Freedom of Government

[myrkul]

A few hundred years ago, Freedom of Religion was the idea of the hour. People moved across the ocean to try it out. Colonies were founded on it, countries wrote it into their founding documents. What has been the result? Where Freedom of Religion is respected, peace between the various religions is the norm, and violence the exception. The people thrive, and are happy.

A bit later, thinkers like Frédéric Bastiat agitated for Freedom of Trade. They argued that free trade not only ensures peace between people, but between nations as well: "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." What has been the result? Where Freedom of Trade is respected, the people flourish, and the nations are at peace. Where Freedom of Trade is not respected, the nations war, and the people starve.

So the time has come, I think, As de Molinari suggested, to seek Freedom of Government. Just as with religion and trade, monopolies should no longer be acceptable in government. Each person should be free to select for himself a government that best suits his needs, just as he may select a religion that best suits his needs, and like religion, each person should be free to have no government at all, or to start his own. Just as no person may choose another's religion for them, none may choose another's government. Just as with trade, no government should interfere with the operation of another government, nor prevent it from serving it's citizens. Just as with trade, each government should be free to provide it's citizens with whatever services it chooses.

What do I predict will be the result? With each previous Freedom, the people's lot has been improved greatly. No longer do we see catholic armies hunting down and murdering heretics. Cargo ships are now more numerous on the sea lanes than warships. When people are free to change governments as freely as they may change churches, I predict that war itself may become a thing of the past. For what purpose would war serve, in such a world? To gain citizens? No, they could simply change governments to another government. To gain resources? It would be cheaper, and more efficient, to gain them through trade, or by enticing the citizens which control those resources to switch. To gain territory? No, again, to gain territory, they need only entice citizens to switch. The only reason left, then, is personal vendetta or hatred, and "because I don't like you," has never been an acceptable reason for violence amongst civilized people.

That's not to say violence would disappear. This is no utopian dream. But it would, I believe, be greatly reduced. There certainly would be less reason for it. Some people would still seek to control others against their will. But these people would properly be seen as criminals, and treated as such.

How to get there from here? That's actually the simplest part. Imagine, if you will, an election. An election where everybody wins. Whoever you vote for, gets the office you voted for. The catch is, of course, that only people who voted for that person get the government with that person in it. Everybody else gets their own government, constituted however they want. For some people, who vote on issues, that might be a little confusing, but most voters stick to party lines, so that should be a minor problem. After a few of these elections, all the "borders," or at least the "platforms" of the various governments should be fairly well defined, and so people could then choose their government without an election, perhaps by filling out a few forms, and placing a sign in their yard.

[AlgoSwan]

Freedom of govt. won't give peace. Freedom of presidency? Maybe.

" To see the evils caused by the presidency, look no further than Iraq or Serbia, where the lives of innocents were snuffed out in pointless wars, where bombing was designed to destroy civilian infrastructure and cause disease, and where women, children, and the aged have been denied essential food and medicine because of a cruel embargo. Look at the human toll taken by the presidency, from Dresden and Hiroshima to Waco and Ruby Ridge, and you see a prime practitioner of murder by government." ~ Rockwell 1996.

[myrkul]

Freedom of govt. won't give peace. Freedom of presidency? Maybe.

Freedom of presidency would be a vital part of freedom of government. Without it, it would be like being free to choose whatever computer you like, but Apple, Gateway, IBM, and Dell all have the same CEO.

[Mike Christ]

Freedom of govt. won't give peace. Freedom of presidency? Maybe.

I beg to differ.

War is funded by compulsory fees required to use the government.  When government is voluntary, a person can decide not to pay taxes, and thus not participate in said government.  Once any single government says, "I want to go to war with such and such," the natural response (I sincerely hope) from the public is "Hell no, I'm switching governments."  Thus, the violent government gets no funding to wage war, and no soldiers to fight in those wars, and likely loses so much business, it has to disband.  Competing governments will see a rise in citizenship and will be rewarded for taking care of their citizens, as opposed to attempting to keep a stronghold over whatever profit-related issue they're facing.

Granted, it won't eliminate all war, but world wars fueled by blind nationalism will cease to exist.  Educate all societies and warfare will be limited to wars of logic and reason, as opposed to wars of violence and bloodshed.  This occurs when schools are allowed to exist as private businesses, or in the very least, when school is not compulsory, and when religion is shown for the sham it is (both of the divine and political sort.)  World peace can never happen while the state is compulsory.  This is a pipe dream, to any hardcore statists listening.  There will always be someone in power, and someone who can't be trusted to handle the power they have.

[Akka]

But, don't we basically have this already? In most country you are allowed to travel freely and to leave the county if you want and another county with a different Government accepts you.

Isn't the point more that there isn't actually a demand for citizens and therefore governments don't compete to acquire as many as possible of them and therefore a free government marked can't develop?

[myrkul]

But, don't we basically have this already? In most country you are allowed to travel freely and to leave the county if you want and another county with a different Government accepts you.

That's like saying, "Sure, you have freedom of religion. This country's catholic. If you want to be Protestant, move to another country." No, we don't have Freedom of Government, they still have regional monopolies.

Isn't the point more that there isn't actually a demand for citizens and therefore governments don't compete to acquire as many as possible of them and therefore a free government market can't develop?

Of course there's a demand for citizens. Especially productive ones that generate tax revenue.

[Akka]

But, don't we basically have this already? In most country you are allowed to travel freely and to leave the county if you want and another county with a different Government accepts you.

That's like saying, "Sure, you have freedom of religion. This country's catholic. If you want to be Protestant, move to another country." No, we don't have Freedom of Government, they still have regional monopolies.

So you basically mean that also a separation of Government and Country (Land) is needed first. So my Wife / Neighbour can be "citizen" of a different Government than me, while we are still living at the same place?

Otherwise you would still have to move to change you Government, which is where we are already.

If you think that through to the end it would "downgrade" Governments to Private Security Companies that you pay (Tax) to provide you with things for basic needs (Infrastructure, Education, etc.) and handle disputes with citizens of your and of other governments for you.

Would be more like the End of government, not freedom of.

Isn't the point more that there isn't actually a demand for citizens and therefore governments don't compete to acquire as many as possible of them and therefore a free government market can't develop?

Of course there's a demand for citizens. Especially productive ones that generate tax revenue.

Well only for specialised individuals that already received a good education provided by another government. That's a very rare case and not a real general demand for citizens.

That's like calling the diamond marked a demand for stones.

[myrkul]

But, don't we basically have this already? In most country you are allowed to travel freely and to leave the county if you want and another county with a different Government accepts you.

That's like saying, "Sure, you have freedom of religion. This country's catholic. If you want to be Protestant, move to another country." No, we don't have Freedom of Government, they still have regional monopolies.

So you basically mean that also a separation of Government and Country (Land) is needed first. So my Wife / Neighbour can be "citizen" of a different Government than me, while we are still living at the same place?

Otherwise you would still have to move to change you Government, which is where we are already.

Correct.

If you think that through to the end it would "downgrade" Governments to Private Security Companies that you pay (Tax) to provide you with things for basic needs (Infrastructure, Education, etc.) and handle disputes with citizens of your and of other governments for you.

Would be more like the End of government, not separation.

Shh! I'm trying to avoid scaring the statists. But yes, making governments voluntary would drastically change the power dynamic. For the better, as has been shown every time a market has replaced a monopoly.

Isn't the point more that there isn't actually a demand for citizens and therefore governments don't compete to acquire as many as possible of them and therefore a free government market can't develop?

Of course there's a demand for citizens. Especially productive ones that generate tax revenue.

Well only for specialised individuals that already received a good education provided by another government. That's a very rare case and not a real general demand for citizens.

That's like calling the diamond marked a demand for stones.

Hardly. The "diamonds" may produce the most revenue individually, but even cheap stones can be valuable in bulk.

[Rassah]

But, what if my idea of freedom conflicts with your idea of freedom? Stop imposing freedoms on me! 

[/statist reply]

[myrkul]

But, what if my idea of freedom conflicts with your idea of freedom? Stop imposing freedoms on me! 

[/statist reply]

That's the best part! I'm not! You can have as oppressive a government as you want! Socialist regimes that force you to support the laziest bum (who would, naturally, also choose this government, since it results in them being supported), Dictatorial regimes that tell you what you can and can't do, even down to making sure you buckle up on the toilet! All this and more can be yours, if you desire.
(You just can't make it be mine.)

[Walter Rothbard]

Your proposal has my vote!

[Rassah]

But, what if my idea of freedom conflicts with your idea of freedom? Stop imposing freedoms on me! 

[/statist reply]

That's the best part! I'm not! You can have as oppressive a government as you want! Socialist regimes that force you to support the laziest bum (who would, naturally, also choose this government, since it results in them being supported), Dictatorial regimes that tell you what you can and can't do, even down to making sure you buckle up on the toilet! All this and more can be yours, if you desire.
(You just can't make it be mine.)

But... But what if my freedom (to sit at home all day playing videogames) depends on you paying taxes to support me? Stop obstructing my freedoms! Think of the poor old grandmothers!

[myrkul]

But, what if my idea of freedom conflicts with your idea of freedom? Stop imposing freedoms on me! 

[/statist reply]

That's the best part! I'm not! You can have as oppressive a government as you want! Socialist regimes that force you to support the laziest bum (who would, naturally, also choose this government, since it results in them being supported), Dictatorial regimes that tell you what you can and can't do, even down to making sure you buckle up on the toilet! All this and more can be yours, if you desire.
(You just can't make it be mine.)

But... But what if my freedom* depends on you paying taxes to support me? Stop obstructing my freedoms! Think of the poor old grandmothers!
*(to sit at home all day playing videogames)

Well, then, you'll just have to (like the bum in the previous example) choose a government that forces people* to pay to support you. It's all very simple, really.
*(who have chosen to be forced)

[hawkeye]

It's so astoundingly obvious when you think about it that people should have the freedom to choose the services they want and nothing should be/can be forced on anyone else that you wonder how people get away with advocating force and sounding like normal, decent human beings when they say that.

"No you are not allowed to force yourself on me!  Comprende?"

And they call us extremists...  

Still, I guess the abolitionists were called extremists at the start too.  Until people finally realise they were right.

Any time you want something from somebody and they say no, just call them an extremist for not wanting to be violated.

[Elwar]

At the very least, the economic stuff can be easily taken care of this way. Especially with the help of Bitcoin.

[Ekaros]

Separation of land and goverment seem to be rather complex thing at current time.

Unimportant stuff:
^{Who has the control of land, and does this control extend to upwards and downwards? If so, what does this control of land include? If it includes who can travel on land, what if your land is surrounded by people who don't allow travel to your land? They should be free to do this. Right? They aren't forcing you against anything on your property, just jailing you on it...}

[myrkul]

Separation of land and government seem to be rather complex thing at current time.

Not really. As I said, that's the simplest part. Getting the States to agree to it, now that's going to be tough. they do like their monopoly.

Who has the control of land, and does this control extend to upwards and downwards? If so, what does this control of land include? If it includes who can travel on land, what if your land is surrounded by people who don't allow travel to your land? They should be free to do this. Right? They aren't forcing you against anything on your property, just jailing you on it...

Firstly, these questions are largely settled already. Most land is privately owned, and concepts such as Right of way and Freedom of Movement exist already, and don't need to be reinvented.

Secondly, the control of land, unless otherwise specified, only grants rights to a "reasonable" distance into the air. And helicopters do exist, as well. So, which would you rather have, a happy neighbor who can cross your land to leave his, or an unhappy one who buzzes your house every morning on his way to work?

[Elwar]

Geography does not necessarily hinder this approach, look at how Iceland worked for over 300 years.

http://praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f13l1.html

In outline, the system's main features were these: Legislative power was vested in the General Assembly (althingi); the legislators were Chieftains (godhar; singular, godhi) representing their Assemblymen (thingmenn; singular, thingmadhr). Every Icelander was attached to a Chieftain, either directly, by being an Assemblyman, or indirectly, by belonging to a household headed by an Assemblyman. A Chieftaincy (godhordh) was private property, which could be bought and sold. Representation was determined by choice rather than by place of residence; an Assemblyman could transfer his allegiance (and attendant fees) at will from one Chieftain to another without moving to a new district. Hence competition among Chieftains served to keep them in line.

The General Assembly passed laws, but had no executive authority; law enforcement was up to the individual, with the help of his friends, family, and Chieftain. Disputes were resolved either through private arbitration or through the court system administered by the General Assembly. Wrongdoers were required to pay financial restitution to their victims; those who refused were denied all legal protection in the future (and thus, e.g., could be killed with impunity). The claim to such compensation was itself a marketable commodity; a person too weak to enforce his claim could sell it to someone more powerful. This served to prevent the powerful from preying on the weak. Foreigners were scandalized by this "land without a king"; but Iceland's system appears to have kept the peace at least as well as those of its monarchical neighbors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

historian Birgir Solvason states that Icelandic society was "more peaceful and cooperative than its contemporaries"; in England and Norway, by contrast, "the period from about 800 to 1200 is a period of continuous struggle; high in both violence and killings."

[wdmw]

The other piece is Freedom of Money.  Then again, this is a Bitcoin forum...

[Jobe7]

If only the majority of people could force a new Global Law, along the lines of 'The Freedom Of Governments Act', the first of proper global laws (like human rights SHOULD be), allowing all people of the world to choose their governments and interact via the internet for all their purposes.

Though it would still need security to ensure peoples freedom to choose.. I'm guessing each government would fund its own troops. And if they started to get too militaristic then people could migrate, but then the country in which you reside would try to force you to stick with it, and there we get back to taxes and the monopoly of security..

How to combat that? A part of the Freedom Of Governments Act to state that all other governments must come to the aid of any civilian that is held under a government against that persons will?

And possibly another clause stating that all Governments would only have a limited security force?

Edit: Here's a nice wild idea, if you had 500k btc (or enough people with enough btc working together), and within 4 years, or in 4 years time by the next 50% mining dip btc has come to fruition. Fund a 'Freedom Of Government Movement' with its goal through petitions (Avaaz?), lobbying, getting politicians alongside, etc, push for a UN Vote to enact such a thing as the 'Freedom Of Government Act'.

You never know, they used to think world was flat ...