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?
Topic: Freedom of Government - page 2. (Read 1178 times)
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.
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. 
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
Jump to: