Friday, November 21, 2014

The Market for Legitimate Violence: Panarchist Taxation, Property Insurance, and Securitization

Written in May 2013
Edited in November 2014 and January 2015,
Published November 21st, 2014

Chapter 1: Liberalism and the Progressive Tax
Chapter 2: Libertarianism, Minarchism, and the Flat Tax
Chapter 3: Agorists, the State, and Compulsory Taxation
Chapter 4: Liberals, Minarchists, and Agorists
Chapter 5: Reconciliation, Freedom, and Reciprocity

Chapter 1: The Panarchist Philosophies
Chapter 2: Panarchic Politicoeconomic Systems
Chapter 3: Default Geographic and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Chapter 4: Consent of the Governed Under Duress
Chapter 5: The Legitimacy of Political Associations

Chapter 1: Democracy, and Sovereignty as Externalization
Chapter 2: Political Choice as Boycott and Market Preference
Chapter 3: Progressivism as Social Convention

Chapter 1: Forms of Wealth, and Banking Practices
Chapter 2: Mutual Risk and the Price of Public Services
Chapter 3: The Wealthy as Charity Cases
Chapter 4: Personal Wealth as a Danger to the Community



Chapter 1: Liberalism and the Progressive Tax

In the view of most people who are both politically and fiscally liberal, important reasons to support and pay taxes to government include funding the administration of social welfare programs aiming to alleviate poverty, funding of the delivery of goods and services provided through such programs, and increasing the equality of economic outcome and of socioeconomic mobility for members of political society.
Liberal governments and administrations typically attempt to accomplish these goals by taxing citizens’ wealth in property and their personal incomes, through the implementation of “re-allocative” or “redistributive” taxes. Such taxes bear structures whose proportions of receipts to disbursements aim to result in what liberals believe to be a fairer and more equitable distribution of income and wealth, thus achieving the aforementioned equality of economic mobility.
In a progressive – or graduated – tax structure, the rich are taxed more than the poor in proportion to their wealth and / or income. In an accelerating – or exponential – tax structure (a form of the progressive or graduated tax structure), the rate at which the proportion of taxed wealth and / or income increases itself increases as taxpayers accumulate more wealth and earn more income.
Under a regressive tax structure, the poor and / or low-income are taxed more than the wealthy and / or high-income in proportion to their wealth and / or income. Under a flat tax structure, all members of society are taxed an equal proportion or percentage of their wealth and / or income.

Chapter 2: Libertarianism, Minarchism, and the Flat Tax

In the view of many political libertarians (in particular, minarchists) the State should not administer social welfare programs – or progressive taxes on wealth and / or income – in order to provide for equality of economic outcome; rather, it should only provide for equality of economic opportunity (in addition to political equality), and eliminate institutional discrimination (i.e., forms of discrimination practiced by agencies of government, and by the monopolies and oligopolies which they support and charter).
Minarchists believe that the State should only provide a small set of services which are thought to be essential. Typically this is because such services are perceived as necessary to foster a just civil society which upholds and protects the freedom of association and the freedom from coercion, and also because it is thought that such services cannot be sufficiently and / or ethically provided through the voluntary pursuit of rational self-interest in a system of free exchange.
The most common set of services the provision of which minarchists support include police services (such as detention, arrest, and detective and investigative services); court services (such as arbitration, adjudication, and restitution); personal security and common defense; and the protection and insurance of property, including the security (and securitization) of wealth.
Sometimes, minarchists support the funding of government services through the implementation of flat tax structures, wherein – as explained above – all government subjects are taxed an equal proportion or percentage of their wealth or income.

Chapter 3: Agorists, the State, and Compulsory Taxation

Unlike minarchists, Agorists believe that there are no services which are customarily provided by government which could not be sufficiently and ethically provided through voluntary market exchange; not the services the provision of which is often supported by political libertarians, nor even those supported by minarchists.
Most Agorists would agree with the definition of “State” – and many with the definition of “government” – as “an agency which seeks to prevent and prohibit – through armed conflict, and through clear, present, and immediate threats thereof – all agencies (which are not its truly co-sovereign subsidiaries) from competing against it (within some given claimed territory) to provide persons with goods and services which are widely perceived as being of the general social, common, and / or public welfare”.
This definition can be simplified to “an agency which wields a credible territorial monopoly on the legitimate initiation of coercion (or violence, or force)”; or to the simpler “an agency wielding a monopoly on violence”.
Agorists believe that upholding the freedom from aggressive, initiatory coercion and violent conflict (for reasons other than self-defense, and the defense of justly acquired property) is the most important goal – if not the only goalof civil society; and that no person can ethically be compelled against his will to fund the services of this or that particular provider of public services.
This means that Agorists oppose taxation (as we know it), typically preferring to instead implement fee-for-service and / or insurance- and risk-based models for the funding of competing providers of public services.

Chapter 4: Liberals, Minarchists, and Agorists

In the view of many liberals, to decrease government provision of goods and services to a small, minimal set of several essentials borders on “barbarism”, “the survival of the fittest”, “social Darwinism”, “the State of Nature”, and “chaos”.
Indeed, in the view of many minarchists and liberals, an Agorist society would be chaotic; and driven by greed, profit motive, and self-interest which is irrational, selfish, and divorced from – and independent of – the interest of the multitude.
In the view of the Agorists however, the State is an intrinsically violent, exploitative, discriminatory institution which perpetuates social and economic hierarchies, privileges, control, domination, and even the ownership of human beings as property (as some are inclined to characterize political representation).
To the Agorists, taxation is a form of legalized – although unethical – theft and plunder; it is the compulsory transfer of wealth from one group of people to another, which occurs without the authentic, verifiable, voluntary, and consensual delegation of authority. It is the use of coercion against the individual to cause him to fund the operations of an entity which he may morally abhor.

Chapter 5: Reconciliation, Freedom, and Reciprocity?

These facts beg the question: Might it be possible to reconcile the seemingly diametrically-opposed philosophies of political liberalism and Agorism, or – at the very least – to establish some set of standards agreeable to both ideological tendencies (as well as most or all others) which defines the conditions necessary for the legitimacy of systemic political association and of the pursuit of political goals?
Might it also be possible to do so in a manner which eliminates all forms of institutional discrimination and provides for the equality of economic opportunity; promotes the alleviation of poverty and increases of the equality of economic outcome; minimizes both chaotic and authoritarian forms of violence, coercion, and abuse; and allows for an efficient allocation of goods and services to the public?
Might it be possible to uphold the institution of private property without diminishing the common or public good, imposing unreasonable impediments on the rational pursuit of self-interest, or resulting in an inefficient and / or inhumane allocation of resources?
Might it be possible that to utilize social ostracism and boycott to non-violently “impose” personal social conventions, traditions, customs, and social order upon agencies which provide us with public services may be sufficient to bring about a relatively uniform, free, and fair set of available service providers?
Might it be possible that the available set of providers would begin to reflect the interests of the buyers, and influence the decisions of consumers of public services regarding which providers shall be most important with which to ensure that they share ethics?
Might it even be possible to legitimize voluntary association, voluntary cooperation, and reciprocity; and to establish a funding system for public goods and services which is fee-for-service, insurance-based, and consistent with free-market principles, which does necessitate the initiation of coercion, and which functions as an accelerating progressive “tax”?
What are we to make of Milton Friedman’s promotion of both “voluntary cooperation” and aspects of the negative income tax (a progressive tax which guarantees a supplemental, government-provided minimum income for untaxed citizens)?


Chapter 1: The Panarchist Philosophies

Agorism was proposed by Samuel E. Konkin III, and developed by J. Neil Schulman, Wally Conger, Brad Spangler, and others. Austrian School economist Robert Murphy has made contributions to topics related to aspects of Agorism, and fellow Austrian School proponent Murray Rothbard influenced Samuel Konkin.
Being that one aspect of the Agorist philosophy is support for the freedom of multiple agencies to compete against one another in the same territory to provide goods and services to the public, Agorism is compatible with several strikingly similar philosophies.
One of such philosophies is called panarchism, meaning “the system of the leadership or rule by all”; its developers include Paul Émile de Puydt, Kurt and John Zube, and Gian Piero de Bellis.
Another philosophy is known as “National Personal Autonomy” or “National Personal Sovereignty”. It was proposed by Austrian Marxist Otto Bauer, who desired that persons have the freedom to choose who governs them regardless of where they live. Bauer believed the idea to have potential to protect national and religious minorities from oppression.
Yet another philosophy is a form of direct democracy developed by Bruno Frey and Reiner Eichenberger; it which invokes the phrase “Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions”. This system allows for the potential that jurisdiction which is non-geographical and non-territorial may be wielded. Additionally, it could permit or even require overlapping subject-matter jurisdiction, and / or other unknown varieties of non-geographical and non-territorial forms of jurisdiction.
Classical liberal C. Frederic Bastiat, his intellectual heir market anarchist Gustave de Molinari, individualist anarchists Max Nettlau and Le Grand E. Day, and objectivist Roderick T. Long also made significant contributions to schools of thought similar to those mentioned above.

Chapter 2: Panarchic Politicoeconomic Systems

The fact that these philosophies are compatible with one another means that political thought which aimed to develop each of the two greater general economic paradigms (typically referred to as “capitalism” and “socialism”) resulted in the evolution of multiple ideological strains into a group of practically structurally-identical philosophies, which may be referred to as the panarchist philosophies.
It should also be noted that it is conceivable that each pillar of the American democratic-republican federalist system – namely, democracy, republicanism, and federalism – could be developed and improved in its own way through the adoption of panarchist principles of subsidiarity.
This means that implementation of such a system likely carries with it a high potential that the two general political and economic systems (which many presumed to be diametrically opposed to one another) – as well as their adherents – may develop alongside and in commerce with one another, and co-exist in general solidarity without much conflict, armed or otherwise.
This is especially true if several of the issues appearing to cause the most différance between the systems can actually be resolved and reconciled. Treating the reconciliation of the issues most likely to cause controversy as the most important to resolve would run contrary to the current mainstream tactic of uniting factions of radicals by concentrating on noticing and reinforcing existing widespread agreements.

Chapter 3: Default Geographic and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The geographic-jurisdictional goal of panarchy can be termed “extra-territoriality”, “exterritoriality”, “aterritoriality”, or “overlapping jurisdictionality”. It could be achieved in the event that existing governments were to offer to provide goods and services to persons living and traveling in unincorporated and / or outskirt settlements, neighboring jurisdictions, then to other nearby territories, and then to more and increasingly distant places.
Given sufficient time for governance agencies to expand their offers of coverage and service provision (both geographical and in terms of types, varieties, and combinations of goods and services) into new markets, outside the reach of their current claimed jurisdictions, there would exist a state of affairs in which people’s freedom to choose which agency or agencies provide(s) them with “public” services – regardless of where they happen to be living or traveling, and without being required to move to a different location – would be free from the unnatural and artificial commercial inhibitions, civic barriers, economic distortions, and networks of privilege which result from the monopolization and oligarchization of the market for government and in the markets participated-in by the beneficiaries of corporate government.
A political environment fostering panarchist geographical-jurisdictional subsidiarity would render moot nationalist arguments such as “if you don’t like the laws here, you can always move somewhere else”, and the “vote with your feet” position articulated by Ronald Reagan which may be construed to support states’ rights.
Such arguments fallaciously assert that one is free to relocate oneself to the territorial jurisdiction claimed by the monopolistic agency whose set of laws one despises less than others. Individuals may be free, however, provided that they can afford to relocate themselves – being fortunate enough to have protected their earnings from undue taxation and burdensome regulation – and that they have been fortunate enough not to have been convicted of crimes whose punishment entails prohibitions on traveling or moving to outside the claimed sphere of sovereignty of their birthright default regional overlords.

Chapter 4: Consent of the Governed Under Duress

The barriers and distortions caused by default governance – and by the exclusive (and exclusionary) political, propertarian, and commercial privileges which it confers – together create an environment of permanent duress.
Populaces living under duress cannot be expected – and should not be assumed – to make rational, independent, enlightened, informed, consensual decisions regarding who provides them with political representation and other commercial goods and services (this statement could be used to promote the consent of the governed as easily as it could be used to revoke the right to vote).
One presumes that this duress does not exist, and that the giving of consent (really, submission) is legitimate, when he accepts requests of – and makes contracts with – customers (including both citizens and participants in non-governantial markets) to buy his goods and subscribe to his services.
If he is a monopolist, he rationalizes himself to be the legitimate beneficiary of the privilege bestowed by the rightful sovereign. If he is an oligopolist, he rationalizes himself to be a “competitor” in a “free-enough” market in which provision of services by default according to location is simply the unquestioned norm, and in which his market “freedom” lies in the power – whether earned, bestowed, both, or neither – to prohibit distant “competitors” from offering services to their claimed customer-subjects.
Just as an act of violence can be as convincing a show of power as the issuance of a credible threat, ability and privilege have the same influence on increasing the likelihood that persons will have to submit to some monopolistic or oligopolistic actor in order to obtain their basic subsistence and survival needs.
It is exploitive; in that it derives advantage – as well as utility and usefulness – from the fact that, to survive, consumers must frequent markets, which can be dominated by one of few providers, and whose rules can be influenced by one or few agents.
The perpetuation of monopoly and oligopoly is an abuse so egregious that it should be considered tantamount to violent aggression. Of course, violence and abuse of all varieties are to be discouraged, minimized, defended against, and compensated for.

Chapter 5: The Legitimacy of Political Associations

First, there is to be no violence or coercion in the authoritarian sense; that is, no person shall be required to subject himself to a political association without exercising the freedom to choose which agency – from among a set of fairly competing alternatives (fairness defined as all market agents having more or less the same influence, market share, and information, or at least not posing a risk of constituting an artificial oligopoly) – shall be delegated the authority to resolve disputes which he cannot resolve on his own without resorting to armed conflict.
Second, there is to be no violence or coercion in the chaotic sense; i.e., no person shall be free or permitted to adjudicate or arbitrate disputes of others if and when he has some substantial vested interest in resolving the dispute.
That is, all disputes which cannot be resolved through peaceful, mutually-consensual decision-making must be submitted to some – although not necessarily always the same, and preferably not always the same (due to the high potential of abuse) – fair, neutral, and independent arbiter (or, eventually, series of arbiters) which lacks substantial, direct, vested interest in the outcome of the decision.
More generally, no person or agent may make decisions which directly affect the freedoms of others without their consent. This conception of arbitrary powers and abilities should contribute to the conception of the privileges of those taking-up enough market share to wield oligopoly powers as tyrannical.
The very existence of these agents and powers pose threats to the freedom and fairness of markets – and the rights of consumers to participate in them – worldwide. The freedom to intervene arbitrarily in the affairs of others is no less a privilege because it is unchecked than because it is bestowed.
In regards to whether individuals would be permitted to refrain from submitting irreconcilable disputes to some neutral agent or agents, economist Robert Murphy writes in “Chaos Theory” that others would likely refrain from association with such individuals due to the high risks involved in doing so.
This is especially true given the perception that, given the irreconcilable nature of such disputes, such individuals often attempt to inappropriately “take the matter into their own hands”. As doing this under default government would mean rejecting the authority of the only government making a claim on the territory one occupies, under a free market in governance it would mean rejecting entire markets of agencies operating under an accommodatingly broad array of systems of judicial ethics.
Overall, adopting such a stance on the conditions for the legitimacy of political associations would help to decrease the number and impact of decisions made on the behalves of agents which inhibit said agents’ freedom to act in accordance with their own ethics and self-interest.


Chapter 1: Democracy, and Sovereignty as Externalization

An emphasis on personal choice in commercial and civic matters should not preclude the freedom to make decisions democratically – nor in concert with and consideration of the wishes of others – provided that such systemic decision-making structures are acceded to voluntarily; that is, in the presence of alternate decision-making modes and structures, provided that no agency may compel any person to come exclusively to it for any service, and provided that such political associations are not permanent, may be terminated, and are subject to frequent option of renewal and scrutiny.
Provided that the costs and responsibilities associated with the application and enforcement of such decisions are not externalized (passed-on) to non-consenting, unaware, and / or not yet affected persons or agencies, the freedoms of those who wish to make decisions via democratic processes would in fact be augmented.
Perhaps most importantly, they would be protected from actors attempting to impose fiscal austerity measures, which many in modern American political society view as being often arbitrary in regards to alternative budgetary reform measures which may be more conducive to the promotion of peace and socioeconomic justice, such as the removal of privilege from the military-industrial complex and the removal of barriers to commerce and the labor market.

Chapter 2: Political Choice as Boycott and Market Preference

The majority of Americans today – some 60 percent, at least – believe that the wealthy should pay a greater percentage of their income (and / or property) than the middle-class and the poor to fund the operations of government.
Given this fact, it seems reasonable to expect that in a free market for governance, at least – and probably significantly more than – 60 percent of the agencies competing to provide goods and services to the public would implement a progressive fee-structure.
They would do this (at least in part) in order to appeal to their would-be customers’ ethical sensibilities – i.e., their support of socioeconomic justice, fairness, and equality – and with a set of underlying goals which include expansion into untapped markets and service of dissatisfied former customers of competitors.
Given that a significant majority of the market for – and customers of – public services would choose to abide by and demand such a fee-structure, direct-action efforts may further increase that majority.
This is due to the facts that most or all customers would impose their desire for such a fee-structure on the market; and that many of the remaining 40 percent or less of the populace which does not already support progressive taxation may come to see that intentional interruptions in the structure which benefit the very top percentage of earners the current system disproportionately benefits the top income earners at their expense, and that it was not progressive taxation but rather imperfections in it which has significantly contributed to the disparity in wealth and income.
This system would function best in a society in which individuals are free and encouraged to boycott and protest agencies which they believe act unethically, to spread information about such agencies to others, and to reach their own conclusions about which facts about agencies are true or false.
Naturally, the individuals (and groups) who believe that refusal to implement a sufficiently just and equitable fee-structure is a good enough reason to refrain from supporting an agency should be treated as no exception.
Given sufficient sustained dedication and coordination of the actions of such individuals (and the citizen advocacy, consumer awareness, and public interest groups – and other associations – which they form), it is conceivable that agencies perceived as among the most amoral or exploitative would lose most or all of their share of the markets and of their patrons.
This would likely occur due to resignation of officials and employees, desertion by customers, lack of ethical sympathy felt by potential customers to begin with, protests by outside actors, and / or increased competition by better-respected agencies.

Chapter 3: Progressivism as Social Convention

Given the aforementioned conditions, it is also conceivable that the implementation of an equitable accelerated progressive fee-structure would dominate – or even, potentially, completely encompassthe market for the provision of public goods and services.
Before continuing, it should be noted that fee-structures are multi-variable cartels; that is, multi-variable standards on the prices which customers are willing to pay in exchange for services (multi-variable because a graph of this type of fee structure describes a rate of acceleration of the ratio of income and wealth to portion taxed). It should also be kept in mind that price cartels are imposed by either or both the providers and the consumers of goods and services.
In summation, it is conceivable that the implementation of just and equitable fee-structures could pervade the entire market for the provision of goods and services to the public, through the acceptation and adoption of social norms and customs which assert and defend the ethical imperative of implementing such fee-structures; actions such as information-sharing, protesting, boycotting, and forming customer price cartels.
In regards to the protection, insurance, and securitization of private and personal wealth, property, and income (insofar as they are services offered and provided to the public), all consumers of public goods and services – especially those who believe in socioeconomic justice and equality and want their property protected and insured – would be urged to adopt unwavering personal standards of how equitable the fee-structure of the agency protecting and insuring their property need be in order for them to be able to justify to themselves becoming customers of such agencies (that is, to always demand that the fee-structure of their property-insurance agency be both graduated and accelerating in respect to the wealth and income of the customer). Consumers would also be encouraged to urge others to do the same.
However – considering the possibility that direct-action information-spreading, protests, boycotts, and adoption of standards through the formation of peaceful cartels may not be sufficient to bring about the universal implementation of fair and equitable fee structures providing for the funding of the administration of agencies protecting and insuring wealth, property, and income – it is necessary to explore the possibility that self-interest and profit incentive may help guard against such failures.


Chapter 1: Forms of Wealth, and Banking Practices

The “flat tax” fee-structure which is often supported by libertarians and minarchists is the most simplistic model of a fee-for-service system providing for the protection, insurance, and security of wealth. In this model, the owners of wealth would pay an insurance premium whose amount is in direct proportion to the quantity of wealth to be insured.
Given the diversity of the forms which wealth can take – for example, physical assets like landed property and metallic currencies versus monetary assets tracked by banks’ computers – and the varying amount of difficulty involved in protecting these different forms, the numeric relationship between the price of the premium and the value of the wealth would vary widely when one takes into account the relative amounts of the different forms of wealth which an insurance customer possesses. This would cause interruptions in – and distortions of – the direct-proportional relationship between the amount of wealth and the cost of insuring it.
However, this problem could be solved by prohibiting practices such as speculation without full possession of assets (which can manifest as usury and fractional-reserve banking), and the manipulation of interest rates by non-market actors. Such reforms would be especially justifiable given that the allocation of resources is inefficient in the presence of such practices, all of which may be characterized as non-negligible transaction costs. Additionally, the system of the sale, purchase, and trade of debt should be re-examined, as should anything resembling the use of debt as a medium of exchange be abhorred.
Essentially – given successful universal implementation of such prohibitions of superfluous transaction costs – the normality of the flat fee-structure model would be preserved; that is, all persons would pay the same fraction or percentage of their wealth in order to protect the remainder of their wealth, regardless of how rich or how poor they are.
However, the purpose of explaining how a flat model could be perfected is not to propose or promote the flat model, but rather to introduce it as a basis for a more complex model.

Chapter 2: Mutual Risk and the Price of Public Services

Thus far, the influence which the difficulty of insuring wealth exerts on the price of premiums has been taken into account, but the influence of risk has not.
Just as insurance companies could not stay in business without carefully and accurately determining the risk associated with insuring persons and their property, consumers of security cannot expect to stay safe without carefully and accurately determining the risk associated with hiring one insurance agency over its competitors.
Being that income earners and property owners want to keep their wealth safe from those who would take or damage it – and keep themselves safe from those who would attempt to kill or injure them in order to take it – they are willing to pay in order to fund such security efforts.It is reasonable to expect that in any just society, those who earn and own the most would be willing to pay the most in order to protect themselves and their wealth.
In the administration of a taxation system for the funding of security of person and property which is based on insurance against mutual risk of buying and selling goods and services which promote such security, we would see a flat-tax-style linear relationship between wealth and income, and the “tax rate” (being that the fee-for-security-service voluntary “tax” is a form of insurance, the tax rate can also be termed “the insurance premium:”).
Not only would there be the psychologically satisfying fairness of the flat tax, but additionally the wealthy – being that with their greater wealth they are more likely than others to become victims of theft and bodily harm – would be willing to pay higher premiums (and even premiums they consider exorbitant and ridiculous) in order to protect and insure their wealth and income and themselves.

Chapter 3: The Wealthy as Charity Cases

The effects of administering such a taxation system would likely be compounded and complemented by the sharing of information regarding the risks of associating with customers and providers of security; and through protest and the formation of customer price standards, and the boycott of agencies who do not implement such a system.
As a reminder, these customer standards regarding fee structures are multi-variable “cartels” which are “enforced” by the available set of potential customers associating faithfully and legitimately in markets which have fair conditions for participation and can be influenced by customary personal and societal standards.
In such a system, any agency which pledges to protect the property of the wealthiest consumers of security for a reduced premium would effectively be promising to perform something resembling a charity service, essentially transforming the wealthiest consumers into “welfare cases”. Such agencies would likely allow for the vast accumulation of wealth in property in private hands, leading to a diminution of profitability (unless and until such agencies decide not to play fair and begin to threaten, attack, and / or externalize costs onto unwilling potential customers).

Chapter 4: Personal Wealth as a Danger to the Community

      In the event of a sustained, effective boycott against competing property insurers, property owners would continue to desire that their property remain safe from those who would take or damage it, and also desire to keep themselves safe from those who would attempt to kill or injure them in order to take their property.
      As a reminder, in a panarchist system, property protection and insurance companies would negotiate with, and occasionally sue one another, when their insured customers wrong one another. Also, agencies offering property insurance policies would not be able to stay in business (i.e., avoid going bankrupt) without carefully determining the risk associated with resolving to protect, and issuing an insurance policy that covers the property of, some particular customer or other agency. Additionally, the premium rates on such insurance would reflect each company's past measures of success in providing restitution to victims of property theft or damage.
Wealthy property owners whom do not pay protection premiums, the price of which approaches that of fair market standards set by the consumers of security, would have no reason to expect others not to attempt to seize or diminish the utility of their claimed property, and / or attempt to physically harm them for defending it. This is to say that the wealthiest property owners whom do not pay to have their property protected and insured, would have no reason to expect people not to steal it.
This proposition could easily be construed to suggest that property claims which are uninsured – and / or not readily and actively protected or maintained – are illegitimate. This is important because it is compatible with views on property rights expressed by Mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, by geoists such as Henry George, and in John Locke’s labor theory of property; i.e., that the ownership of landed property is legitimate only when it remains in use or occupation.
To fail to pay more would be to fail to internalize the protection costs which the presence of that wealth would externalize upon the remainder of the community (literally, the geographical community, whose occupants are vulnerable to attack or burglary due to the possibility of their homes being mistaken for the wealthy property).
      The wealthy would be both obligated and willing at the same time, to pay higher amounts for the premiums to have their property protected and insured, even if those prices are exorbitant and ridiculous in their own opinion. First, because they have more wealth, and second, because they, with their greater wealth, are more likely to become victims of theft.
      It would be especially true that the wealthy would be willing to pay more if “cartels” are “enforced” universally; that is, if each and every one of the many property insurance agencies selling in the market, were to accede to consumer demand that those with more land and wealth, pay more to protect their property, and additionally pay to defer the protection costs which would normally be incurred by the least wealthy property owners.
      Property owners would become willing to pay more – both proportionately and absolutely – in order to protect their property and keep their persons safe (i.e, against those many consumers who would demand that their property insurer threaten loss of life and limb against those who own so much property and wealth, that the presence of that wealth (and neighbors' knowledge that it exists) puts the safety of their neighbors at similar risk (i.e., of burglary and unmerited occupation). In acceding to consumer demands, the wealthy property owner protects his own self-interest, and succeeds at protecting both his person and his property.
It is in the afore-explained manner that rational self-interest and profit incentive may help guard against the failures of direct action, account and correct for the externalization of costs onto society and unwilling potential customers, and fuel a market mechanism which would prevent and limit the accumulation of vast sums of private property (i.e., in the means of production) in private hands.
Simply, not only does this system take into account the motivation of businesses to reap net benefit and to serve the interest of their board members, investors, and customers; the success of the system depends on the rational pursuit self-interest and profit motive (in a context of non-aggression, and of just legal and economic repercussions for aggressing against competitors and unwilling potential customers).
Agencies which do not administer such equitable "tax" policies could even be sued for exploitation by a potentially infinite series of appeals to mutually-chosen fair, neutral, and independent arbiters which do not have vested interest in the outcome of the decisions made. Additionally, direct-action tactics and lawsuits alike could result in the bankruptcy and / or abolition of the offending agency.

How much more difficult a time would those who benefit from government largess have protecting their own wealth (i.e., through their own effort) if they had to possess all of their physical property and wealth on one parcel of land, instead of ten or more houses?
How hard would it be to protect their wealth if they had to carry all of their wealth on them in a sack of physical gold, tied around their ankles, so that instead of being free to go to the marketplaces and the auctions, they are forced to dislocate their own knees in order to get there?
I would not object if we lived that way. In Ancient Rome, if someone became too wealthy, they would strand them on the outskirts of the city. Not only can my idea be used to achieve just that, it could also spare the marketgoing public the indignity of having nearly every item at the auction bought out from under them right in front of their eyes.

For additional reading, see "Chaos Theory" by Robert P. Murphy, and "The Market for Liberty" by Linda and Morris Tannehill.

See also: the following blog entries.

1 comment:

  1. Read your post its really informative keep updating with newer post on property insurance