The 19th century wild west is portrayed in movies as a lawless wasteland where the only rule was survival of the fittest. Thieves ruled the land, bank robberies were common, and violence was always right around the corner. This couldn’t be any further from the truth. Voluntary institutions established rules and norms, and property rights were absolute. This is a great book for understanding how property rights actually develop, and a harsh condemnation of rule of law through coercion.
The Not So Wild, Wild West – Property Rights on the Frontier was written by Terry L. Anderson and Peter J. Hill and published in 2004. Both had grandfathers that migrated from Europe to settle the west, and both of those entrepreneurs thrived. A common theme of the book is how entrepreneurship, not redistribution or government dictate, develops civilizations, property rights, and norms.
The west was still dangerous. Water was scarce, the climate was brutal, and conflict with the native tribes of the west was always a possibility. The book acknowledges this and shows how these problems were dealt with. The fact that Washington DC was so far away meant that it couldn’t exercise much control over law and order. “The rules” have to develop organically.
Rivers flowed almost everywhere on the East Coast of America, so the existing English riparian rights remained law. This would not work in the dry, arid west. Who owned the rivers without government? Couldn’t one greedy entrepreneur claim the entire river for himself, robbing others of an essential service? That only happens in the minds of central planners, never in reality. Voluntarism allowed the settlers to make their own water deals, and by the end of the 19th century, the private sector irrigated over 3 million acres of land. To contrast, when the Federal Government enacted Reclamation Acts to encourage Americans to move West, irrigation and land development stalled. Most of these homesteads were abandoned not long after they were settled.
The central government may have had good intentions, however projects like this always overlook a crucial component. If the land reserved for government distribution was truly valuable, entrepreneurs would have already settled it. By paying off potential developers in advance, via taxpayer dollars, you remove the incentive to produce. Nearly all of these land development projects failed within the first year. Voluntarism has the tendency to move people into the most efficient positions. The railroad needs to be near the farm, which needs to be near water, the bank, the market, etc.
When the Federal Government arbitrarily sets up where settlements should be, no thought is put into the actual value of the land in relation to its surroundings. You see this a lot with the railroads of the 19th century. Those that were subsidized often took illogical routes that would have bankrupted a private operation (and they often did this to enrich corrupt politicians). Private railroads (like James J. Hill’s Great Northern) have to be efficient and only go where there is demand. I’ve written about Great Northern elsewhere, so it was nice to see that railroad mentioned in the book. The “who will build the roads?” argument that’s always used against libertarians is refuted here.
Indian wars were also a problem, but they were not widespread in the “wild” west days. The authors show how war is always the most expensive option for settling dispute. It requires massive financial capital for materials, and even more for enforcing the outcome. The number of battles in the early 19th century ranged from 1 per decade to 53 (during wartime). Treaties averaged at least 30 per decade. In the latter half, you see over 700 battles per decade with no treaties whatsoever. This is not due to voluntarism; it is due to standing armies.
The problem with a standing army is that without a war, it has nothing to do. The periods after the Mexican War and the War of the States were some of the most violent as far as Indian battles go. Generals could lose rank if they were not at war, so therefore wars must always exist. The Indian tribes became the Federal Government’s targets so that military officers could maintain rank and military budgets could be justified. Yes – the military industrial complex existed 100 years before Dwight Eisenhower coined the phrase.
If one only knows the frontier via Hollywood Westerns (of which I’m a huge fan), one will assume that robberies were a daily occurrence. In reality, only 8 to 12 bank robberies occurred in the last half of the century. How did that happen without a modern police force to keep order? Everyone was armed. Why would a criminal make an area like this their target? They didn’t. Society was forced to behave since voluntarism and cooperation was crucial to making their frontier society function.
I’m mentioning voluntarism a lot because it’s an important theme in the book. If you’re a farmer, your cattle could be 50 miles away. There is no way to directly supervise an operation of that geographic magnitude. So, people had to look out for each other. The farmer was allowed to use the water from the group who spearheaded the irrigation project. The irrigators maybe got meat and chickens in return. A cowboy could be paid by both parties to patrol the outskirts of the property. There could be 10 or 12 different groups that all had an interest in the farmer’s success. These complex deals were worked out from the ground-up, not from a central planner in DC.
These types of transactions could occur because of cultural homogeneity. Everyone knew each other from fraternal organizations, grange clubs and religious institutions. Handshake deals become easier to implement when common bonds exist. Diversity is not a strength. If the farmers had nothing in common with the irrigators, lack of trust would ensue, neither party would benefit, and the operation would collapse. Diversity in the 21st century is always labelled as a net positive and you’re not allowed to question the consequences. This book provides numerous arguments to debunk the modern diversity = strength myth.
The book does a great job of explaining how property rights actually work. Societies become far more efficient, and safe, when these rights are developed from the ground up. Not developed from a distant centralized power. The book even goes further and suggests how property rights could potentially develop for new frontiers such as developing nations, and even space. The authors provide plenty of charts and data to argue in defense of voluntarism over government coercion. I can’t recommend this book enough!
The Not So Wild, Wild West – Property Rights on the Frontier can be purchased here.