Topic: Freedom of Government (Read 1164 times)

Market competition, not violent competition.

Isn't "another government going into competition with it" basically "war?"

It's from The Production of Security.

Wow, that's a great quote, and I don't think I've seen it before.

I believe Gustave de Molinari says it best:

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 ...

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

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."

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.


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?

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...}

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

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.

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)

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!

Your proposal has my vote!

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

[/statist reply]

Correct.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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