Watching this David Gilmour guitar solo (linked below) I had a revelation.

---

I wasn't looking to have an epiphany of any sort, really, and I didn't have anything in mind in particular when I clicked on the video posted from a friend's Facebook feed. It was Pink Floyd playing live at a recent concert, and the clip covered David Gilmour's exquisite guitar solo from Comfortably Numb.

As I watched the video, taken in by the beauty of the moment, and the goosebumps-inducing spirit present there, I thought:

How fragile a moment! Such a beautiful moment! What if somebody just randomly fucked it up?!??

Now, that may sound strange, I know. I am not sure if this sentiment will be understood as I have stated it, but I think we can all relate to it. When things are going so well, so magically, that is often exactly when we become aware that the smallest thought or departure from the spirit of the moment could cause the moment to end. What does this mean in concrete terms, as related to a hit Pink Floyd song being performed live, you may ask?

The "free radical" rhythm guitarist.

---

I noticed the camera cutting to the rhythm guitarist now and then, playing the backing chords for Gilmour's soaring, yet gritty solo. The crowd was so into the moment, everybody doing their little part--the machine was humming along fabulously with each player flowing in and out, doing their respective parts with spirit, technical mastery, and grace. The thought then occurred to me:

What if that rhythm guitarist just stomped on his volume pedal, and starting playing nasty competing solo notes over Gilmour's solo!?!? What is stopping him???

There are no police ready to taser this man should he abandon his rhythm guitar prowess to throw a disturbingly atonal wrench into this otherwise flawless performance. The worst consequence he would be met with, presumably, would be getting kicked out of the band and (depending on the contract he may have signed) potentially facing a lawsuit. That is a relatively small punishment considering there scale of the event, is it not?--tens of thousands of fans at a huge laser-light show, London Symphony Orchestra-backed production employing thousands of staff, sound crew, and backing musicians! Shouldn't they have some sort of police present to taser and arrest potential "bad actor" musicians to avoid this sort of thing!? Where is the guarantee this will not happen? Why are all of these musicians on stage seeming to have such a lovely time and sticking to their respective parts within this musical order of voluntary hierarchy?

A farmer's market in Lansing, Michigan. source.

Free market incentive creates good actors. Punishment does not.

---

First, we must consider that all of these musicians on the stage with David Gilmour and Pink Floyd want to be there. They are personally invested. The backing guitarist and other musicians are probably pumped as hell to be sharing a stage and jamming with this legendary band and guitarist. Second, they are all getting paid. These two incentives alone render the chances of some bad musical market actor ruining things for everyone else almost nil.

Also, as the "CEOs" of the show, Roger Waters and David Gilmour have certainly required the musicians they will be performing with to go through an extensive and rigorous vetting/rehearsal process, to ensure that the product they put out in the end will be of the highest quality, successful, and worthy of the adulation and respect of their dedicated fans. Finally, most important to these "CEOs," I am sure, is the music. They are self-interested, like any good entrepreneur, in putting out the best product possible. It is a passion straight from the heart. This is, in principle, no different from the passion a builder puts into making a house for his customer, or a baker his bread. The bike shop owner LIKES BIKES, and thus quality work is ensured, more or less, as to repair bikes poorly would be to damage or destroy something HE loves.

Why many common objections to the free market/free-market anarchism are nonsensical.

---

• BUT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, THERE WOULD BE NO ORDER!

---

The questioner here would be correct if the statement was changed to "without incentives, there would be no order." The good thing is, there will always be incentives, as just being human, in and of itself, incentivizes certain things like survival, creativity, sociability, and good business relationships. If you are a total jackass playing atonal solos over Gilmour's masterful wails and whammy dives, nobody is going to like you. And without a centralized, force-backed state to render you immune from market consequence (see Goldman-Sachs, etc), you are going to find yourself soon unemployed and now, much more difficult to employ, as everyone in your community/market has seen how unreliable you were at the concert. This is the same for the bank or accountant that fudges numbers and cheats its clientele of their capital. Without violence-backed government protection, these types of enterprises cannot last too very long.

But seriously, all that aside, who in the hell as a music-loving, professional backing player, would do that!? The answer? Almost no one. The same amount of people who would swerve at oncoming traffic on the highway intentionally just to kill someone, and perhaps themselves.

There will always be a small, micro-segment of humanity which is not mentally sound. Which is better, then: to creates seats of massive, arbitrary power (centralized, violence-backed governance) over billions of other people to attract these undesirable, sociopathic/mentally damaged elements, or to have infinitely smaller, decentralized pockets of community governance based solely upon voluntarily contracts and rules stemming exclusively from the axiom of individual self-ownership, and, by extension, private property? I don't know about you, but I will go with the latter, every time.

---

• WITHOUT CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT, VIOLENT GANGS, WARLORDS AND CORPORATIONS WOULD TAKE OVER!

---

To this objection I say, look around. They already have. Corrupt corporations and banks are "bailed out" against the will of the masses of individuals paying for said "bailout," bombs are dropped on weddings and funerals--children being routinely blown to bits as "collateral damage" in the Middle East--police are seizing old peoples' entire life savings and hard-earned businesses with NO EVIDENCE, euphemizing it as"Civil Asset Forfeiture," and you can't even eat what you want, collect rainwater in your own land, or possess certain plants that grow in nature without risking being kidnapped, locked in a cage, and losing your family, health, and economic security. I hate to say it here, but, YOUR ARGUMENT SUCKS. WE ALREADY LIVE UNDER GANG RULE.

The free market, however, is already proving itself to you, and you may not even know it. When I went to the local bakery the other day, everyone was coming in and out, buying what they needed and moving on. The shop was happy to make money and make customers happy, and the customers were happy to get their bread and other goodies. There were absolutely zero state agents around and nobody robbed, sodomized, or killed anyone else. Of course, these evil things happen, which is why private security and police would be required, presumably, even in most market anarchist communities. That said, think about the ease with which 99% of us in the developed world go about our day. People, when their needs are met, are generally good and respect the individual self-ownership of others. And private market police would, unlike current state police, by necessity be accountable to their local markets.

This looks a lot like warlords being in charge, to me. source.

Sadly, in places the centralized state has ruined and demolished via welfare, warfare, systematic oppression of families and minorities, and individual self-ownership-denying regime/political installments not asked for by the people and communities in the area, folks are not so happy, and their needs are definitely not being met--emotionally, economically, or otherwise. Here we see high violence, and lots of disease and poverty. Chicago, south side. Many parts of Africa. The Middle East. These are three regions where violence-backed political states are maximally active, and free market Capitalism is maximally oppressed.

Dozens of Japanese passengers push a 32-ton train carriage out of the way to save a woman who had fallen in the gap between the platform and the train. source.

Thank you, Mr, Gilmour, for your beautiful solo.

---

If a bunch of musicians can freely get together, voluntarily, and perform arena-filling mega rock shows without violence to force them into doing it...

If people speed down highways every single day and almost no one endangers others by swerving into the other lane intentionally...

If almost everyone I pass on the street every day is minding their own business, and not trying to harm me, even with no police around, because their basic human needs are met...

If I go to the barber and let him run a razor blade over my neck and face, even though he is a complete stranger, and nothing bad happens EVERY TIME...

If a crowd of total strangers in a train station in Japan can push a 32-ton train car back to save a woman who had fallen on the tracks...

Why then, beautiful friends, do we think we need a violent gang to rule over us for there to be order? I beg you to think on these things. Here's the solo. Let me know what you think:

~KafkA

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)