unproductive class.

               Those issues are theirs (the unskilled and unproductive), and theirs alone. If they want to run their lives into the ground like a bunch of dumbasses, who are we to stop them?

      2. I see the creation of wealth today far different than say 200 years ago. Back then to be successful you had to create value for OTHERS thereby becoming wealthy. Folks were able to associate or not associate with whoever they chose, and basically do whatever the felt needed done to SERVE OTHERS.

         You did not have a California Gold Rush because you had people wanted to just dig the gold up and pile it in the shed forever, it was to supply the MARKET.

         Today, you “become wealthy” not by creating wealth and this of lasting value to others, but by figuring out how to steal what others have created, or sell them something that will lose VALUE the moment they buy it.

         The later is what the state brings while the former is what Freedom brings.

         1. That’s it in a nutshell.

            “The aristocracy of pull,” as Ayn Rand put it.

4. Not that I disagree with this analysis, but there are some minor concerns:

   Wouldn’t there also be a strong attraction to certain types of people whose proclivities are outlawed in the surrounding cities? That is to say, in addition to the pot smoking hippies and businessmen, wouldn’t the people who run dog fights, gamblers, sex workers, scamsters, loan sharks and even child pornographers find this just as attractive? Even if they weren’t an overwhelming presence, its hard to deny that they’d be a noticeable one.

   Leaving aside the moral implications of these acts, would that give the city a bit of an image problem?

   1. Who do you think makes up the ranks of libertarians?

      1. People who have enough brain activity to define crimes as something other than “anything the tax man can’t get his thieving hands on”.

         I’m sure in your small mind loansharking is a worse crime that outright stealing 30% of everyone’s paycheck, dog fighting is a worse crime than drone strikes on innocent humans, gambling your own money on a dice roll is a worse crime than gambling people’s life savings on fraudulent derivatives, prostitution is a worse crime than sticking a toilet plunger up a detainees butt, and smoking pot is worse than having your water dosed with fluoride. But here in reality the quite verifiable reality is that none of those things are true.

         So to answer your question more directly, the ranks of Libertarians are made up of a small, elite class of Americans possessed with the rare ability to grasp facts. And we’re just as proud as you are to proclaim that you are not one of us.

         1. “So to answer your question more directly, the ranks of Libertarians are made up of a small, elite class of Americans” who are completely irrelevant. Fixed it for ya!

            Libertarians are utopian theorists who completely disregard human nature and history. There is no historical evidence that libertarianism would be more than a temporary state before the strongest tyrant consolidates power. The only way a libertarian Detroit would succeed is with the tyrannical US government protecting it.

            Libertarians are children with their fingers in their ears screaming,”you’re not the boss of me!”

            1. How do you explain away Hong Kong? Libertarians are not against rules; We are against rulers. “Stand your ground” is the natural state of things, government has made self defense a crime.

            2. I don’t know anything about Hong Kong, explain.

            3. Google is your friend. http://www.chicagobooth.edu/magazine/fall97/hongkong.html And see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong

            4. I thought Google was a tool of the surveillance State?

               If hong Kong applies then the success of socialism in Scandinavian countries also applies. Both depend on a robust global economy for their success. Hong kong doesn’t produce enough food or textiles and Scandinavia doesn’t produce enough of anything to support itself, especially with their suicidal immigration policies.

               Amything works with a small population and a homogenous culture.

            5. You mean: the success of oil, and iron ore findings in Scandinavia?

            6. Either way, its coming down now that they have a few million immigrants that don’t feel any shame at being on welfare.

            7. “Anything works with a small population and an homogenous culture.”

               Pure Libertarian theorist hold that each and every one of us are sovereign entities. Is that small and homogenous enough to work for you?

            8. Ok. You are an island, and no man can touch you.

            9. You obviously know nothing about Libertarianism either

            10. Are you the boss of me?

                ” There is no historical evidence that libertarianism would be more than a temporary state before the strongest tyrant consolidates power.”

                So your worst case scenario for a libertarian society is that it becomes a state.

                Wellll that’s the perfect reason to just LET the biggest tyrant have power, huh?

            11. “There is no historical evidence that libertarianism would be more than a temporary state before the strongest tyrant consolidates power”

                This is proof you know nothing about Libertarian thought. There IS NO power (i.e ability to control) to consolidate in the Libertarian utopia.

                As far as protection is concerned…that’s why we like our AR’s 🙂

            12. Individuals always fall to groups, that’s why libertarianism doesn’t exist “in the wild”.

            13. The free market is just a group of people transacting and interacting. Libertarians are fans of the free market.

                So you’re saying free markets don’t exist ‘in the wild?’ That the ONLY groups humans can form are based on coercion?

            14. Yes, human nature is to form a group, make rules and compete with other groups, but my point in commenting on this article is that the problem with Detroit (and any other big, failing city) is the large percentage of the population that are unable to compete in a free market due to lack of aptitude. Cutting their welfare without having enough low skill jobs is a recipe for widespread disaster. You could do it in one city, but only if there are other cities willing to pick up the slack, pun intended.

            15. Neither do Democrats or Republicans or Governments. Whats your point?

         2. Loansharking like minibanks that use force to get their money back even though they know not to lend to certain people.

            1. Hard to get your money back when everyone can own a weapon. Loan sharking and strong man tactics only work if you make weapons illegal to hold by regular people.

   2. Most of those activities aren’t even crimes. Illegal, sure, but absent a victim, they are hardly criminal.

      Free societies have ways of dealing with actual crime, where there is a victim who desires restitution. Adjudicating said restitution need not be the sole authority of a government.

5. Paul’s proposal will come about sooner or later. Sooner if people consciously adopt the plan. Otherwise it will come about after war.

   Your choice, America.

6. Spot-on Paul. Boy would I love to see this.
   And I was born there. My folks moved us out in ’65. It used to be a fantastic city before the statests took over.

7. “Because they fear it would succeed.”

   This is the very reason Lincoln’s armies invaded the Confederate South. Not slavery, not tariffs, and not to preserve the union; but because the politicians were afraid the South would succeed, prosper, grow.

   1. No, it was in part slavery spreading. Also taking a military facility and deciding to leave the Union which no state has ever done. For Lincoln the Union was everything. To cut in half meant perpetual war as the two distinct countries would have done into the present. Then eventually another war only with more powerful weapons which could destroy the continent.

      1. Don’t forget lost tax revenue.

      2. No to Lincoln it was about Federal Power over the States instead of the States being Sovereign unto themselves. WHICH WAS the entire point of the WAR, to institute a NEW Form of Government that of Federalism and in that Both the North and the South LOST the war.

   2. Read the Emancipation Proclamation, it did not free a single dam slave. In fact what it did was enslave the peoples to the government. This is your Great Emancipator Lincoln. The Effect of freeing the slave was hog-wash. It was not the cause, Please learn cause and effect. It was an effect, and as it goes an effect can not be the cause. If Lincoln was so much in to freeing slaves, then why did he own slaves? Answer, he was not freeing a single slave! He made all the people slaves. Think, you were taught in school that after the Civil War, the states were freed by Lincoln. Here is the catch, Congress refused to set the members of the South and replaced them with other members of the North not elected but appointed to those positions. In which they came up with the Reconstruction Acts. Now here is a kick in the face, in a free Country as in State as the Constitution recognized each state to be, how can you force them to agree to laws and amendments to remove the reconstruction acts of the end of the Civil War? Answer, you can’t. It is only by ‘Lies’ that you can pretend to have the power to do it. Answer, the States of the South were now enslaved to the government, just as those that supported the Union. What Lincoln did was against the Constitution. The Constitution was set in place so that if a free state decided to leave it could. And keeping them there by force meant that the States were no longer free. The Confederacy stood for the people over the government, the Union stood for the Government over the people. Bask in the glory of the Union, and see what it truly stood for and the real cause of the Civil War. It was the people revolting against the government the Constitution was meant to protect us from. The Evil that the Union stood for, still stand today. the true Flag of America is only three colors: Red, White, and Blue. The true flag of the military is four colors, Red, White, Blue, with a Gold trim. (U.C.M.J.) Why do you think the police can issue you a ticket and you have to go to court to prove your innocents? In the true court of law you are innocent until proven guilty, but in military court you are guilty until proven innocent. This is the proof I provide. Or when CPS is investigating you, you have to prove you did not do the crime, rather than them proving you did it. This is the Union, the truth about the Gold Trim in the court rooms. Face it, the deck is stacked learn to unstack it. Learn American History. And remember the Confederacy said, “The South will rise again.” It means the people will come to the realization that the God given rights are something that government has not right to dictate, it is the idea that the people should be masters of the government and not the government masters of the people. I leave you with this question. What do you believe the truth about the Civil War is now that you consider the evidence laid at your feet? The Emancipation Proclamation, the Gold Trim on the Flag, and how your Guilty until proven innocent. Did the Reconstruction Acts of the end of the civil war ever end, or are we still under military control, and slaves to the government?

8. But who would repair the roads?

   1. The new owners of those roads would repair them.

      1. Those needing Roads would build roads either individually or as a coop and we would get roads that WORKED for those in the area. Unlike today where many times a road DESTROYS businesses and homes in the area.

   2. They don’t repair them now.

   3. Like in every town and city, the neighborhoods are full of tradesman, men who have a general construction knowledge or paving background, and they could gather and work on pot hole issues on a local community level. They could teach other people what they know… Share!

9. You really think it would be an anarchist paradise? Organized crime would move in and control it very quickly.

   Human nature abhors a power vacuum.

   1. So apparently you missed the part where all the things considered “crimes” would no longer be crimes.

      Well don’t worry, you’re still wrong. Look at any example in the world and you will see that organized crime facilitates its reign of terror through corruption of the establishment power structure and vice versa. Corrupt police and US-armed drug cartels in Mexico. Warlords in Liberia funded by government aid. CIA drug smuggling. US supported genocide in Gaza. Bush family sales of war supplies to Nazi Germany. Paid judges in Sweden prosecuting their own citizens on behalf of American movie companies. $5 Trillion TARP printed dollars (backed by your paycheck) given to foreign banks. This list goes on and on and on.

      I actually defy you to present a case where organized crime and government weren’t the same entity.

      1. Perhaps you missed the part where CURRENT GOVERNMENT would no longer consider things crimes. My point is that without any interference at all by the current government, Detroit would end up with ANOTHER de facto government, and I guarantee you there will be actions that the new de facto government will consider crimes (regardless of whether they use that word) and those actions will be punished, perhaps swiftly, severely, and arbitrarily. If you think it will be some benevolent egalitarian or libertarian power structure that evolves on its own, you are quite naïve.

         I’ve seen this kind of “just eliminate the current government and a new society of peace and freedom will spring up” derangement before. Usually it came from the left, for example with the SDS revolution movement of the late 1960s. This is merely a right-wing version of the same delusion. The answer to the loss of freedom is to reform government, or replace it with a freer government model that has been carefully thought out beforehand, and has the power to enforce the new regime. That’s what the Founders did in the late 18th century in America, and it lasted until later generations started dismantling the Constitution in the name of democracy and social liberalism.

         There is no such thing as a free lunch. Just declaring Detroit a government-free zone will not work. Tearing down the previous system is not the solution. A free society requires a free market, but also an effective government structure, with power derived from the people, to protect the people from crimes of force and fraud.

         1. You’re incorrect about the founders creating a free government that was later corrupted. Many of them knew it was corrupted from the start and didn’t want it. http://archive.org/details/antifederalist_0707_librivox

            1. Nothing is perfect, but it was better than anything that had existed before.

            2. I can tell by your quick non-nonsensical response that you didn’t listen to the mp3’s in my link and while in the Publik Skools you attended never were asked to read the Anti-federalist papers (which is the subject of the link in my comment).

            3. I actually fully agree with you here. The Constitution was an abismal failure and a bad idea.

      2. There would still be profitable crimes:
         Extortion: “Nice business you got here, be a shame if anything happened to it. You need my new insurance policy.”

         Extortion 2: Your house is on fire, the fire cheif arrives and tells you the prioce for fire fighting has just gone up. Or he could follow the lead of Marcus Licinius Crassus.

         Hijacking: lots of wealth measn lots of shipping into and out of Detroit. Hijacking is one of the oldest and easiest crimes. Not to mention, New Detroit would be a destination of choice for goods hijacked in other places including humans.

   2. Organized Crime only Exist under Organized Government making normal human activities ILLEGAL.

      The Prohibition created the Mob

      The Drug war created both the street gangs and the police state

      The war on Poverty created a system where working cost the poor money.

      The War against racism is creating a Powder keg of a Balkanized country on the road to war with itself. And is creating the worst racist the world has ever known.

      And the POWER will shift TO THE INDIVIDUAL. IT will not disappear. And that is what frightens most people. With the POWER will come individual RESPONSIBILITY!

      And understand, I am a middle aged disabled man, and by today’s standards very poor (those promises of Government have FAILED people like me as I do not get the benefits I was promised after paying 30 years). BUT, even I could make a better living IF I could advertise the things I can do without being crushed by the “government” immediately. I still may be poor (maybe not) but I certainly would not be destitute.

10. Several of my replies have not shown up. Moderation or lost in the web?

    1. Also, the comments keep rearranging themselves.

11. Rosenberg is foolish to dismiss the role of effective civilizing role of police and courts. The minarchist argument is factually sound, that is, evidence of anarchy leading to high rates of extreme violence is all there and available for all to see. Of course foaming at the mouth anarcho-capitalist moralists, refuse to look, but the facts are all there. For a scholarly look at the data on human violence and why it declines, may I suggest the book by classical liberal Dr. Steven Pinker, THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE: WHY VIOLENCE HAS DECLINED http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/0143122010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374690355&sr=8-1&keywords=why+violence+has+declined

    1. If I am not mistaken there was a nation here before ours and lasted for quite some time and would probably still be around if we did not kill them. Look up the Sioux Nation, earliest recording of its existence is in 1500’s, Columbus arrived in 1492, and dissolved in 1810. It was a group of tribes that was able to live in peace, and not like our country that has been around for 241+ years and been at war for 213+ of those years. Speaks volumes as to why we are a violent society, when the society preceding us had 300+ years of peace. Violence can be attributed directly to the white man if you want to be technical. That is who has been running the government from the beginning, Native Americans of different tribes were able to maintain peace for over 300 years. Answer seems obvious to me.

       1. I was going to ignore your long winded rants, but I’m tired of this Sioux thing.

          The Sioux, or Dakota, invaded the area that’s associated with them today and drove the Apache, Navajo, etc. South. The Sioux, and all Western tribes excepting the Hopi, were warrior cultures.

          Native Americans are the best argument against libertarianism in history. A loosely organised group of tribes fell before a more organised invader.

          The more organised invader had much better technology, whether you ascribe this to racial difference in IQ or just to better resource allocation, while the Native Americans didn’t even have the wheel.

          They have fared poorly in the modern, technological society.

12. The utter cluelessness of these fools who think “economics” lie at the heart of Detoilet’s problems is beyond pathetic. Total denial of the Black Elephant in the room. “What elephant? It’s that evil red cat over there that’s causing the problems!,” as the elephant’s motions continue to cause parts of the ceiling & walls to crash to the floor.

    What would Detoilet look like if all the Blacks were instead White, not changing a single thing about the bureaucracy or so-called “socialism”?

    Tolyatti (Stavropol), Russia:

    Tolyatti – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is Russia’s “motor city,” home to AvtoVAZ, manufacturer of the infamous “Lada.” The population size is nearly identical, 719,632 to Detoilet’s 701,475. Yet, this “socialist” city named after the General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party, Palmiro Togliatti, is clean, virtually crime-free, and liveable by any reasonable standard. The only real crime is gangsters competing for control of the automobile
    industry; Detoilet’s random, senseless killings, rapes, and robberies/burglaries are effectively non-existent. Stay out of the way of the Mafioso, and you can walk the streets safely.

    I guess it ain’t “socialism” and bureaucracy that’s the problem, eh?

    1. Libertarians tend to be blank slatists, its one of the endearing qualities of their religion!
       You could have used Pittsburgh, also.

       1. It’s a religion, alright. Totally blind to the obvious facts.

          1. And history, but they are fun to argue with!

             1. Has there ever been a successful Capitalist Black government, either in the Americas or in Africa? I’m not aware of one. Blacks gravitate toward socialism because it fits their “style” – socialism doesn’t cause Blacks to become incapable of maintaining stable institutions.

             2. Like the Democrats that have control of Detroit over the last 50 years have proven to be a shining light in the dark, right? (Sarcasm included in that last statement for the Democrats out there that can not tell) You claim that we know nothing and it is a religion to us, look in the mirror. Democrats ran the city in to the dirt and blame someone else. Those of the Democratic party support that belief. Here is the problem it the city of Democrats, run, operated, extorted by Democrats for the last 50 years but it has to be someone else’s fault. Democrats that work for 20 years on government funds then retire and spend the next 70 years in retirement and receive $128,000.00 per year. But it has to be someone else’s fault that Detroit failed. Where less then 1/2 of the working people had to support the other 1/2+ of people who were unemployed, and 1/3 governmental workers and government retied employes earning more in retirement then what most working people do in a year. But it has to be someone else’s fault.

                Yes, tell me again about who does not learn from history and its a religion, and totally blind to the obvious facts? I can accept the facts, what about the people that cause the problem? Or is it still someone else’s fault?

13. It’s quite amazing to read people, especially Americans, arguing that freedom is bad. But in reality most Americans want a totalitarian government that will take care of them, give them free stuff, and make them feel safe.

    1. Actually, we’re a mixed bag. i think the current system is too much, but i’m not a libertarian like a lot of these commenters. We’re supposed to have sovereign states so we can all create our own system, but Lincoln squashed that.

14. I like it! But start from the bottom up, if there is a bottom… I mean, with School Boards, City and County governments, and then, show the Federal Government what you have already gotten, and ask, do they want to be left out?

    I have, from time to time been accused of, “Not thinking out of the, ‘box’.” But, that is because I never had a “box” to restrict my thinking. You might find, that the county Detroit is in has the same challenges. There are now, what? 12 – 16 other cities going bankrupt around the United States? Lets do the same with them. But, you would probably have to “Sneak up” on State and Federal Administrations and legislators…
    Paul Rosenberg, you can reach me at zed6@att.net, and we can discuss this some more.

15. ” I’m leaving it as I found it” Ellis Wyatt, Atlas Shrugged

16. actually, I agree with this. For some reason, though, I think that the larger the population and less dense the population, i.e. the United States, the harder it is for free market/libertarianism to be 100% successful without some sort of central institution (govt or not). There would be too much crime, depreciation, and lack of jobs. I’m all for supporting some people as long as I can do whatever the fuck I want, but we’re doing that already and it’s not productive at all. Realism> libertarianism. Think smart, not ideologically

17. As long as there is Debt, one will always be enslaved to the Large Corporations and Farcical Governments. We are already way past the point of no return. Detroit is just the beginning. And as for anyone wishing to retire on the hopes of getting those Social Security Checks in the mail, Good Luck !!!

    http://wallstreetfool.com/2013/06/26/stocks-and-options-trading-course-499/

18. I would move there ASAP if they did that

19. Paradise returned…if only for the climate. Maybe a Dome?

20. What happens when a foreign gov’t. under the guise of a corporation buys up the city. They would somehow bring in workers of their own culture setting up a complete foreign entity. Much like the Mexicans in Ca. except in a much more organized and aggressive way. Corporations, that owe allegiance to no country, controlling our laws and gov’t. make your idea very scary. Hong Kong in mid America controlled by China or Russia doesn’t sound good. Or am I missing the point.

21. Uhh, does anyone else see how this plan is basically anarchy of a city already known for high crimerates? The political system can be changed but this plan is completely immoral.

    1. Not “immoral”, “amoral”. Amorality is an absence of, indifference towards, or disregard for morality. Amorality is an intrinsic property of an object because while morality is determined relatively to a moral code, amorality can exist independently, especially by default in the absence of morality.

       Morality and amorality in humans and animals is a subject of dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human.[4] If morality is extrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings can both exist and be fully human, and may be amoral either by nature or by choice.

       Amoral should not be confused with immoral, which refers to an agent doing or thinking something he or she knows or believes to be wrong.

       If you are in the mood for some reading the above is from Wikipedia.

22. Amen and Amen. . .let the Government get out of the way, not only in Detroit but, in all the other U.S states as well !

23. Isn’t a 100 years a bit long and unrealistic???? How about 20?

24. Yeah, but then after 100 years, the USA will suck off the teat of Detroit as China is now sucking off the teat of Hong Kong.

Comments are closed.