The optimum possible government ...

[EBTX]

Back in 1984 I decided to do my civic duty and vote in the presidential election. I knew then that it was an exercise in futility but I wanted to experience the actual thing. The only candidate that had anything in common with me was the Libertarian candidate ... so I duly voted for him. 

I felt really good about voting ... the glow lasted for about 10-15 minutes then flagged as I recalled that it was utterly pointless.

 

Some time later I began a project to create my own government (on paper) wherein my voting would be meaningful ... if this was at all possible.

 

This took the form of writing a formal constitution using as the initial model the US constitution. I wrote and rewrote all manner of more or less bizarre rules as I fluffed up the manuscript and alternately stripped it down. After about 6 months of such fluffing and stripping my "constitution" was becoming more and more streamlined and shorter ... shorter is what I wanted most ... short means "if it's possible at all, it must be simple".

 

It finally dawned on me that there is only one political question. It is this.

 

"Who says what goes?"

 

Armed with this 'fact', I proceeded to fluff and strip away and finally went for the "gold" ... the solution to all of man's governmental problems ... in 50 words or less.

 

Yup ... 50 ... count 'em ;o) 

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

Each individual shall have the right to:

  Cast one personal vote

  Receive votes from others

  Recall those votes and 

  Cast them for another

Votes must be given to one personal acquaintance

 

A representative must have not less than twice the votes of any of his electors

 

The highest representative rules  

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

I won't explain these rules in detail because, as part of this post, I'd like to see if people can actually understand the rules without further elucidation. That's important. To work correctly, anyone must understand, almost intuitively, what's supposed to happen. It's a control system that if well understood shouldn't go "out of control", i.e. go over to the dark side.

 

 

Conjectures:

 

1) This form should produce a bottom up representative government immune to gross corruption.

2) Government is not "inherently" evil. It's simply a hierarchical control system (albeit with guns). The reason it hasn't worked so far is that it's like a circus performer first learning to balance on a cylinder while standing on a wood board ... he ALWAYS fails ... then, finally ... success. With experience, it becomes very easy and pleases the crowd. 

3) A bottom up representative government will shrink to least control (maximized freedom) ... as opposed to top down government that expands control to totality (enslavement).

4) A constitution is for the army to read ... not so much for the people. It's the young men in the army who will be called upon to enforce the constitution. These guys, at 19, don't understand complex philosophical arguments and are easily turned by sophists ... but they do understand command and control systems. They can understand these terms very well. It would be difficult to confuse even the gruntiest grunts into supporting a gross violation of the command structure.

 

Questions:

 

1) What do you think? 

2) Would this make a viable transitional form if rational anarchy is indeed the 'final destination'?

3) What would happen if the Libertarian Party held this form and put the highest representative on the presidential ballot?

4) What if someone as logically effective as Stefan Molyneux was the candidate?

5) What if the presidential election were held on the internet and the denizens therein declared by fiat that their election was the only valid election? At what point would the army follow the "People's Election" and ignore the mainstream?

6) What if there was an online government at the ready to take over after the "collapse"?

7) What if they printed their own debt free currency and distributed it to the party members, i.e. anyone at all who wanted to join?

8) What if the duly elected members of that party received those monies in quantities proportional to the votes they received? Would this suffice to do a "full restart" of civilization if such were required after a catastrophic collapse?

9) What if the online truth community created their own "shadow government" that ruled on every topic that the mainstream governments did and ... by their utter variance ... showed the people what 'proper government' would do in that specific instance? Would the people want to hear that opinion lucidly expressed from the representatives of an actual political party that could be their own "sticking place"? Would they not then experience a moral, intellectual and ethical congruence with rationality that would be to the good of all?

 

Thank you for reading this far... and, in advance, for any comments generated.

 

[dsayers]

Government is not "inherently" evil.

 

How do you know? What would be your criteria for disproof? And what is your definition of "government"?

[Cosmin]

What would the functions of the government be? Would they collect taxes? If yes, would people who don't vote also have to pay taxes?

[dayna j.]

I don't see how this model addresses the fundamental problem of the initiation of force.

 

Because no individual has the right to initiate force, it is not possible for them to enter into a contract imbuing another party with that right.

 

Therefore, any government which claims the ability to initiate force is unjustly derived, invalid and immoral. 

 

Furthermore, if you think it is possible to convert an organization whose every act is predicated upon violence into a peaceful, cooperative charity, there are much easier ways to put this plan into action:  You can find a street gang such as the Crips or Bloods, or perhaps a motorcyle gang like the Hells Angels, and convince them to turn away from crime and predation.  This should be a much easier goal, as street gangs have not been handed the control mechanisms of society and make no claim to any self-defined, self-justified system of entitlement.

[TheRobin]

as nobody already mentioned: None of the voters have the right to rule over another, so no representative of the voters can have or gain that right by bein voted to represent them.The rest is just hypotheticals, which can never really be solved or contested anyway (i.e. no one can really say what "would happen if..." so everyon will just fill that blank with whatever they feel is right or whatever they want to come true, without any possibility of falsification)

[cobra2411]

The optimum level of government IMO is zero. 

 

I used to be a very strong supporter of the constitution but it failed. Just as every limited form of government has failed before it. There is no support that a limited form of government can remain limited. Generation after generation there is a creep that goes on till we get where we are today. 

 

Now, if you want to reform government then you first need to hold them accountable for their actions. They commit abject fraud throughout their careers and almost never get punished. The same happens with the large connected businesses. Banks make billions laundering money but pay out a few million if caught. If the fine for robbing a bank was to give back 5% of what you stole, there'd be lines around every bank in the country in 5 minutes. Hold them accountable for their actions and jail them when they do criminal things. 

 

I'm torn about how a transition to a stateless society would work. There are so many people that are dependent on the government that IMO it's hopeless to think voting will change it. Over 50% receive their sustenance from the government in the form of welfare, social security, government jobs, etc. However, math doesn't care and what mathematically can not go on forever won't. 

 

So in that end I'm voting the only way I know that will have an impact. I'm voting with my wallet. I'm winding down my business and shedding unneeded expenses, even if it's going to make life a little difficult for a while. 2011 was a great year for me and by 2015 I want to earn just 30% of what I earned in 2011. I didn't really get on this kick till 2013, but 2013 was down 35% from 2011 and this year I hope to be 55% down from 2011. I have a lot of friends that are doing the same thing. 

[JohnPozzi]

Hello cobra 2011 - Global Resource Bank Is How - NOW! - love, john ;o) - www.grb.net

[Marcus Clarke]

"Political Representation" is an illusion.  Power of Attorney is an instance where a person can "represent" you regarding your life, your money, your property, etc.  Would you agree to give Power of Attorney to 317 million random people?  Could you actually trust every person inside of a population of millions of people to represent your mind?  Of course not.  You probably would not give your closest ten friends the Power of Attorney over you.

[EBTX]

What would the functions of the government be? Would they collect taxes? If yes, would people who don't vote also have to pay taxes?

It would be advantageous to civilization that all arterial systems ... roads, sewers, general water delivery ... (anything requiring a right of way) ... be assigned to a "government" which I define as "a hierarchical system with authority backed up by guns", i.e. the final solution ;o).

 

There are "donations" which differ from taxes because you don't have to pay them.

 

Why pay then?

 

If donations are not given, the services of government are reduced opening up possible free market solutions ... if ... these are seen as more desirable.

I'm not proposing that such a government be necessarily permanent. Only that it be a transition to a possible 100% free market solution.

In general, I don't believe competition is the best option in arterial and communal systems. These appear to me to belong to the "collective", i.e. everyone owns them and uses them freely without complication and so they must be governed by some system. And no government system is acceptable to me that is not instituted and maintained from the ground up.

 

The method of donations would be that you'd vote on what level of government involvement you wanted in civilization by designating a decrease or increase in the percentage of your income to be given to the state. For instance, if the present involvement was 50% of everyone's income and you thought it was too much ... you'd vote a decrease of x percent.

 

Everyone's votes are then tallied, divided by the number of "taxpayers" and that's the amount that government would get ... no counterfeiting allowed of course.

 

The level of taxation-donation would decrease till the services required were not met. Then the rate would stabilize.

 

If you don't wish to participate, no one will come to "get you". But ... your employer is also not obligated to pay you the same as an equal employee who does accept the percentage that goes to government.  The driver for the donation scheme is just social pressure. This is what Mr. Molyneux does. I sent him a donation of $50 because I want him to continue doing his service to me which is to provide philosophical ideas. I pay for what I want. Essentially, the government would be just another player in the free market. Its guns would be to enforce the rights of way in arterial systems and quality of arterial systems (like air quality) and the maintenance of the "commons" (places owned by all as a collective). If they use their guns to excess, the level of donations would, of course, go down as a disciplinary measure.

 

If people want these things, they should be able to have them under the same general restrictions as private property.

 

If honest men rule, the civilization will prosper. If dishonorable men rule, the civilization will eventually perish. There is no way to escape this fact regardless of any "setup" at all. It comes down to the selection process of WHO will rule. If good men ... the lightest touch possible is used .... if evil ... the heavy hand, up to and including murder.

The optimum level of government IMO is zero. 

 

I used to be a very strong supporter of the constitution but it failed. Just as every limited form of government has failed before it. There is no support that a limited form of government can remain limited. Generation after generation there is a creep that goes on till we get where we are today. 

 

 

I agree completely that the present Constitution has failed to do what it was supposed to do. The reason is that it was gradually converted into a fully top down system. The wealthy choose who gets to run and you are eventually stripped of any real choice by their "monkeyed" voting process. 

 

We have some voting going on here in Texas. I am appalled (as ever) by all the posters on the lawn for this or that candidate. They need money and backing to even get on a ballot. Why does anyone need money to run for office when the only relevant qualification is honesty, integrity, intelligence, etc.?

 

If the chain of command were "bottom up", you'd just have to talk to your friends and gradually ascend to rule by building the hierarchy through the free consent of those you spoke to. A rough calculation shows that you'd have to talk to minimally ~100 people to become the president of the USA. But as you rose higher and higher, the competition for their votes would become progressively more difficult.

 

People with logical skills in government, on a par with Stefan's in philosophy, should prevail over, say, George Bush or Barrack Obama.

"Political Representation" is an illusion.  Power of Attorney is an instance where a person can "represent" you regarding your life, your money, your property, etc.  Would you agree to give Power of Attorney to 317 million random people?  Could you actually trust every person inside of a population of millions of people to represent your mind?  Of course not.  You probably would not give your closest ten friends the Power of Attorney over you.

It is not "power of attorney" if I can rescind that power at will, i.e. your judgement is no good ... out you go. I take my votes back and give them to someone else.

How do you know? What would be your criteria for disproof? And what is your definition of "government"?

1) I don't know

2) Failure

3) Government = a hierarchical structure of men with the power to order force (guns) to be used against those not in that hierarchy to obtain compliance with the rules set forth by that hierarchy.

I don't see how this model addresses the fundamental problem of the initiation of force.

 

Because no individual has the right to initiate force, it is not possible for them to enter into a contract imbuing another party with that right.

 

Therefore, any government which claims the ability to initiate force is unjustly derived, invalid and immoral. 

 

Furthermore, if you think it is possible to convert an organization whose every act is predicated upon violence into a peaceful, cooperative charity, there are much easier ways to put this plan into action:  You can find a street gang such as the Crips or Bloods, or perhaps a motorcyle gang like the Hells Angels, and convince them to turn away from crime and predation.  This should be a much easier goal, as street gangs have not been handed the control mechanisms of society and make no claim to any self-defined, self-justified system of entitlement.

Everyone here recognizes Stefan's words in your post. Restate your objection in your own words with nuances that show your are an independent mind.

 

"A blind follower is no better than blind opposition"  - EBTX

[dsayers]

1) I don't know

2) Failure

3) Government = a hierarchical structure of men with the power to order force (guns) to be used against those not in that hierarchy to obtain compliance with the rules set forth by that hierarchy.

 

Ah, there's the flaw. Success/failure is not the measure of evil. If you are unable to identify what is (not) evil, how can you make truth claims about the inherent (lack of) evil in something? What you describe here is inherently evil. People are not fundamentally different in ways that could separate them into categories of rightful rulers and the rightfully ruled.

 

Your opening post was predicated on the assumption that government is necessary. What follows is an extensive exercise in trying to make that assumption fit into reality instead of exploring whether or not it accurately describes reality.

 

There are only four things that coercion can accomplish that voluntary interaction cannot: theft, assault, rape, and murder.

[EBTX]

 What you describe here is inherently evil.

 

Your opening post was predicated on the assumption that government is necessary.

 

There are only four things that coercion can accomplish that voluntary interaction cannot: theft, assault, rape, and murder.

Evil ... eh? Hmmmm ...Evil is something DONE to others. It is the actions of government which are evil. It is then a question of "Do all governments lead to evil deeds?". 

 

The DRO scheme proposed by Mr. Molyneux is a form of government. People would "govern" themselves by it, would they not? Is that inherently evil? If would be evil ... if ... the DRO put a gun to your head and demanded cash for protection. Could it devolve into this? What empirical proof is there that it could not so degenerate? Since it has not been tried, there can be no existent proof. If you then say "All coercive governments are evil" ... I'd agree with you. But then, by accepting the adjective, you're saying that non-coercive governments are good. If people engage in government and don't feel coerced, is it still an evil thing? 

 

I take it that government is necessary as the given. If people engage others in a civilization, they must govern themselves by some code of conduct in their relations with others. That form is "government" whether you call it DRO or fascism. Anarchy means disorder and has always meant that. That is why people turn away from anything called anarchy. They think it necessarily means chaos, starvation and murder. It's a very poor word to use in your definition of a general code of conduct. Better to say something like "rational governance" ... anything but "anarchy".

 

________________________________

 

The Origin of Government

 

Group A (farmers) produce enough crops to support division of labor. Civilization forms. The people are happy (no government yet - just DROs?).

Group B (thieves - small in number) find that they can overpower farmers and live by predation on the producers.

Group A cannot do farming AND fend off group B at the same time ... so ... they form Group C to defend them against group B.

Group B is defeated by Group C and all is well ...

 

Until ... 

 

Group B reasons that they should join Group C by stealth.

After infiltrating Group C ... B continues it predation of A.

 

Initially, Group A is living in a state of rational anarchy, i.e. government by rational consensus.

But this is unsustainable because "men with guns drive the issue".

Rational men don't drive predation. They only react to it in the only way possible.

So, they have to form C and end up on the "Oppressive Government" merry-go-round. 

Good government > Bad government > Revolution > Good government > Bad gov ... ad nauseum.

 

What I proposed is a method of preventing B from infiltrating C. Mainly, just that.

Is this "evil"? Would a scheme designed to prevent the infiltration of DROs by evildoers be considered evil?

[TheRobin]

well, there's been enough put out by Stef (both in book and podcast form) about Anarchy and it's reasonings and the most common fallacies people make when thinking/criticizing it. I think if you're really curious about the position that most people here hold (and/or want some actual productive debates/feedback on your ideas) you might want to take the time and familiarize yourself  at least a little with the positions held here, as what you write about anarchy and how you justify governments is really nothing new and has beend dealt with and explained numerous times.

[dsayers]

If you then say "All coercive governments are evil" ... I'd agree with you. But then, by accepting the adjective, you're saying that non-coercive governments are good.

 

Yes, non-coercive rape is good. However, the word rape denotes the coercion. There is no government that does not violate property rights by inflicting edicts upon people that haven't consented. If somebody consents to something, that is a voluntary contract and not government.

 

Also, saying we need a State that most people perceives as legitimate, that perpetually violates the property rights of everybody all the time to avoid a much smaller organization that MIGHT violate property rights, that nobody would perceive as legitimate is irrational to the point of being psychotic. It's akin to burning your house down to avoid the potentiality of a small kitchen fire in the future. It exchanges the risk of a negative outcome for the guarantee of it, it exchanges understood illegitimacy for perceive legitimacy, and it exchanges isolated occurrence for omnipresence.

 

I take it that government is necessary as the given.

 

I appreciate your honesty. If you're right, I'd certainly like to know that too. However, if you operate under this conclusions without using sound methodology to arrive at it, then all you're doing is limiting your scope. Which unfortunately on this topic leaves the correct conclusion outside your scope of consideration. What I'm saying is that the way I see it, you should either be able to make the case that government is necessary or be open to the possibility that it is not.

 

I think we're saying about the same thing. The main point of contention is what government means. We seem to agree on that also except that you describe it as something with the potential for good. Like righteous rape. When the accurate phrase would be sexual intercourse.

[EBTX]

well, there's been enough put out by Stef (both in book and podcast form) about Anarchy and it's reasonings and the most common fallacies people make when thinking/criticizing it. I think if you're really curious about the position that most people here hold (and/or want some actual productive debates/feedback on your ideas) you might want to take the time and familiarize yourself  at least a little with the positions held here, as what you write about anarchy and how you justify governments is really nothing new and has beend dealt with and explained numerous times.

Yes, I've gathered that the people here have heard just about everything there is to say on this issue. I have a problem with the DRO thing which is "What do the evil people do for a living?" ;o) 

I know that sounds silly, but is it the position of rational anarchists that the establishment of rational anarchy will drive evil out of civilization? If so, by dint of what? And... how long would the transition take? Are there formal propositions given to effect that transition? 

I don't expect you to rehash answers but if you say the questions are dealt with, I will ferret them out of the archives myself. 

Thanks for your reply.

[dsayers]

"What do the evil people do for a living?"

 

Where do evil people come from? We know the answer to this. Childhood abuse has physiological ramifications and teaches the child the language of evil. Check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. Not only does it touch base on this, but it somewhat addresses your next question as well.

 

Namely how long will it take? It will be a multi-generational process because right now, we live in a world full of broken people who don't know how to think. It takes people like you'll find in this community, who have put in work towards repairing the damage, healing, pursuing self-knowledge, and embodying peaceful, voluntary interaction in their own lives. FDR has been instrumental in spreading the message of peaceful parenting, which will raise a crop of peaceful people who only know coercion as a nightmarish fairy tale.

[TheRobin]

Yes, I've gathered that the people here have heard just about everything there is to say on this issue. I have a problem with the DRO thing which is "What do the evil people do for a living?" ;o) 

I know that sounds silly, but is it the position of rational anarchists that the establishment of rational anarchy will drive evil out of civilization? 

 

Anarchy is first and foremost the recognition that everyone has to follow the same rules, as such, if you can't initiate force againt other peaceful people, a politician or policeman can't either. So Anarchy most of all wouldn't give evil people armies and most of the guns in the world (as is currently the case with statism) and hope those evil people will now protect them from other evil people.

 

As to how exactly the solution is to people commiting evil in an anarchist society. There are some ideas of how people could to that (like economic ostracism (for details, see Stef's "Practical Anarchy" for instance), I'm sure there are more (I haven't read much about that topic from other writers tbh), but the point is no one can enforce their view of how they think evil people should be dealt with onto others, so in a way it's kind of irrelevant what my or other anarchists opinion is on how this could be solved anyway.Anarchists don't accept that other people can force them to plan how they should live their life and solve problems, so there's no central plan for how each sociaety will deal with each arising problem. I would assume various entrepreneurs will come up with various ideas and those that can make a convincing enough case will get enough investors to try it out and after a while we see what is most efficient, not only in dealing with people after they commit the crime, but mostly in preventing people from becoming criminals in the first place.