Sunday, April 20, 2014
Using Profit Incentive to Promote Protection of the Poor
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:
For more entries on taxation, please visit:
For more entries on theory of government, please visit: