Murder City Jabbers
24-10-2007, 04:08
There is one thing that joins democracy, statism, monarchy and any other form of government that has ever existed on earth. That one thing, the idea that the relationship between a government and its constituents is compulsory, is what has enabled tyranny throughout history. If a free nation is ever to exist, that compulsion must go.
A government's only proper function is to protect the rights of its constituents. Does a government have to force a man into this relationship in order to protect his rights, or is it possible for man to have a choice in the matter? In order for a man to be free, all social interaction must be voluntary and for a mutual benefit. Can a government protect this right if the relationship between man and government is forced?
A government's only proper function is to protect the rights of its constituents. In order to live, a man must have a right to his property and to the fruits of his labor. Can a government protect this right if it has an inherant claim on a man's home and taxes a man's income before he has even gotten his hands on it?
Government must be approached as a service in order for the relationship to be voluntary. A water works, electricity, gas, phone and cable service are all services that people subscribe to. But what happens when a man doesn't want water service anymore? He pays his last bill and cancels the service. He is not considered a traitor. What if a man doesn't have money for the phone bill? The phone company shuts off his service. They don't take the man's house as payment and they can't throw him in jail for the debt.
Why does government have to be different? A government should be an entity that lists the rights of its citizens, and provides a police force to protect those rights if needed. A government must provide a civil court system to settle disputes between citizens if needed.
The compulsory relationship is only necessary if government goes beyond protecting rights and into controls and regulations. Controls of the personal lives of constituents and the regulation of trade and property are the practice of tyrants.
In a subscribed government a standing police force would be provided to intervene in individual matters as needed. This police force as well as a volunteer militia would be used to fend off large invasive threats.
The cost of this to the individual could be computed much the way an insurance agency figures out a premium for car insurance. Taking in relative data to estimate how much government attention a man would require as well as how much property they have to protect would be one objective way to do it.
The court system could be payed for on a system based on use. Only people that use the court system should have to pay for it. Placing the burden of cost upon the party found responsible for the dispute would be one objective way to do it.
The "voting" system of a subscribed government would be unique to any previous form of government in that there would be complete consensus between government and its constituent population. By the nature of the relationship, the moment when government imposes any oppressive law upon the citizen would be the moment the partnership is broken.
The individual would not accept an imposition on his rights voluntarily by government, just as government would not accept an individual who violates the rights of others. The individual would not accept over-taxation by government just as government would not accept non-payment of taxes by its constituents. One's acceptance of government policy is implicit in his participation.
The voluntary relationship acts as a circuit breaker that protects man from oppression. It is only if this circuit breaker is in place that man can be truly free.
A government's only proper function is to protect the rights of its constituents. Does a government have to force a man into this relationship in order to protect his rights, or is it possible for man to have a choice in the matter? In order for a man to be free, all social interaction must be voluntary and for a mutual benefit. Can a government protect this right if the relationship between man and government is forced?
A government's only proper function is to protect the rights of its constituents. In order to live, a man must have a right to his property and to the fruits of his labor. Can a government protect this right if it has an inherant claim on a man's home and taxes a man's income before he has even gotten his hands on it?
Government must be approached as a service in order for the relationship to be voluntary. A water works, electricity, gas, phone and cable service are all services that people subscribe to. But what happens when a man doesn't want water service anymore? He pays his last bill and cancels the service. He is not considered a traitor. What if a man doesn't have money for the phone bill? The phone company shuts off his service. They don't take the man's house as payment and they can't throw him in jail for the debt.
Why does government have to be different? A government should be an entity that lists the rights of its citizens, and provides a police force to protect those rights if needed. A government must provide a civil court system to settle disputes between citizens if needed.
The compulsory relationship is only necessary if government goes beyond protecting rights and into controls and regulations. Controls of the personal lives of constituents and the regulation of trade and property are the practice of tyrants.
In a subscribed government a standing police force would be provided to intervene in individual matters as needed. This police force as well as a volunteer militia would be used to fend off large invasive threats.
The cost of this to the individual could be computed much the way an insurance agency figures out a premium for car insurance. Taking in relative data to estimate how much government attention a man would require as well as how much property they have to protect would be one objective way to do it.
The court system could be payed for on a system based on use. Only people that use the court system should have to pay for it. Placing the burden of cost upon the party found responsible for the dispute would be one objective way to do it.
The "voting" system of a subscribed government would be unique to any previous form of government in that there would be complete consensus between government and its constituent population. By the nature of the relationship, the moment when government imposes any oppressive law upon the citizen would be the moment the partnership is broken.
The individual would not accept an imposition on his rights voluntarily by government, just as government would not accept an individual who violates the rights of others. The individual would not accept over-taxation by government just as government would not accept non-payment of taxes by its constituents. One's acceptance of government policy is implicit in his participation.
The voluntary relationship acts as a circuit breaker that protects man from oppression. It is only if this circuit breaker is in place that man can be truly free.