3. On Switzerland, Anarchy, Theory, and Practice
    by Manuel Miles

Special to TLE      http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/>     Issue 226

In a previous article, I made the mistake of claiming that Switzerland was
"entirely free from coercion" both internal and external; I
should have said, "mostly" or "generally".  I was
speaking in the general sweep of their 700 year history, of course, and in
comparison to every other country in the world.  Over the seven centuries
of the Swiss experiment, the Swiss have enjoyed a level of prosperity and
self-government unparalleled in that same
time period -- not perfect, just way out ahead of whoever is in second place.

Mr Davidson wrote an article in opposition to my suggestion that this
unique experiment in self-government is instructive to the cause of
Liberty.  I shall reply here: The fact that Switzerland was overrun by
Napoleon hardly disqualifies the concept of armed neutrality; unlike
specious anarchist theory, Liberty doesn't come with a guarantee of easy
success.  Every nation in Europe which ole Nappy attacked fell, right up to
the gates of Moscow.  Switzerland suffered aftershocks from their brief
occupation for many years afterward, and they were not immune to the
various troubles sweeping nineteenth-century Europe.

The Swiss, however, managed to learn from the experience (there's that
nasty concept of learning from experience, as opposed to trying to force
reality to fit some theory), and held off the entire Axis during the six
years of World War Two.  That their neutrality included allowing the
continued use of some Swiss roadways does not negate it.  Unmentioned in Mr
Davidson's article is the fact that Switzerland also shot down quite a few
Nazi planes and, in essence, provided a safe haven for a great number of
crippled US and UK bomber
and fighter aircraft which would otherwise have had to land in Axis
territory.  (The American OSS also was allowed to operate nearly openly in
Switzerland during this time, by the way.)  This is hardly collaboration
with the Axis.

The Swiss were neutral, not
non-existent, during the war. Neutrality does not mean one cannot favour
one side or another, it means that one does not become directly involved in
alliances and the hostilities which inevitably result therefrom.  The Swiss
traded with many nations (mostly in exchange for food, of which they were
desperately short -- the reason they did not accept every refugee in
Europe, by the way), and supplied war materiel to the Allied nations,
shipping their wares through fascist Italy.  The Axis had to allow it, or
the Swiss would have closed their borders to all Axis traffic,
instead of just most of it.

Other complaints: the Protestant and Catholic Swiss have not made their
cantons kosher.  Maybe that is "bad", but it is their decision
and their right.  Perhaps they feared that they would suffer the fate that
befell the Palestinians.  In any case, immigrants don't have to go there if
they don't like it.  Those who hate the Swiss would likely feel happier
bulldozing Palestinians' homes, murdering the residents, and
"settling" their stolen lands and businesses.  In that case, they
know where they can go...  Palestine's Christians have not exactly had an
easy time of it under Israeli fascism, either, but that would be applying
the same standards to Zionists which they attempt to force on the rest of
the world.

[Note that the numbers game ("25 000 refused!") is played every
time "the Holocaust" is used to attack anyone outside the
pro-Israel lobby; the numbers cannot be verified, of course, as no source
is given (as usual), although it is indicated in Mr Davidson's article that
his claim is based on "probably".  I have never been able to find
a reliable source for the notorious "six million" figure, either,
but since "everybody knows it's so," we peasants probably don't
need to know how this "fact" is arrived at -- or why it was
changed from the four million touted in
the '50s and '60s.]

Also unremarked is how many Jews did find refuge in Switzerland, how many
were accepted in the USA (which turned away all but the handful of
scientists they needed for atomic bomb building, et cetera), how many
"Gypsies" (Roma) were sheltered by European Jews, how often the
Holocaust Industry mentions the five million Poles killed by the Nazis, et
cetera.  It's always easy to hint at the dreaded "anti-Semitism",
however, as every neocon and pro-Israel lobbyist knows, and this seems to
be a convenient club to use on the Swiss, too.

The nonsense about "Swiss collaboration" with other countries
because they refused to stop doing business with them, is just that; banks
are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to investigate their
customers' finances, even if the Simon Wiesenthal Center does want more
cash.  Of course, in "the land of the free", the federales have
powers to do just that.  I feel "safer" already...  The recent
extortion and fraud that was committed against the Swiss people by the
Holocaust Industry has already been widely exposed and denounced elsewhere;
for more on that topic, do some research at www.lewrockwell.com, for
example.

Finally, the complaint that the Swiss have not done as others want: this
does not mean that they have not provided a lesson in self-government. 
When nations and peoples are free to determine their own course, they will
do so, even without consulting with Americans.  It's one of the drawbacks
of (even a modicum of) Liberty.

Switzerland is a long way from perfect, and there is much that I do not
like about it (fondue, for example, is way overrated), but as Edward Gibbon
pointed out, "The ones who carry the arms determine the form of
government," and the Swiss are themselves the army of Switzerland. 
The Swiss at least moved in the opposite direction from all the competing
empires of Europe, Asia and North America.

The point of the article, restated here, is that there is much to be learnt
from Switzerland, primarily: the concepts of a citizen soldiery, armed
neutrality, a weak and part-time federal government, the rights of recall,
referendum and initiative.  As Libertarians believe in minimal government,
as opposed to statism, that is of interest to us.

This brings us to a letter which bemoaned the "attacks" on
anarchists which have "sullied" TLE recently.  In opposing
anarchy, I have pointed out that anarchists are not Libertarians, and
should stop masquerading as such.  They should stand on their own
philosophical feet and stop attaching themselves, leech-like, to other
philosophies.  "I was under the impression that..." hardly
qualifies as a basis for this behaviour, either.  Libertarians believe in
(severely) limited government.  That is why we can learn from the Swiss,
who have had more experience of it than anyone else.

A good explanation of basic Libertarian principles is available at several
sites; all of them concede that some common functions (notably mutual
defence against fraud, coercion and invasion) must be carried out by people
acting in concert.  Of course, anarchists don't believe this; that is why
anarchists are not Libertarians.  Perhaps there is a movement afoot to
rename L. Neil's site, "The Anarchist Enterprise".  If so, just
be open and honest about it.

It has been my experience that anarchists spend a lot of time talking about
their theories, but cannot point to any actual historical examples of
anarchy which have accomplished what they claim for them. Anarchists oppose
doing anything that they don't approve of (which is usually doing anything
at all), and consistently oppose all serious attempts to do something
concrete about reducing the interference of government in peoples' lives.

Those who wish to believe in anarchy are welcome to do so; those who
believe in Libertarianism don't have to pretend that anarchists share our
beliefs.  There is more to Libertarianism than just "the
non-aggression principle" and the silly claim that "private
enterprise can do everything"; as a matter of fact, we Libertarians
actually believe that some things which are necessary to the preservation
of Liberty will not be accomplished by private enterprise.  Then people
will need to work cooperatively.  That, of course, is anathema to
anarchists, and that is why they are anathema to the cause of...
Peace and Liberty.

---