NationStates Jolt Archive

I had an idea for government a while back that worked on a system of multiple tiered councils, from (basically) neighborhoods to the national level. It would run by way of groups of people associating with one another, with full ability to secede from one group to another. At the neighborhood level, my idea was that the neighborhood councils would be responsible for maintaining militias at a local level for public safety and as a safeguard against tyranny (they would effectively make the people able to secede from an oppressive government). These neighborhood councils, however, would have no power to tax, and would rely entirely on voluntary contributions. But then I thought, if these councils don't have the power of taxation, why should *any* level of government have it?

So I came to this idea- no council would have the power to tax. Everything would have to operate by voluntary donations, even to the military and investigative body (Courts could charge costs, though, because they are providing a direct, tangible service). If the councils wanted more money, they would have to set a good example first if they wanted any donations at all, and give out of their own pockets. Who would want to donate to a cause if the leaders are not willing to sacrifice too? This would rule out any salaries for being a politician, since to do otherwise would imply some sort of tax subsidies. Corruption would be punishable by death.

What do you all think of this?

What do you all think of this?
We watch as your government collaspes within a week for not being able to do anything.

We watch as your government collaspes within a week for not being able to do anything.

Then it's probably for the better if it does, though it would be surprising.

You have created a massive free rider problem and a system highly vulnerable to corruption.

Then it's probably for the better if it does, though it would be surprising.
Why would it be surprising? Without the ability to raise monies, a government cannot do any of the jobs it is supposed to do. It needs funding from somewhere as people tend to not be too nice and usually won't donate time or materials for free on a constant basis.

You have created a massive free rider problem and a system highly vulnerable to corruption.

The free rider problem is a myth, first of all. And I think it's surprising that you believe that forced taxation (AKA robbery) is less susceptible to corruption than charity. Plus, there's execution to deter people from being corrupt.

Why would it be surprising? Without the ability to raise monies, a government cannot do any of the jobs it is supposed to do. It needs funding from somewhere as people tend to not be too nice and usually won't donate time or materials for free on a constant basis.

I would just find it surprising if no one at all is charitable at all to give any money for the government. I do not think that people tend to "not be too nice", and they will give money if they believe it is a worthy cause (how else can you explain charity?)

Basically you've taken all the problems with democracy (the endless bickering and not getting anything done) and multiplied them by a thousand times. On top of that, if govt office holders get no money, they would have to be either rich or corrupt in order to survive. That's one of the biggest mistake the Roman Empire made.

I would just find it surprising if no one at all is charitable at all to give any money for the government. I do not think that people tend to "not be too nice", and they will give money if they believe it is a worthy cause (how else can you explain charity?)
Once, maybe, even twice, but constantly? How do you plan to arm, equip, train, maintain, and (above all) pay those milita (Noting that lack of payment very nearly started a second revolution in the young US)? How do you plan to pay for roads? Schools? Other services?

Why should I pay when I don't have to after all?

Basically you've taken all the problems with democracy (the endless bickering and not getting anything done) and multiplied them by a thousand times. On top of that, if govt office holders get no money, they would have to be either rich or corrupt in order to survive. That's one of the biggest mistake the Roman Empire made.

First of all, I never advocated democracy. Second of all, I don't think there is a clear-cut choice between "Be corrupt" or "Starve". In my system, there would be a great focus on citizen-statesmen, who would live their lives most of the time and only occassionally be making policy. Perhaps in the upper echelons there would be a greater concentration of rich people, but those would be the ones who would likely be the pillar of the community types, who are rich, charitable, and well-respected. There's nothing wrong with that; in fact, they would probably be good at business if they have all that money, which is a prerequisite for administrative skills.

Once, maybe, even twice, but constantly? How do you plan to arm, equip, train, maintain, and (above all) pay those milita (Noting that lack of payment very nearly started a second revolution in the young US)? How do you plan to pay for roads? Schools? Other services?

Why should I pay when I don't have to after all?

The militia would only be part time, not a constant force. It would train every once in a while and live their lives as usual the rest of the time. Sort of like a club. Basically all the other services I don't see the need for government to control, since I intend to have a constitution that is very limited. And you don't have to pay, and I don't expect you to have to. But someone else will.

We watch as your government collaspes within a week for not being able to do anything.
This is while we invade, right? :D

The militia would only be part time, not a constant force. It would train every once in a while and live their lives as usual the rest of the time. Sort of like a club. Basically all the other services I don't see the need for government to control, since I intend to have a constitution that is very limited. And you don't have to pay, and I don't expect you to have to. But someone else will.
Again, how do you plan to pay them if someone invades?

Look at US history, this is why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and went to the Constitution. The federal government couldn't tax, and it couldn't pay the very men who had just fought for freedom. They didn't feel the need to donate their time for such a worthy cause either.

I like the concept of an end to compulsory taxation.

The only problem is, people cannot be trusted to make voluntary contributions to a government that is as money-grubbing and money-loving as the United States Government, or has a history of being so.

I certainly wouldn't, not with entities like the IRS in existence, looking for new ways to squeeze every last red cent out of me. After what the IRS has done to some (way too many) taxpayers, and as power-mad as it has been, I wouldn't be caught dead making VOLUNTARY contributions to the US Federal Government.

Therefore, unless and until the Gov't does away with the IRS and starts taking a more taxpayer-benevolent attitude, an end to compulsory taxation is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, and I'm ALL FOR IT!

This only sounds feasible on a very small scale.

Again, how do you plan to pay them if someone invades?

Look at US history, this is why we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and went to the Constitution. The federal government couldn't tax, and it couldn't pay the very men who had just fought for freedom. They didn't feel the need to donate their time for such a worthy cause either.

If people will not pay *charity* to protect their freedom, then those people quite honestly don't deserve to have it. Also, it's more the fault of the US government to promise excessively high payments to people than their inability to collect money. (I think government employees should not be paid large sums, but should basically be working as volunteers with their minimum living expenses taken care of. However, those who do the work should be given suffrage.)

I like the concept of an end to compulsory taxation.

The only problem is, people cannot be trusted to make voluntary contributions to a government that is as money-grubbing and money-loving as the United States Government, or has a history of being so.

I certainly wouldn't, not with entities like the IRS in existence, looking for new ways to squeeze every last red cent out of me. After what the IRS has done to some (way too many) taxpayers, and as power-mad as it has been, I wouldn't be caught dead making VOLUNTARY contributions to the US Federal Government.

Therefore, unless and until the Gov't does away with the IRS and starts taking a more taxpayer-benevolent attitude, an end to compulsory taxation is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT, and I'm ALL FOR IT!

This is a reason why I like my idea; instead of having a government that can shake you down relentlessly, they have to go to you, hat in hand, and explain to you how their program will work and why it is for the best, and even then you can still refuse them. It makes government the servant of people, not a robbing master.

If people will not pay *charity* to protect their freedom, then those people quite honestly don't deserve to have it.

If people don't deserve who don't pay don't deserve freedom then how is it voluntary? If the above statement is true enslaving the non-payers is ok. To keep from being a slave one has has to contribute. Contribute or be slave. Not voluntary at all.

The free rider problem is a myth, first of all.

Really? So people will be just as willing to pay for a service when they can get the service for free as they would when they can't?

And I think it's surprising that you believe that forced taxation (AKA robbery) is less susceptible to corruption than charity.

Of course it is. No one has the option of withholding compelled taxes, so the threat of doing so cannot be used to control government policy.

Plus, there's execution to deter people from being corrupt.

Corruption will be essential to getting the funds necessary for operation.

If it's not compulsory, it's not taxation.

Because taxation is essentially legalized theft.

If people don't deserve who don't pay don't deserve freedom then how is it voluntary? If the above statement is true enslaving the non-payers is ok. To keep from being a slave one has has to contribute. Contribute or be slave. Not voluntary at all.

Just because they don't deserve it doesn't mean it's right to take it away. If you treat your parents or friends, who are nice to you, badly, you may not deserve them, but that doesn't mean someone can take them away from you.

Really? So people will be just as willing to pay for a service when they can get the service for free as they would when they can't?

I never said that they will be willing to pay voluntarily for a service. I mean that the free rider problem is utterly blown out of proportion, and that ultimately if there is any revenue that escapes, it will be captured. It's not some ongoing dilemma that some paint it as, with the lighthouse example etc. (Which is interesting because for a long time most lighthouses were privately owned. :D)

Of course it is. No one has the option of withholding compelled taxes, so the threat of doing so cannot be used to control government policy.

But if people find out that you're misusing tax revenue, in a compelled situation they will have to keep paying. In a voluntary situation they will stop paying. There's the solution.

Corruption will be essential to getting the funds necessary for operation.

What about political enemies? They won't pay for prosecution? And no one else will want to see some corrupt jerk be punished?

If it's not compulsory, it's not taxation.

Because taxation is essentially legalized theft.

Well, it still is kinda taxation, because it's revenue that goes to the government. But I agree, it's hardly the taxation robbery that we have today.

If people will not pay *charity* to protect their freedom, then those people quite honestly don't deserve to have it. Also, it's more the fault of the US government to promise excessively high payments to people than their inability to collect money. (I think government employees should not be paid large sums, but should basically be working as volunteers with their minimum living expenses taken care of. However, those who do the work should be given suffrage.)
And roads and other infastructure? I dislike taxes, but I always find it funny when talking with folks like you, they always seem to assume that magically everyone would chip in and pay for things on their own when history has shown that never really happens.

And roads and other infastructure? I dislike taxes, but I always find it funny when talking with folks like you, they always seem to assume that magically everyone would chip in and pay for things on their own when history has shown that never really happens.

Well, I think the market would provide it. After all, the market built railroads, and most lighthouses for a long stretch of time were privately owned. I'm not sure what history you're referring to, but it's definitely a bit off.

I never said that they will be willing to pay voluntarily for a service. I mean that the free rider problem is utterly blown out of proportion, and that ultimately if there is any revenue that escapes, it will be captured. It's not some ongoing dilemma that some paint it as, with the lighthouse example etc. (Which is interesting because for a long time most lighthouses were privately owned. :D)

How will any escaped revenue be captured?

But if people find out that you're misusing tax revenue, in a compelled situation they will have to keep paying. In a voluntary situation they will stop paying. There's the solution.

They will stop paying if the funds are used for something they don't like, not if they are used for corrupt purposes. Indeed, if a person's objective is to control government policy, it might be non-corruption that will make them withdraw funds.

The government will be dependent on, and thus subservient to, the people who donate.

What about political enemies? They won't pay for prosecution? And no one else will want to see some corrupt jerk be punished?

They will, but guilt or innocence may not be relevant. After all, if the government is dependent on you liking it, why mess with such niceties?

Well, I think the market would provide it. After all, the market built railroads, and most lighthouses for a long stretch of time were privately owned. I'm not sure what history you're referring to, but it's definitely a bit off.
The interstate system was taxed based. Gee... you'd think the market would spring for something THAT useful (BTW, the railroad was tax payer funded. The barons managed to secure the rights to land from the government).

And history as in US history and world history. Anything bigger than a community always falls apart when it has no resources coming in.

How will any escaped revenue be captured?

Let's use lighthouses for an example. A lot of people use them in free rider problems, because you supposedly can't charge people for the amount of light they receive. But for a long time, lighthouses were privately owned. How is this possible? A.) Merchants saw the use in having them, and B.) They could charge ships for the cost when they docked in ports. Problem solved- no free-rider problem. To say that there is an insurmountable free-rider problem is to underestimate human ingenuity and cleverness.

They will stop paying if the funds are used for something they don't like, not if they are used for corrupt purposes. Indeed, if a person's objective is to control government policy, it might be non-corruption that will make them withdraw funds.

The government will be dependent on, and thus subservient to, the people who donate.

It would look awfully suspicious if some person or organization was donating money, and all of a sudden stopped giving it. Plus, in a system of citizen-statesmen, where everyone knows each other and are responsible to the lowest-level of government, they will be hesitant to be corrupt. Likely, a good deal of money will come from the representatives themselves, in order to encourage people to donate.

They will, but guilt or innocence may not be relevant. After all, if the government is dependent on you liking it, why mess with such niceties?

Independent judiciary.

Let's use lighthouses for an example. A lot of people use them in free rider problems, because you supposedly can't charge people for the amount of light they receive. But for a long time, lighthouses were privately owned. How is this possible? A.) Merchants saw the use in having them, and B.) They could charge ships for the cost when they docked in ports. Problem solved- no free-rider problem.

That does not mean that the quantity of lighthouses was proportionate to the demand for their service.

To say that there is an insurmountable free-rider problem is to underestimate human ingenuity and cleverness.

It is not insurmountable. The solution is either compulsory taxation or denying services to those who do not pay. The former is what we have now; the latter is anarcho-capitalism, and would only intensify the problem of corruption. Who will guard the guards, when the guards are paid by a minority to benefit that minority at the expense of everyone else?

It would look awfully suspicious if some person or organization was donating money, and all of a sudden stopped giving it.

Why? It would be politics as usual.

Plus, in a system of citizen-statesmen, where everyone knows each other and are responsible to the lowest-level of government, they will be hesitant to be corrupt.

Then they will not get enough funds.

Likely, a good deal of money will come from the representatives themselves, in order to encourage people to donate.

So the government's funding will be controlled by the representatives, too? What happens if they decide to ditch elections?

Independent judiciary.

And who would fund that?

That does not mean that the quantity of lighthouses was proportionate to the demand for their service.

Of course; you know exactly what the demand for all goods are, so I'll take your word for it.

It is not insurmountable. The solution is either compulsory taxation or denying services to those who do not pay. The former is what we have now; the latter is anarcho-capitalism, and would only intensify the problem of corruption. Who will guard the guards, when the guards are paid by a minority to benefit that minority at the expense of everyone else?

I don't think there are only two solutions. Seeing as how there is a propensity for charity and altruism in people, why can't this be used for government, which should be altruistic?

(Edit: Aren't you an anarcho-communist? Why don't you include your own solution?)

Why? It would be politics as usual.

Not if someone in your neighborhood council is showing off his money, when he should be cooperating with the rest of the council in helping out the neighborhood. Doubly so for the representative you send up. (More on this below).

Then they will not get enough funds.

How would you define "enough"?

So the government's funding will be controlled by the representatives, too? What happens if they decide to ditch elections?

We don't have elections in this government. It works at a level of ten people at the bottom, who choose a representative, who then goes to a level of fifty people who choose a representative, and on and on. So if someone says "We're not going to choose our representatives anymore!" the response would be "Haha!... no."

And who would fund that?

Court fees.