Written on June 5th, 2012
Edited in April 2014
I
posted the following in response to someone who said "Anyone who
votes for Walker is on the wrong side of history.":
This whole
system is on the wrong side of history.
People
who like Walker should be able to choose to remain governed by
Walker, people who like Barrett should be able to choose to be
governed by Barrett, and people who like neither - i.e., probably
everyone in this discussion - should be able to choose to be governed
by someone else.
Basic
government services - that is, the provision of security, defense,
protection, and insurance of person and property against those who
would harm them and their utility - are commercial markets, just like
health care, mail delivery, cell phones, or fried chicken.
But
KFC doesn't have to threaten to imprison people for not eating their
chicken in order to stay at the top of the market. Similarly, you
don't see Verizon, Samsung, and T-Mobile carving up plots of land,
erecting border fences, and guarding borders with guns should their
competitors try to break into their claimed consumer base. So why
should government be any different?
Any
decent government - just like any decent company - will rise to the
top fairly and naturally. Perfect consumer information and total
competition in all industries and markets - including government
services - will lead to the optimal outcome for all people, without
sacrificing any liberty or freedom of choice in the process.
This
system has been called catallaxy (spontaneous order), agorism,
polyarchism, functionally-overlapping-territorial-jurisdiction,
national personal autonomy, and market anarchy. The idea of multiple
competing governments has decades of testimony from libertarians and
socialists alike.
And
it's not just a theoretical idea posited by suspected racists; it's a
way of life that exists all around us in various forms, and a
distilled, constrained, compromised form of it exists in the modern
political institutions.
Proponents
of democracy - self-described Democrats and Republicans alike - claim
to want more choice in political matters. Well, what system offers
more political choices than total competition amongst governments?
The
legal basis for our corporate government goes way deeper than bank
bailouts and the personal corruption of our politicians. So deep, in
fact, that we may have to occasionally turn to people who understand
the intricacies of the Constitution to undo the damage which we have
recently seen.
Google Lysander Spooner, Gustave de Molinari, Paul Emile de Puydt, Otto Bauer, and
Roderick Long.
For
more entries on elections and campaign finance, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-voting-is-not-necessarily-evil.html
For
more entries on unions and collective bargaining, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html
For
more entries on Wisconsin politics, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment