Is Voluntary Government The Only Suitable Government?

[limitgov]

If we could replace government with something that ensured no violations of freedom…would it have to be a voluntary government?

Where they would never be allowed to take your property? People would choose to volunteer money to fund it?

And that would be the ONLY way to fund it?

[sicsempertyrannis]

@limitgov

If we could replace government with something that ensured no violations of freedom…would it have to be a voluntary government?

Where they would never be allowed to take your property? People would choose to volunteer money to fund it?

And that would be the ONLY way to fund it?

Sure. Good luck trying to get a government to allow for unlimited secession.

[jdavidb]

Yes, this is right, by definition. “Voluntary” and “violations of freedom” are opposites of each other. So if you want 0 violations of freedom, you’re going to have to have 100% voluntary government.

Taxation is a violation of freedom.

Read your Declaration of Independence:

to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Governments are just a service-providing institution. The service they provide is security. Like any other service, this service will be best provided under competition: i.e., when your natural freedom to select a competing service provider or start one of your own is not infringed.

And that’s what Jefferson believed in: you have the right to alter or abolish your existing rights-securing institution and select a new one! Unfortunately the government he spawned does not secure this right for us today.

Yes, people would volunteer money to fund their own defense. They did in the Revolutionary War, didn’t they?

[DavidI]

A voluntary government would be mediocre. It would still have a monopoly on the use of violence, and you would still be forced to use that government, or not have have any sort of protection at all until it is changed. I personally like the idea of competing private protection agencies better, but a voluntary government would still be much better than what we have now.

Also, I believe a voluntary government is something close to what Jefferson had in mind. He probably wanted some form of mandatory taxation, but nothing near what we have today.

[wilderness]

@DavidI

A voluntary government would be mediocre. It would still have a monopoly on the use of violence, and you would still be forced to use that government, or not have have any sort of protection at all until it is changed. I personally like the idea of competing private protection agencies better, but a voluntary government would still be much better than what we have now.

Also, I believe a voluntary government is something close to what Jefferson had in mind. He probably wanted some form of mandatory taxation, but nothing near what we have today.

It depends on what is meant by government. A State is different from government. I think a government is that which governs, meaning, a free market can govern. Law can govern. The “idea of competing private protection agencies” would involve governance. The governing principle in a free market that I find to be most persuasive in it’s reasoning is property rights. The integrity of this principle relies upon voluntary participation, meaning, freedom is the action and the act of protection is in defense of this freedom according to the intellectual moral argument of property rights. So, according to what I said here, I like government. I don’t like State. Big difference.

[liberty_student]

@DavidI

A voluntary government would be mediocre. It would still have a monopoly on the use of violence, and you would still be forced to use that government, or not have have any sort of protection at all until it is changed.

Nothing voluntary can be a monopoly. What you are saying is correct, but it doesn’t actually apply. There is another thread here recently where the same paradigm was introduced.

The simple act of withdrawing consent from a government would mean you are taking responsibility for your own security. So in a sense, you are competing against the state. Competition doesn’t have to only be between providers, it can be between ourselves and the state, or ourselves and other providers.

[Juan]

@Davidl

Also, I believe a voluntary government is something close to what Jefferson had in mind. He probably wanted some form of mandatory taxation, but nothing near what we have today.

What’s ‘voluntary’ about a taxing monopoly ? And I suppose Jefferson’s ‘voluntary’ gov’t also included ‘voluntary’ slavery ?

[DavidI]

What I meant was it would be a very limited government, but not voluntary.

[DavidI]

@liberty student

@DavidI

A voluntary government would be mediocre. It would still have a monopoly on the use of violence, and you would still be forced to use that government, or not have have any sort of protection at all until it is changed.

Nothing voluntary can be a monopoly. What you are saying is correct, but it doesn’t actually apply. There is another thread here recently where the same paradigm was introduced.

The simple act of withdrawing consent from a government would mean you are taking responsibility for your own security. So in a sense, you are competing against the state. Competition doesn’t have to only be between providers, it can be between ourselves and the state, or ourselves and other providers.

It is a monopoly in the sense that it would be the only institution which could legally use violence. Assuming over course there is only one voluntary government. You could always take matters into your own hands, but it wouldn’t really be competition.

[DavidI]

@wilderness

@DavidI

A voluntary government would be mediocre. It would still have a monopoly on the use of violence, and you would still be forced to use that government, or not have have any sort of protection at all until it is changed. I personally like the idea of competing private protection agencies better, but a voluntary government would still be much better than what we have now.

Also, I believe a voluntary government is something close to what Jefferson had in mind. He probably wanted some form of mandatory taxation, but nothing near what we have today.

It depends on what is meant by government. A State is different from government. I think a government is that which governs, meaning, a free market can govern. Law can govern. The “idea of competing private protection agencies” would involve governance. The governing principle in a free market that I find to be most persuasive in it’s reasoning is property rights. The integrity of this principle relies upon voluntary participation, meaning, freedom is the action and the act of protection is in defense of this freedom according to the intellectual moral argument of property rights. So, according to what I said here, I like government. I don’t like State. Big difference.

By your definition (which I agree with), I was talking about a state as opposed to a government. I would consider any institution that had the sole right to violence( among instutions) as a state