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
Jason,
ReplyDeleteMay some of choose to have no government, and be left alone?
Taylor,
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIn your imagined utopia, different organizations offer their services but compel no one to buy. It's misleading to call such organizations governments. Over the last few thousand years, no government has ever followed such a policy. Those organizations that do follow such a policy, such as Wal Mart, the local synogogue and your neighborhood bowling league are widely recognized as not being governments.
Anyway, I think you fail to address the objections that a more thoughtful statist might raise.
Here's one: Some governments would try to insulate themselves from competition and keep their revenues stable by purchasing large tracts of land and preventing competing governments from doing business there and requiring that anyone remaining on their land become their client. People could still switch, but the governments would work to make the switching costs as high as possible. If all of the governments did this, the end result would be identical to the present: you can choose your government, but exercising that choice will require a costly act of geographical migration. How is this an improvement over the present?
Here's another: Most people want governments that violate other people's rights in some way or another, usually through taxation and redistribution. If all of the "other people" are free to leave, then no government can satisfy that desire as well as a government that routinely treated people in ways that they didn't wish to be treated and made it difficult or impossible to leave.
Here's another: Your preferred arrangement requires that governments cooperate in an arrangement that limits their own power. This seems unlikely, to say the least. Aren't lovers of liberty better off looking for paths to freedom that do not require cooperation from governments?
James,
ReplyDeleteHere's a situation: I own land. A government wants to purchase it. They don't tell me that they will require me to be a part of that government once they buy it, so I say yes. I now have a lot of money, and am unhappy so I decide to go to another government with the sum of money that I have. Problem solved.
Another situation: I own land. A government wants to purchase it. I already know of their questionable land policies. As a result, I don't sell it to them.
Your assumption that most people want a government that violate other people's rights needs sufficient evidence before I can accept it. As far as I see it, most people just want something for nothing.
If competition was injected into a governmental market, the consumers, the potential citizens, would guarantee power limits for the governments. No competitor would want to be associated with tyranny, as no one would want to be a citizen under such a government.
First, what would prevent a government, empowered with a large enough military force and superior technology, from coming into another government's country and taking land by force? Or, people as slaves? Or any number of resources the winner government wants? What prevents one country from simply taking over another and assimilating it? Basis of all early politics was war. Now, let us suppose this country being attacked by the warring country is pacifist.
ReplyDeleteHow does this pacifist country protect the land/property/rights of its citizens without becoming non-pacifist?
Would the aggressor's citizenry agree with these policies? Let's suppose some don't and wish to move to the pacifist country. Won't the rights of the leaving citizens be lost when joining new country? Why would they move? Why wouldn't they just stay and try to change the current government that the majority supports?
What prevents a government from wiping out a portion of its citizens because those citizens are "inferior"? Or enslaving them?
What guarantees a citizen the right to move, unmolested by its government?
What if a country's monetary system fails? With no money, how would someone move to a working government? What or who would ensure their trip else where?
Suppose a small group of people want to retain their culture but wish to change their style of government. There is no government currently that represents both their culture and preferred governing style. Do they form a new government? Who would give up some land for this new government? Who or what would make sure this new government received the land or resources it needs to be sustainable?
Anyway, something to think about.
Grey Bubble,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see a new commenter! Thanks for stopping by.
Governments in this scenario would not have to be constricted by borders; neighbors could live next to one another and be under two different governments. It's extremely impractical to wage a door-to-door war, checking to see which citizen belongs to which government on a case-by-case basis.
If one country attacked another even within these circumstances, I find it unlikely that the citizens of the attacker would remain in that government, especially if the ones being attacked were pacifists. Let's not forget the numerous other governments that would be around that profit from peace.
I went to Wal-Mart and asked if they had Scotch tape. They didn't. I did not resort to calling the CEO or talking to the employees about the importance of carrying Scotch tape. I went to Target and bought it there. Government services and policies would be the same. Because of this, governments will ultimately be uninterested in doing "bad" things, because it would lose most of its tax base and probably go under.
A small group could form a new government. Again, land does not determine governance. A government will be able to get money any way it sees fit, so long as it is profitable. Of course, profitability is governed by the consumers, the citizens.
Let me see if I get this straight:
ReplyDeleteThis system you propose would have individuals placed disparately around the earth, all prescribing to the same ideals and thus being judged by those same ideals? What I mean is, I could be a communist living in a capitalist town and would, in effect, be my own communist state? I would then be judged by my own communist ideas and not at all subject to the capitalists around me? Or would I have to be in a particular region or location to be considered under communist rule and law?
And why would the citizens of the attacking country leave the war propagating government they built? They want the resources and power that war could provide, and would especially enjoy an easy war with a few pacifists. There is nothing to prevent these people that want war from having war, and there is nothing to protect those pacifists that absolutely do not want war.
And for your tape analogy, the consumer is not going to walmart or target because of each companies ideology. Rather, they go to fulfill material needs. Then these competing governments aren't based on ideology at all, but on who can provide their consumer with what they want. So, what do the citizen's want? money? power? cooperation? war? peace? None of these or all of them? Or a couple?
And money would be obtainable by any means a governed body sees fit. What if the government and governed see espionage as fitting? or War?
How does a court of law determine a case between citizens of separate governments? Especially if each government would have wildly different punishments? If a person is not declared a government's citizen or within a government's borders, how do you determine which punishment?
Basically, and back to my original point, what protects the sovereignty of each government? Who does a government rule and how does it or they know it?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou write: "Your assumption that most people want a government that violate other people's rights needs sufficient evidence before I can accept it. As far as I see it, most people just want something for nothing."
You really need to be convinced that most people want a government that will violate the rights of others? Ok. The majority of American voters supported Obama and McCain, both of who campaigned on promises to violate the rights of others. Before that the majority of voters supported Bush and Kerry, both of whom campaigned on promises to violate the rights of others. And so on.
Don't draw a false distinction between wanting a government that delivers something for nothing and wanting a government that violates rights. The two are inseparable.
If some government just buys your land, you might come out ok. But I never asked about an isolated transaction. I did my best to outline different objections very clearly. Perhaps you were reading hurriedly.
I notice you ignored the question that gets to what I see as the biggest problem with your proposal. I hate to copy and paste my own words, but: Your preferred arrangement requires that governments cooperate in an arrangement that limits their own power. This seems unlikely, to say the least. Aren't lovers of liberty better off looking for paths to freedom that do not require cooperation from governments?
Grey Bubble,
ReplyDeleteAs for your basic points, the sovereignty of a government is protected by its citizens. If one government were to attack another and all the rest of the variables were just right (the other country was composed of pacifists, the attacker's citizens are assholes, etc.), the rest of the governments would rise up against it. The problem with war in a country where most of your citizens are literally next door neighbors or work with people from another country is that most people only find it easy to wage war on a group that they've never met before.
A government rules those citizens who pay taxes to it. No government rules any citizens that do not pay taxes to it. The citizens, of course, would know who they paid their taxes to, if any. The government would likely deal out its own national IDs to distinguish citizens from non-citizens (depending, of course, on what the citizens will approve of).
Admittedly, the justice system is a little sketchy. I have confidence in government-businesses to resort conflicts between citizens properly. Of course, committing crimes against another government's citizen would be discouraged, as it makes the aggressor's country look bad. At worst, I would assent to a universal court system that dealt with murder, theft, rape, etc. and let each individual government make their own laws dealing with marriage, abortion, etc.
James,
I believe that if there was a candidate that promised something for nothing without violating the rights of others, people would vote for that candidate. The fact that it has never been done before does not make it an untruth; it is at worst an undefined.
Here is my original answer to your question concerning limiting the power of government: "If competition was injected into a governmental market, the consumers, the potential citizens, would guarantee power limits for the governments. No competitor would want to be associated with tyranny, as no one would want to be a citizen under such a government." The system makes governments work for the people rather than the other way around. As I see it, governmental competition gives people freedom of choice, as in a democracy, without the voter's dilemma.
As far as I see it, there will always be government. I sincerely hope that at one point in the future people can read their history books and say, "Wow, they really felt the need to be governed? How foolish!" But today, I highly doubt it. Therefore my commentaries about how to make a government will be an attempt to bring us all closer and closer to freedom. I also find it very important that if a revolution were started based on the concepts I write, that the largest amount of people possible should be against the side of tyranny, and therefore the concepts I present must appeal to the largest audience possible. Admittedly, it's a rather stupid and conceited dreamer's concern. But I stick to it nonetheless.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteIf a government gives me something for nothing, it has to give someone else nothing for something. Maybe the someone else will consent, but historically, that's not been the case. I'm not sure how many observations it would take for you to be convinced that it won't be the case.
Here and now, we have tyrannical governments and we also have governments that fall short of tyranny but still violate people's rights. The same has been true for a long time.
Here and now, people can switch governments. The same has been true for a long time.
What's different between what you propose and what we have now?
By the way, go read about Tiebout sorting (You didn't think your idea was original did you?), and the criticisms of it that mostly come from the left. What you propose requires a great deal of cooperation from people who would not want to cooperate.
James,
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between what I am proposing and what we have now (and the Tiebout model) is that moving is not required of citizens. Governments would not be obligated to stay in a certain geographical region; they would preside over citizens.
As always, I appreciate the criticism. It helps to refine the theory into a model.
First, I must comment on James' point that someone must lose something (nothing for something) in order for someone else to gain something (something for nothing). This point is true to some extent and especially for non-renewable resources.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, imagine two kids fighting over the same toy. There is only one toy, so only one kid can have the toy at one time. The kids could learn to share, but one kid must still go without that toy for some amount of time.
In this model, we have two people and for one to gain the other must lose. But, suppose we can build or purchase another toy, thus providing everyone in the model with the toy? Everyone is a winner.
Now, think of what invention is: essentially, the creation of something from nothing that provides a benefit. When something is invented, like the telephone, everyone gains (I will point out that some inventions have made certain jobs obsolete, but they do tend to create new jobs as well). So, in a way, someone always loses, but only in the sense that someone is always going to get screwed when you gather enough people in an ever changing environment.
Still, the economy is not a zero-sum game unless its played that way. Someone doesn't have to lose, they just will.
Anyway, what you propose, Jason, does sound exactly like what we have now, minus any dependence on location for citizenship. Just as the US has a centralized government to manage conflict between the states and oversee matters that effect the entire nation, so too do we have a UN to oversee and manage interactions between nations of the world. So is the point here really only that location shouldn't inform your citizenship? But then we lose the benefit of being surrounded by like minded persons. And, in such a scenario, what benefit could any government provide specifically to its own citizens? Building a road would be building a road for everyone.
Unless you make the road a toll road and provided your citizens with free passage. But that would make governments membership organizations rather than governments, with the only real government the UN, that regulates them.
I've always believed the economy to be a non-zero-sum game that is played like a zero-sum game. I'm glad someone else agrees.
ReplyDeleteWhat I propose is very similar to what we have now. But I am confident that as the correlation between geography and citizenry breaks down, the world will begin to know and understand other points of view better, and therefore become less inclined to war over said differences. Also, as citizens will be encouraged to change governments if they feel one is better than another, the sense of nationalism will break down and people will obtain a greater knowledge and appreciation for genuinely good governments.
As far as the road goes, I'm sure a toll would do the trick. Or several governments could go in all at once. However they wanted to do it. Remember, CEOs are more likely to cooperate than presidents.
ReplyDeletei know earlier it was mentioned that most people, if not all, want something for nothing. what if we eliminated the use of capital, like in anarchist systems? wouldnt that solve most if not all problems in government?
ReplyDeleteStephen,
ReplyDeleteWhat anarchist system are you referring to? Do you know what anarchy means?