by Benjamin Marks, Economics.org.au editor-in-chief

Heroic Misadventures is reminiscent of Mencken’s Days memoirs published during WW2, and is even more radical, since Ron Manners did not soften his work or limit its scope to placate public opinion.

Heroic Misadventures is a collection of anecdotes of the finest-grade. It will interest everyone. What other book: argues that government licensing is mafia-like protection against competition (p. 18); defends money laundering (p. 56); sings the praises of vertical burial to save cemetery space (pp. 93, 99-102); shows how to rezone a brothel (pp. 179-80); disposes of many genres of work-life balance books and many of the counselling professions by observing that in the mining industry, “[Y]ou only get one nickel boom in your lifetime, but you can always have more kids” (p. 191); reasons that it is best not to fly business class, so that you don’t have to sit next to politicians (p. 201); and explains why the author and his mates lit a bushfire when they discovered that what authorities claimed was the highest mountain in W.A., was actually the second highest (pp. 220-21)?

I learnt a lot about the history of the libertarian movement in Australia. Many of the people and book titles mentioned I’d never heard much about. C.R. “Bert” Kelly (p. 3), John Whiting (p. 135) and his three books, Adam Dollar (p. 156) and his book, another libertarian book by Mr Manners himself (p. 165) and Hancock’s book (p. 217) will be investigated. At Economics.org.au we will make as much as we can available free online. We need more information on the history of libertarianism in Australia, and if it comes in the form of more writings by Ron Manners we would be spoilt.

Lastly, I have two criticisms of the book.

Criticism #1

Mr Manner’s recounts Hancock’s reading of Rothbard as follows:

Though [Hancock] encouraged us, and gave periodic advice, he didn’t contribute financially, later explaining why. He told me that one of the books we gave him, as early briefing, was Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty (The Libertarian Manifesto) and in the corner was a small black anarchist flag. This worried Lang, as without any government at all, who would grant mining titles? Lang had a valid point and I pointed out that Rothbard wasn’t an Anarchist, but a realist in the sense that to achieve minimal government, one needed to aim for no, or almost no, government, with a view to landing close to your chosen level of government involvement … I’ll always remember this as an example of pushing the envelope too far. [pp. 129-31]

I disagree with the implied moral that we should not push the envelope so much. There are pros and cons either way and no clear-cut route to recommend. Many people support libertarianism precisely because of its radicalism and subversiveness. If libertarianism is only espoused moderately, then people may confuse it with the Liberal Party or Labor Party. And imagine if Hancock had become convinced of the pure libertarian position, and its radicalness appealed to him. Imagine if someone confronted Hancock with a successful defence of Rothbard’s anarchism (rather than tried to hide it)?

The moral from Hancock’s reading of Rothbard is, to paraphrase what Mr Manners positively quotes Sir Arvi Parbo saying (p. 335), “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.”

If I had the ear of Hancock, this is what I would say:

You object strongly to every government intervention in the economy, except government presiding over mining titles, and law and order. Ignoring the question of whether you can grant government such an important concession, and reasonably expect it not to spread any further, there are a few important issues to consider.

Firstly, it may be true that government has in the past competently granted mining titles. In that case, why not legitimise the organisation structure of this government department, with a funding model that is mutually agreed on, including signed and witnessed contracts for all parties involved, and no laws against inferior lesser experienced groups choosing not to avail themselves of the great administrative and protective services that the government currently provides?

Secondly, what economic principle leads you to support a monopoly when it comes to something so important as mining titles, but not to all other areas. To merely mention case studies is to avoid the question.

Thirdly, although government monopoly of this service may have been competent in the past, what is to stop it changing in the future? Imagine if McDonald’s was the only provider of food and judge of food quality. It is conceivable that they do a very good job of it, but why should you trust them, and wouldn’t you be a bit suspicious if they banned competitors, even if they had good intentions?

Miners have a vested interest in defending the Rothbardian position. The origin of all mining regulation and taxes is that the government claims it has the right to the land you live on and work with. Rothbard believed that the origin of just property rights is when you mix your labour with unused land, or in a voluntary exchange earn the property title from its previous owner. So when James Cook circumnavigated Australia, even if Australia was uninhabited, that still could not confer any property title in a Rothbardian society. This is similar to Hancock’s own beliefs.

How would mining titles be granted in a Rothbardian society? We cannot know precisely what form an institution in the free market will take, just as we cannot know what the price of a mineral will be in the future. But would you want mineral prices to be decided by the government? And if mining titles are currently administered so justly, then there’s not much in the way of change to worry about. Indeed, if it is maintained that the free market has no role in the administration of property rights and justice, then this is to deny that economics is a science, and to dismiss economics as a science in the belief that it is defending the mining industry seems a questionable strategy to me.

Criticism #2

This book is not available free online. Why not?