by Neville Kennard, veteran preaching and practising capitalist


The word “anarchist”, like the word “atheist”, says more about what you are not than what you are. If there were a better word than “atheist” to describe those of us who do not believe in the idea of an almighty, all-seeing, all powerful god, I would like to know it. Perhaps the word “deist”, as was used by some of the early American movers and shakers is not bad — it describes the idea of a “creator”, who having done his/her/its work then went on leave for the universe to work it all out — for eternity. No religion, just a dispassionate uninterested creator who wants to leave us alone.

But the word “anarchist”, in its popular use implies chaos and disorder. “Anarchy” in its other classical use means “without a ruler or king”. I am a peaceful anarchist, a loving anarchist, a person who believes he has one life and it is mine to live as I choose: the concept of self-ownership. I have come to this position after many years of wandering, pondering and learning, so I will share with you this journey.

Perhaps Hans Hoppe’s expression, “private law society”, is a better one — the idea that just as you can choose your brand of toothpaste and supplier of groceries, so might you choose your security and legal services supplier instead of having a government monopolist forced on you.

In the 1960’s finding myself in business with nothing but a minimum pass of Four B’s in the Leaving Certificate, I thought it might be prudent to learn about economics. So I went in to Dymocks book shop, found a big hardcover book with the word “Economics” on the spine and started to read it. Or I tried to read it. It made no sense to me. There were graphs and numbers and formulae and I could not understand it. “Too hard for me, this economics” I thought so I put it own and went on with learning to be a businessman. The book was by Samuelson.

Then in 1970 my brother Andy came back from a trip to America with a book by Harry Browne, How you can Profit from the Coming Devaluation, in which he correctly forecast the devaluation of the American dollar. And there was information in the book, economic information and ideas on individual freedom that made sense. I read another book by Harry Browne and wrote away for some of the books he recommended. These included works by Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Albert J Nock, Henry Hazlitt and more.

I thought I was on to something here. It all resonated and made sense, economically, politically, “spiritually”. But I was lonely and had no friends or fellow travellers on this path on which I had found myself. Then in 1975, a year of political and economic and electoral turmoil in Australia — the Whitlam era — I read an ad for a new political party: The Workers Party. An unlikely name, but the words and ideas resonated and so I went along.

The Workers Party was an unspectacular failure electorally and soon died; but what it had done was coalesce some lonely fellow-travellers and was the beginning of the libertarian movement in Australia.

In 1976 I got a note from Greg Lindsay looking for support for the creation of some sort of institution to explore and propagate the libertarian ideas and I sent him a cheque. Greg was delighted to find he had some support and we become friends and colleagues in The Centre for Independent Studies.

While my strong early influence was Murray Rothbard and his book For a New Liberty, I did not mind whether we had very small government or no government as long as things went in a less-government direction. And there were smarter people than me around — Professors and PhDs — so I put my weight behind Greg and the Classical Liberal views of the CIS. Actually in its early days, the first ten years or so, the CIS was quite radical and libertarian and fun.

CIS became increasingly “successful”, with growing financial support and increasing acceptance by the media and even by some politicians. In those days I thought that if Premiers and Politicians were taking interest, if the press was publishing CIS material, then the outlook was positive for a winding back of the The State.

In the mid 1990’s I started to question my assumptions about increasing apparent acceptance of CIS’s work and ideas: government continued to grow, taxation grew, regulations proliferated — what was going on? The politicians who would hang around CIS at times and who seemed to be “on side” (Bob Carr comes to mind), when they got into a position of power became intent on “politics”, on power, on elections, on tax-and-spend.

And CIS was less fun than it used to be when we were the “lunatic fringe”. We had The Big End of Town in the congregation; they gave nodding assent to the work, and they gave money. If you’re running an organisation with growing approval for your work, with some hungry mouths of academics to feed, you don’t tell them that their hitherto-held beliefs could be wrong. You confirm their beliefs, pass around the plate and urge support. CIS was becoming more and more part of the “establishment”, the Ruling Class.

I had suggested to Greg that a radical wing, a “CIS Extreme”, or a somewhat separated group of young radicals could be created, so as not to rock the “CIS Mainstream” boat, but at the same time attract the Young Turks it was losing, who would in turn have some cross-fertilisation with the “Establishment Conservatives”.

There is an expression “Management vs Enterprise” or “The Entrepreneur vs The Institution”. CIS was now an “institution” and its “management” did not want any boat-rocking entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneurs are disruptive. Management and Institutions do not like disruption in what is so apparently “successful”.

When the GFC came and the political reactions were exactly the opposite of what a libertarian would want, I knew we had failed. Keynes prevailed, The Establishment won, CIS was more concerned with funding than real influence. “The Institution” was focused on its own preservation.

At this time I discovered The Property and Freedom Society and Prof Hans-Hermann Hoppe. When I learnt that Greg Lindsay and the Mont Pelerin Society had a dislike for Hoppe I knew I was on to something. The MPS is the Establishment of the Establishment Conservatives, the precious and self-righteous peak body of the Classical Liberals. They don’t like Rothbard or Hoppe, they tolerate Mises but prefer Hayek, they never mention Tannehill, David Friedman, or Nock. Rand is tolerated but not applauded. At the 2010 MPS meeting in Sydney I was underwhelmed with the content. There was a Panel of Think Tank Industry executives who dispensed to the audience their advice on how to succeed in this Free Market Think Tank Industry. “Succeed” seemed to mean to be like them, despite their failure to have much influence. This panel of “successful think tankers” seemed to be rather smug and self-satisfied. They were the Church Elders.

I have been to three conferences of the Property and Freedom Society in Turkey.

“Read Hoppe and Nothing is the Same”, so says Stephan Kinsella, a scholar at the Mises Institute, who is running a course on Hoppean ideas. Stephan Kinsella is also scholarly in his antipathy to intellectual property rights — patents and copyright law — a construct of The State and a reversion and clinging on to Mercantalist ideas that prevailed a couple of hundred of years ago when The King dispensed privileges.

About eighteen months ago I met Benjamin Marks at a dinner put on by Shaken and Stirred at which I gave this talk — “My Journey to Anarchy”. Benjamin and I clicked and he initiated Economics.org.au, the small weekly e-letter and website where I enjoy writing a weekly essay of ideas — trying to be provocative and controversial. This has been a most enjoyable outlet for me. And the good part is I expect to have no influence, or to change anyone. Any influence I may have had is a bonus. I do it for me. And sometimes I get some applause.

So this has been my journey; I feel now I have “arrived” at a comfortable place, devoid of political questions (if not of political interference). I have a good sense of self-ownership, at least mentally, morally and intellectually, if not physically, financially.

I enjoy practising as much responsible civil disobedience as I think I can get away with, and I choose mostly not to do things that require government permission or approval. For pragmatic reasons I have a Drivers Licence, Passport, pay tax and comply in many ways.

People are very compliant and obedient and submissive. It would take about 5-10% of the population to practice responsible civil disobedience for the non-compliance to become so great that governments could not hope to bring everyone to heal. I emphasise the responsible side of civil disobedience, the important thing being that there are no victims, no injuries or property violations.

I like the words of Henry David Thoreau, the nineteenth century libertarian writer and teacher: “be a good neighbour and a bad subject”.