Can Government be Consensual?
Can Government be Consensual? In my opinion, yes.
Take, for example, the phenomenon of homeowners' associations (HOA). Can anybody deny that HOAs perform similar to a state? They (1) regulate behavior, (2) can restrict membership, and (3) provide community services. HOAs are voluntary -- 100% contractual; any member can choose to sell his or her property or lobby to get the rules changed.
Of course, HOAs are a natural reaction to the decline of the state -- local governments cannot provide community services effectively (or at all), so private entities emerge to offer demanded services. And since they merely augment the state -- and do not replace the state -- they are not performing as many services as they would otherwise. If a local municipality allowed residents to "opt out" of public services, HOAs would become much more dynamic.
When I say "opt out of public services", I am of course talking about residents (1) refusing to accept public services and (2) keeping their tax payments for doing so. If municipalities were to make such offers, HOAs would step up to provide critical goods and services, such as co-op power, water, sanitation, security, fire coverage, etc. (although the later two could be purchased from a private agency through a subscription, as discussed here). As the local state withers away as private entities began to competitively provide community services, HOAs will join together to offer common services. These voluntary HOA groups can then voluntarily join together with other HOA groups and -- viola! -- government is re-born, only in a voluntary, 100% contractual form.
Now some anarcho-caps will take issue with such private community services, arguing instead that people will "buy their law as one currently buys soap", as David Friedman once wrote. That may very well be the case, but what evidence is there that such a system would occur -- and do such systems have any basis in history? After all, before the existence of the modern state, such services were provided -- not like consumer goods -- but through voluntary organizations, like voluntary community schools, community medical clinics, fraternal organizations, churches, neighborhood watches, community defense, levies, dikes, roads, etc. etc.
We could go a long way towards winning over our statist friends by merely arguing for peaceful, contractual relations instead of advanced markets that many may not be able to grasp.
3 comments:
NOTE: I am an anarcho-capitalist.
I do not see how your system differs with anarcho-capitalism. Both systems are voluntary and would require a payment to the voluntary government.
The difference I believe is that you envision the equilibrium being a single state. If this is the difference, then I have to disagree that this will be the outcome and that this is optimal.
As statist libertarians will tell you: competition makes everything better. Why not apply that to a system of government so it is like buying insurance except for more services and deregulated completely?
Would your system allow for competing governments to emerge?
There aren't many differences with anarchocapitalism, but some an-caps could say so. As I stated, some an-caps belief there is room for common property in a stateless society, while others do not. An-caps on the Libertarian Left envision more community-oriented and self-help organizations providing goods and services, while an-caps on the Right may envision a more atomized society, with individuals purchasing goods and services in an advanced market.
In the system I envision, there is no single state, and every property owner has an inalienable right to secede from its political unit. Under such a system, a property owner could secede from a HOA and either (1) become an independent state or (2) join a different political entity.
There would be maximum competition under such a system, because as soon as a property owner ceased to benefit from a political arrangement, secession would occur.
Good words.
Post a Comment