But unfortunately we can't have it. Our disagreements run too deep, and our dilemma, the “voter's dilemma,” pits us the citizens against each other. For every difference of opinion, for every theory not in evidence, we reach a game that we call politics. The textbooks definition of politics is “who gets what and when.” But in deciding who gets what, there must be parties; groups that disagree with one another. At their most basic level (and for simplicity's sake), we will say that parties argue that their members ought to get some benefit from their government. And the way that the government gets money to sponsor these benefits is by taxing the opposing group(s). So we can conclude that in America, politics is a series of games that is played with 2 major players, democrats and republicans, with some minor players making a move or two occasionally. Every issue to be voted on is its own game, and the results will take from one group and give to another. So, we have a situation in America where there are always losers and always winners. It is impossible for everybody to win at once; the closest thing to it is a groups' wins equaling their losses. In the game of politics, a tie is the best thing that any group can ever hope to achieve. Keep in mind that the oppression of the losing group is unavoidable.
Democracies and republics have been struggling with this fact for hundreds of years. George Washington was strongly against the party system, but most of the rest of the founding fathers either could not see the damage that was being done to the citizens or were unable to think of a solution to the problem. The noble men that founded this country did not have the tools or advantages we have today; they did not have instant communication or speedy transportation. They could not understand the ability to keep track of thousands of transactions across the nation through the use of computers. They did not know that we would be competing with nations on the other side of the world and need every advantage we can get just to keep up with a highly competitive global economy. These are not mistakes that could have been foreseen, but they are mistakes that need to be corrected, and the sooner the better. Our mothers, our fathers, our sisters and brothers, our sons and our daughters deserve to live in a better place. We ourselves deserve to live better, richer, fuller lives. I encourage you to read the last two sentences out loud. Go ahead; there's no reason to be ashamed of wanting a better world. Follow me for a moment to such a place.
Imagine yourself, whether you are a socialist, capitalist, fascist, anarchist, or anything in between, imagine yourself under a government that caters to your needs. I'm talking about something that has never existed; a government that pleases everyone in it. This government gives everyone what they require from it, and only taxes and regulates what its citizens approve. Imagine yourself in your perfect government, surrounded by like-minded people that want the best for the citizens and agree with the way to implement fixes. You pay your taxes and you reap the benefits that you want.
Now imagine yourself discontent, ruled by a government that acts differently from they way you think it ought to. I'm sure there are a lot of us in this same situation right now; big business bailouts, poor monetary policy... you get the picture. And imagine being able to just step away from a government that you disagree with.
What I am suggesting is exactly that, in so many words; the freedom for every person to choose how they will be governed. Say there were numerous different governments that all governed differently; a few would be socialist, some libertarian, some fascist, etc. Each of these governments would be sovereign; they would have their own rules, citizens, justice systems; things we expect from a government. Some would provide numerous public services, while others would have lower taxes. Everyone would have the ability to become a citizen in any government they choose, and could leave if they decided that government no longer met their needs.
A common question raised against this ideology is concern over the intricacies of the justice system between citizens of differing governments. The answer is simple: let the governments decide how to deal with foreigners. If the citizens approved of the government's policies, they would continue to support it. If not, they would move on to a different one that had better policies.
Similarly, war between governments would ultimately be decided by the citizens. If a country were to declare war on another and the citizens didn't agree, then the citizens could leave. An unfunded war with no citizens to serve in the military would be extremely difficult to fight.
We don't all want the same thing; some of us shop at Dollar General, some at Wal-Mart, and some at Target. Why should we expect to all go to the same government to give us what we need?
Posts
