A blog about political philosophy, focusing on third party politics, as well as radical and anarchist topics. Common topics include political theory, constitutional law and civil liberties, civil rights and interstate commerce, unionism and labor law, wages and currency, taxation and budgets, trade and markets, geopolitics and foreign relations, U.S. electoral politics and election statistics, and the political spectrum.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Municipal Services, the Fifth Amendment, and Government as a Business
on October 13th and November 22nd, 2011
Edited in April 2014
the right or privilege - whether monopolistic or competitive - to
provide municipal public services is licensed by government to
private enterprises, the provision of municipal public services
is not a social welfare program, nor is it a right, nor should
it be conceived of as either.
such, an individual's use of a municipal service (if and when
such an individual pays for that service to be provided) should
not be interpreted as a capitulation or a submission to any and
all regulations and processes which might be associated with or
endorsed by the government having jurisdiction over whatever
given municipality; even when the provision of a service is
competitive, and especially when
the provision of a service is monopolistic.
of the most important functions of the libertarians and the Tea Party
thus far has been to get Americans to start conceiving of their
government as a business. My candidacy encourages this kind of
not in a way that would recommend that we allow corporate welfare, or
allow politicians to profit off of financial deals resulting from the
legislation they help write, or allow silly things like the U.S.
Department of Commerce to continue to exist, but
in a way that requires all delegation of citizen power to their
representatives in government to take place through contracts which
were not signed under the duress of taxation and threatened
imprisonment, and in a way that allows the government to be operated for-profit without
fear that politicians who struggle to find legal ways to allow
government to get rid of toxic assets like Amtrak and the Post Office
so that the people will not have to bear their burden and inherit
their debts to be ridiculed as privatization-pushers.
who believe that eminent domain and the Takings Clause should only be
used to put private property under the management of the public, but
decry the sale of public property to private entities as
unconstitutional privatization for the benefit of special interests,
are giving the government an unlimited license to grow, and to put
its citizens in debt.
a government does not practice both eminent domain and privatization,
then it should practice neither.