NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok so I am sure something like this has been suggested before, but you know what, I was not there for it so deal humor me please.

So I was thinking about the free market and the anti-free-healthcare people, saying "why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare" and that got me thinking, you pay for many other things namely police and mititary when you may not even need them personally. So why would you oppose paying for someone else's healthcare but not someone else's police and mititary, well you my say that there is not an alternative but that is where you are wrong.

may I present to you, the free market police and mititary!

So in essence we get rid of all government making the curent nation less of a nation and more of a free market void. But don't worry it's not like we will have to start over from scrach, only the government is gone not all the companies and brands that we have come to know and love and hate are still there and are willing to pick up the slack. First off postal goes all private, now all your mail will be in the hands of Fedex and UPS. Education is a choice between private, or home school. You get the idea.

Now on to the main monkey business (sorry I love rush so I had to) with the lack of a government or realy any laws private police and mercenary companies will abound. Now think of all the money you will save by not paying taxes and how much cheaper things will be without sales tax, and regulations. Of course the line between private police and mercenary will be blurry, now with all the extra money you have you can pay for your own lets call them protection, you can have them enforce what ever laws you want in whatever juristicion you want. Now you won't be the only one with protection meaning that if you want something done you got to make sure no-one else is going to stand in your way.

There you go one free market.

Please keep in mind that this is ment only as a mental excersise and should not be taken too seriously.

Ok so I am sure something like this has been suggested before, but you know what, I was not there for it so deal humor me please.

So I was thinking about the free market and the anti-free-healthcare people, saying "why should I have to pay for someone else's healthcare" and that got me thinking, you pay for many other things namely police and mititary when you may not even need them personally. So why would you oppose paying for someone else's healthcare but not someone else's police and mititary, well you my say that there is not an alternative but that is where you are wrong.

may I present to you, the free market police and mititary!

So in essence we get rid of all government making the curent nation less of a nation and more of a free market void. But don't worry it's not like we will have to start over from scrach, only the government is gone not all the companies and brands that we have come to know and love and hate are still there and are willing to pick up the slack. First off postal goes all private, now all your mail will be in the hands of Fedex and UPS. Education is a choice between private, or home school. You get the idea.

Now on to the main monkey business (sorry I love rush so I had to) with the lack of a government or realy any laws private police and mercenary companies will abound. Now think of all the money you will save by not paying taxes and how much cheaper things will be without sales tax, and regulations. Of course the line between private police and mercenary will be blurry, now with all the extra money you have you can pay for your own lets call them protection, you can have them enforce what ever laws you want in whatever juristicion you want. Now you won't be the only one with protection meaning that if you want something done you got to make sure no-one else is going to stand in your way.

There you go one free market.

Please keep in mind that this is ment only as a mental excersise and should not be taken too seriously.

I like it... very interesting idea. How would we deal internationally? for instance, would those who support military action in Iraq (current controversy, doesn't have to be Iraq) have the opportunity to send "protection" there to do what they want? Perhaps they would form coalitions, pooling funds for a more cohesive military unit?

Would we be able to conquer other countries?
For instance, I started a "corporation" and sold stock. With the money generated, I hired a "protection" agency to invade... say... Kuwait.
Once this was complete, I take possession of the petroleum resources in Kuwait and distribute the profits to the stockholders in accordance with the stock agreement.
How would that work? Would it be possible under this theory?

A few of these organizations become much more powerful than the others, until they have monopolies on force in their areas. They begin demanding money from every person in their area, which they can use to (in theory) protect those people and enforce the laws that they want enforced.

Wow. Sounds a lot like a government, doesn't it?

Would we be able to conquer other countries?
For instance, I started a "corporation" and sold stock. With the money generated, I hired a "protection" agency to invade... say... Kuwait.
Once this was complete, I take possession of the petroleum resources in Kuwait and distribute the profits to the stockholders in accordance with the stock agreement.
How would that work? Would it be possible under this theory?

It would be possible under in such a system.

A few of these organizations become much more powerful than the others, until they have monopolies on force in their areas. They begin demanding money from every person in their area, which they can use to (in theory) protect those people and enforce the laws that they want enforced.

Wow. Sounds a lot like a government, doesn't it?

if this happened, said laws would almost definitely include ones for protecting their own interests...
thus gun control laws.

It would be possible under in such a system.

Wonder how the UN would react...
Who do you chastise/punish in such a situation?

how much cheaper things will be without sales tax…

Move to Alberta. Srsly.

A few of these organizations become much more powerful than the others, until they have monopolies on force in their areas. They begin demanding money from every person in their area, which they can use to (in theory) protect those people and enforce the laws that they want enforced.

Wow. Sounds a lot like a government, doesn't it?

Ya I had mulled this around in my head for a while and came to that same conclucion, I partly wanted to see how long it would take other people to see it that way as well. In the end government will rise from the ashes borders and policy may have changed but in the end all be the same sort of thing. That's not to say that those changes won't be extreem or needed, some times you need to destroy something to remake it.

Would we be able to conquer other countries?
For instance, I started a "corporation" and sold stock. With the money generated, I hired a "protection" agency to invade... say... Kuwait.
Once this was complete, I take possession of the petroleum resources in Kuwait and distribute the profits to the stockholders in accordance with the stock agreement.
How would that work? Would it be possible under this theory?

"There are weapons of mass destruction hidden in your country. For $500,000,000,000 US, we'll tell you where!
P.S. Please respond before Tuesday. No, really."

Move to Alberta. Srsly.

Yah that was ment to be taken somewhat sarcasticly.

"There are weapons of mass destruction hidden in your country. For $500,000,000,000 US, we'll tell you where!
P.S. Please respond before Tuesday. No, really."

wow...
I have such boring money-making ideas...
that is much better.

or there's "pay us or we will flood your country with punch-the-monkey banners"

Ya I had mulled this around in my head for a while and came to that same conclucion, I partly wanted to see how long it would take other people to see it that way as well. In the end government will rise from the ashes borders and policy may have changed but in the end all be the same sort of thing. That's not to say that those changes won't be extreem or needed, some times you need to destroy something to remake it.

Government seems pretty standard... Either you develop it or you get conquered by someone who has. But getting a new one every once in a while is definitely useful. They tend to get stale...

Wonder how the UN would react...
Who do you chastise/punish in such a situation?

The jews. ;)

The jews. ;)

*wince*
Too true to be very funny...

Government seems pretty standard... Either you develop it or you get conquered by someone who has. But getting a new one every once in a while is definitely useful. They tend to get stale...

I know but I can't help but think that I might be on to something with this idea, mabey just need to use this as a jumping point for a simple small government ideal. With some more refining I might have a real good idea, as in an good idea that is real, not a realy good idea.

I know but I can't help but think that I might be on to something with this idea, mabey just need to use this as a jumping point for a simple small government ideal. With some more refining I might have a real good idea, as in an good idea that is real, not a realy good idea.

reasonable.
However, the main problem is this: a government, in self-interest, will want to grow, to bloat, to puff up like a corpse...
How can you stop it?

reasonable.
However, the main problem is this: a government, in self-interest, will want to grow, to bloat, to puff up like a corpse...
How can you stop it?

Some kind of mortuary service?

Some kind of mortuary service?

um...
what exactly would you recommend?

um...
what exactly would you recommend?

Well, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming#Modern_practices), I guess.

Well, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming#Modern_practices), I guess.

I prefer Soylent Green.

Well, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embalming#Modern_practices), I guess.

but how would that be applied to a government?
for instance, what chemicals should we pump into their veins? cocaine?

but how would that be applied to a government?
for instance, what chemicals should we pump into their veins? cocaine?

Previously, on NSG:

reasonable.
However, the main problem is this: a government, in self-interest, will want to grow, to bloat, to puff up like a corpse...
How can you stop it?

I… I'm sorry. I have a weird medical condition that makes me unable to figuratively interpret similies. I don't like to talk about it.

Best just stick with metaphor.

Previously, on NSG:



I… I'm sorry. I have a weird medical condition that makes me unable to figuratively interpret similies. I don't like to talk about it.

Best just stick with metaphor.

I understood that... I was just wondering what chemicals would keep a government from puffing... and I figured that hallucinogens might work.
that's all

Well, civil servants would be more pleasant to deal with if they giggled uncontrollably.

and might be less interested in making laws purely to keep their positions

I understood that... I was just wondering what chemicals would keep a government from puffing... and I figured that hallucinogens might work.
that's all

Well, civil servants would be more pleasant to deal with if they giggled uncontrollably.

reasonable.
However, the main problem is this: a government, in self-interest, will want to grow, to bloat, to puff up like a corpse...
How can you stop it?

I would think that a government is made up of people, that it is people who bloat up the government in self-interest, who want to make the government grow, and bloat, and puff up like a corpse.

Couldn't we, you know, stop letting people into power who want to use it for their self-interests?

I would think that a government is made up of people, that it is people who bloat up the government in self-interest, who want to make the government grow, and bloat, and puff up like a corpse.

Couldn't we, you know, stop letting people into power who want to use it for their self-interests?

Yes, of course!
only... we've already established that having no government doesn't last... another grows from it

Yes, of course!
only... we've already established that having no government doesn't last... another grows from it

Also established: completely free markets tend towards corporatism and the creation of social monopolies, also known as "governments."

Yet one more pipe dream up in smoke.

Poor Ayn Rand.

Oh well the answer is simple remove the people in charge once they get power greedy. Also I was thinking about having the police be more like insurence, you pay more for better coverage.

Yes, of course!
only... we've already established that having no government doesn't last... another grows from it

Which is why we could not try and get rid of the government and instead not let people into power who would use the government for their own self-interests.

Oh well the answer is simple remove the people in charge once they get power greedy.

That's assuming that they didn't try and get in because they were power greedy to begin with.

Oh well the answer is simple remove the people in charge once they get power greedy. Also I was thinking about having the police be more like insurence, you pay more for better coverage.

remove them once they get power-greedy?
"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
sounds good...

Which is why we could not try and get rid of the government and instead not let people into power who would use the government for their own self-interests.

A) how do you intend to screen them?
B) how exactly do you intend to keep them that way once in?
C) where do you plan to find all these people?

Ya I worded that wrong what I ment is removeing them once they no longer serve the people's intrests.

Ya I worded that wrong what I ment is removeing them once they no longer serve the people's intrests.

That could work for a small nation.
but for a large one, with no reasonable way to measure "the people's interests" it becomes anarchy.
or doesn't work, like in the US... The problem seems to be confusion between the interests of the people and the desires of the people

"The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

"Bombard the Party headquaters!" - Chairman Mao

"Bombard the Party headquaters!" - Chairman Mao

so maybe we just need to have a government who's founding documents clearly state they are only applicable, for, say, 5 years

so maybe we just need to have a government who's founding documents clearly state they are only applicable, for, say, 5 years

Ya but the people should be able to get rid of them at any point that they want to.

Anyway I am going to bed, I may come back to this in the morning.

A) how do you intend to screen them?
B) how exactly do you intend to keep them that way once in?
C) where do you plan to find all these people?

Couldn't we do something like psychological/empathy testing?
And do you really think that everyone becomes corrupt when put into power? You would become corrupt if put into power? I don't imagine suddenly becoming brain-dead and turning evil if put into power.

Ya but the people should be able to get rid of them at any point that they want to.

Anyway I am going to bed, I may come back to this in the morning.

Like a vote of no confidence, except for the entire government... I like it

Or maybe elections wherein, if half the population doesn't vote for a $political_leader, then there is only a $political_leader for half the term.

I'm gonna go to bed too...

Couldn't we do something like psychological/empathy testing?
And do you really think that everyone becomes corrupt when put into power? You would become corrupt if put into power? I don't imagine suddenly becoming brain-dead and turning evil if put into power.

everyone, given power, will do what they think is right. at some point, the majority of the people will disagree.
By that definition, yes. I would be corrupt pretty much as soon as I had power. I would do with it what I thought was right. Wouldn't you?

everyone, given power, will do what they think is right. at some point, the majority of the people will disagree.
By that definition, yes. I would be corrupt pretty much as soon as I had power. I would do with it what I thought was right. Wouldn't you?

If you do what you think is right for yourself, as you want, as trying to determine the needs of everyone else, then you would become corrupt.

But if you serve the population, without trying to determine their needs, but instead serve them at their requests (although that would also mean sometimes denying the requests as accorded by knowledge, the more psychological the better), then I don't see that you would become corrupt.

If you do what you think is right for yourself, as you want, as trying to determine the needs of everyone else, then you would become corrupt.

But if you serve the population, without trying to determine their needs, but instead serve them at their requests (although that would also mean sometimes denying the requests), then I don't see that you would become corrupt.

I must admit... mine would definitely be a father-knows-best state.
Would you really serve them based on their requests and not on their needs? would you give up the good of the country for the wants of its citizens?

Here's a radical idea that would almost certainly require violent revolution to put into place: limit all public offices to one year terms. Limit everyone to one term in any particular office. This should prevent anyone from gaining a harmful amount of personal power. Outlaw all political parties and make electoral fraud a capital offense. Classify political advertisements as a form of electoral fraud. With the internet and word of mouth it should still be possible for a determined candidate to get his message across. Lastly, have not one president, but three. A critique of this plan would be that nothing would ever get done. I think that is its best quality.

Here's a radical idea that would almost certainly require violent revolution to put into place: limit all public offices to one year terms. Limit everyone to one term in any particular office. This should prevent anyone from gaining a harmful amount of personal power. Outlaw all political parties and make electoral fraud a capital offense. Classify political advertisements as a form of electoral fraud. With the internet and word of mouth it should still be possible for a determined candidate to get his message across. Lastly, have not one president, but three. A critique of this plan would be that nothing would ever get done. I think that is its best quality.

we barely get anything done with ONE president... three would definitely accomplish that goal. would you limit the number of terms?

I must admit... mine would definitely be a father-knows-best state.
Would you really serve them based on their requests and not on their needs? would you give up the good of the country for the wants of its citizens?

I find that it is hubris to think that we can determine the needs of everyone else. In such a case we are thinking of ourselves, what we want, instead of "the good of the country". When we do that, we aren't trying to serve everyone else, we're just trying to change the world into whatever we want.
What we want. Want is subjective. How can being subjective lead to the "good of the country"?
Trying to determine what everyone needs is really just your wants, it is not seeing the situation as it is.

The suggested system in the OP, sounds like Anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)

It wouldn't work. Period.

I find that it is hubris to think that we can determine the needs of everyone else. In such a case we are thinking of ourselves, what we want, instead of "the good of the country". When we do that, we aren't trying to serve everyone else, we're just trying to change the world into whatever we want.
What we want. Want is subjective. How can being subjective lead to the "good of the country"?
Trying to determine what everyone needs is really just your wants, it is not seeing the situation as it is.

yes, I agree.
but where are you going to find people with enough self-control to actually do that? Given power, could you really do whatever the people desired, even if it was stupid?

The suggested system in the OP, sounds like Anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)It also sounds like part of the plot of a novel; to be specific of Max Barry's "Jennifer Government" (also known for making NationStates where this is the forum for).

yes, I agree.
but where are you going to find people with enough self-control to actually do that? Given power, could you really do whatever the people desired, even if it was stupid?Well, you can try to do what they desire, or do thing which they will have desired in retrospect, or try to convince them of desiring something less stupid. Or just shoot them all.
Doing what people desire would, in any case, soon make them very unhappy. People need something to work for, towards. Simply fulfilling all their wishes is a bad idea. You might have even more success by designing a system to frustrate them, but which they can beat (and tuned to encourage and enable people to do so).

Or just shoot them all.
[snip/]
You might have even more success by designing a system to frustrate them, but which they can beat (and tuned to encourage and enable people to do so).

hm.... that sounds good.
now we just have to figure out which to do