Written on June 5th, 2012
In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, everyone would be expected to submit their disputes to some -
not necessarily the same - independent third party arbitrator, so
nobody could choose not to be governed, but we'd all have more
choices in regards to who governs us, as well as in what respects.
Given
that most people in America today think that the rich should pay more
in taxes than the middle-class and poor, I think it is very likely
that such an outcome would arise simply through the eventual
acceptance of a social / economic custom, whereby people urge one
another to only choose who governs them from among a set of
governments that tax the rich more than the poor. The governments that
don't would be picketed, boycotted, have negative information spread about them.
Their managements could be confronted by any combination of their
workers, outside protesters, disgruntled former citizens, or
potentially even sued for fraud by agencies of fair, neutral, and
independent court systems (see "Chaos Theory" by Robert
Murphy for a more detailed description of how courts could work
absent compulsory government).
In an Agorist, Panarchist, or Polyarchist society, property protection / insurance
would be a function of "governments", and the problem of
wealth disparity would be addressed - to the extent to which people
with property want to keep it safe from those who would take it (and
keep themselves safe from those who would kill them in order to take
their property - and so they would be willing to pay more in order to
do so. This would be on top of the fact that they would already
be paying more to
protect their property because they have
more of it than
most other people, so this system could even function like an
accelerating (exponential) progressive tax.
The
wealthy who don't pay to have their property protected / insured
would have no reason to expect people not to steal it (this is a
proposition which could even be construed to suggest that uninsured
property claims are illegitimate). Any "government"
protecting the wealthy's property for a reduced premium would -
essentially - be doing a charity service, which risks their bottom
line, so there would be less of a financial / business incentive to
allow for the vast accumulation of wealth in private hands.
For
more entries on enterprise, business, business alliance, and markets,
please
visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/enlightened-catallaxy-reciprocally.html
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html
For
more entries on taxation, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/tax-cuts.html
For
more entries on theory of government, please visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment