Who Are These Libertarians, and Why Should We Care?
A moderately prominent former Republican named Bob Barr has secured the Libertarian Party nomination for president, becoming the 36-year-old party’s most well-known presidential candidate to date. Coming in the wake of the bid by Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, for the Republican nomination, Barr’s candidacy has been enough to at least get the word “libertarian” into a few mainstream political columns and blogs. Barr is not expected to be a serious threat to the major party candidates, but may play the role of spoiler by taking votes away from John McCain, or at least neutralize the “Nader effect.” However, the Barr candidacy could do much more than that. The best result it could have is to finally get the great majority of Americans to ask a question that desperately needs to be asked and answered: Who are these libertarians, and why should we care?
Awareness of libertarianism is certainly confined to limited circles, and even within that small subset of society there is much misconception about it. This may be due partially to some of the celebrities that claim to be libertarians, based solely upon their agreement with positions on isolated issues, while not agreeing with or not understanding the underlying philosophy.
For example, Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian, and often cites the libertarian position that he should be free to smoke marijuana. He correctly recognizes that his use of recreational drugs does no harm to anyone else, nor restricts anyone else’s rights, and that therefore society has no right to use force to stop him. However, Mr. Maher seems to have no objection to society using that same coercive force to redistribute wealth or to prevent the free exchange of property between consenting individuals, as evidenced by his unerring support of the Democratic Party, including of Barack Obama. As he is one of the most well-known “libertarians” in popular culture, it is no wonder that the average American is confused about what this movement is about.
However, understanding libertarianism is vital if the United States is ever to reverse the current 100-year trend away from freedom. What most Americans don’t know is that libertarianism is simply the modern political label given to the philosophy that the United States was founded upon. It is the philosophy of individual liberty. Without rediscovering what that means, the United States may soon be a glorious experiment with self governance by a free people that ultimately devolved into just one more socialist mediocrity or authoritarian nightmare.
The key tenet of libertarianism, or the philosophy of individual liberty, is the assertion that the individual has certain unalienable rights that cannot be taken away by any power on earth, including majority vote. This political philosophy maintains that the sole purpose of government is to protect those rights, even against the majority, when necessary. That this was our founders’ belief about the purpose of government is no mystery. They clearly stated this in our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”[1]
So, the purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights of the individual. The Declaration does not go on to qualify this statement, or to place this purpose of government into a larger context that subordinates the rights of the individual to the good of society or majority vote. The needs of the many did not outweigh the RIGHTS of the few, according to our founding fathers. The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration, nor in the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, the Declaration expressly forbids the government to violate these unalienable rights.
“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.” [2]
So not only is it the sole purpose of government to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, but it is the right of the people – the individuals that make up society – to alter or abolish that government if it violates those rights. Government is subservient to the rights of the individual. One need not go searching through Montesquieu or Locke to understand the intentions of the founders on individual liberty. They made it quite clear and unambiguous.
That these are also the principles of what we today call libertarians is probably not a point much in dispute. However, it is worthwhile to compare their own declarations to those of the founders. The Libertarian Party’s [3] website states on its platform page,
“We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.”[4]
Comparing this statement of principles to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights reveals clearly that the principles of libertarianism are identical to the principles of individual liberty upon which the our country was founded. No other political party or movement approaches this alignment of principles with the founders. Certainly the entire liberal left is based upon collectivism, anathema to the founders as well as the enlightenment philosophers that inspired them. While at one time a large percentage of the Republican Party may have espoused these values, particularly during the Taft-Goldwater years, they certainly do not even speak in these terms anymore. Among political parties, the only other party that comes close to the Libertarians in terms of similarity to the platform of the founders is the Constitution Party, although they are more outwardly pro-Christian than the libertarians.[5] Central to their platform, however, are individual rights.
“The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.”[6]
While a separate political party, I would argue that the Constitution Party is merely libertarianism with a focus on the primacy of the Constitution and the basis of natural Rights in Christianity, rather than a subordination of those things to the rights themselves.
For readers of this article that are not members of either of these parties, or supporters of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, this may very well be the first time you have HEARD of them. Certainly Ralph Nader’s spoiler campaigns during the past two presidential elections have elevated the Green Party above either of these two in terms of public awareness. Yet, it is the Libertarian and Constitution parties that represent the ideals that our country was founded upon. Furthermore, it is these two parties alone that advance a philosophy of individual liberty, without which there is no liberty at all.
While most Americans still consider the United States the “land of the free,” few probably understand that “free” means individual liberty. Most Americans in 2008 have either never heard of individual liberty, or haven’t heard about it in so long that they have forgotten what it means. After decades of immersion in collectivist ideology, most Americans have been led to believe that freedom is “democracy.” Most Americans are content to be told that they are free, so long as the evening news explains why the most recent decisions made about their lives are really in their best interests. They are content to derive their “freedom” from government.
Imagine the presidential campaign of 1796 with today’s political frontrunners and today’s American psyche. John McCain is promising a generous helping of warfare, without neglecting essential welfare. Barack Obama is promising a generous helping of welfare, without neglecting essential warfare (at least on behalf of Israel). As these two titans battle for the prize, Thomas Jefferson, the Libertarian candidate, and John Adams, the Constitution Party candidate, answer the occasional question from the debate moderator in those states where they are able to get onto the ballot and into the debates at all. What might our country have become if this had been reality in 1796? What is it becoming now?
Certainly there will not be a Libertarian Party candidate elected president in 2008, nor likely in 2012 or 2016. The most successful LP candidate for president was Ed Clark in the 1980 election, with a whopping 1% of the vote. While it would be wonderful to see the Libertarian political party gain prominence and power, this is not the essential priority. What is much more important is that the American people start rediscovering libertarianism, the philosophy of individual liberty, and once again start demanding to be free. Libertarianism must again dominate the platforms of all political parties, as it once did, if the present trends toward socialism and authoritarianism are to reverse. Only when a libertarian Republican runs against a libertarian Democrat, with perhaps even a libertarian third party candidate in contention, will we have a chance to restore the freedom that fueled America’s mercurial rise to greatness. Only by restoring individual liberty will America return to prosperity, and once again become the land of the free.
[1] Declaration of Independence 1776
[2] Ibid
[3] Ironically, the Libertarian Party has come under some recent criticism by Libertarian “purists” for having softened their rhetoric for political purposes, and are thus not sounding libertarian enough!
[4] http://www.lp.org/platform
[5] In fairness, the Constitution Party not only officially states that members of all religions are welcome, but makes a definite distinction between Christianity and organized religion.
[6] http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1084 reads
"No Scott, the firemen will have saved your house because you were paid up with them."
Firstly, you fail to understand the nature of fire. If my neighbor does not keep up reasonable levels of fire prevention, I am subjected to his irresponsibility when a fire occurs. If the firemen leave his house because he did not pay, then his roof exploding might be jus tthe thing that lights my house on fire (I told him not to store propane tanks in the attic!)
So you got that part wrong.
Then, you want to use jail time to make him pay?
Coercion!!
See. You just can't get away from some form of coercion.
And when I buy my house, I should know the neighbor's personal business? Wow. You've just given up his right to privacy too!
Amazing.
>>you want to use jail time to make him pay?
If your neighbors negligence has caused damage to your property, he is liable for that, and the onus is on him to compensate you. if he does not, he may legitimately be punished. It is not coercion to punish someone for damaging or otherwise taking away another person's property.
>>And when I buy my house, I should know the neighbor's personal business? Wow. You've just given up his right to privacy too!
Your neighbor's contract with the city would be a matter of public record, because it is a contract with the public. No expectation of privacy there.
In fact, having the collective take over child rearing tasks which should be the responsibility of their parents is the best way to promote juvenile delinquency. Parents are much better than the government at parenting their kids. If they have to pay for schools they will be much more involved and much more demanding of their children.
Ummmm, they DO have to pay for schools and their involvement is what you see...
And yes, better at "parenting", of course, but not of educating. I would never have wanted my Pops to teach english and my Mum to teach me science, for example. Also, what society can afford to have both parents home teaching their kids?
Great, now we are back to agrarian farming...
My public school challenged me above my own desires to learn and FAR above the ability of my parents to teach.
I have no problem with competing school systems.
>>I would never have wanted my Pops to teach english and my Mum to teach me science, for example
I'm not talking about home schooling, although that should be an option. Private school is another very good option, because private schools are very accountable to families. A school paid for by volunteers also has to be accountable, or they will withdraw their support. In a libertarian system with a free market in education there will be many cheaper private schools available, and people will have more disposable income when they are no longer taxed 30%.
"You don't. You let people opt in or out of the system, and decide for themselves if they want the benefit. The person who does not pay for firemen will spend the rest of his life trying to pay for the brigade that came over to put out his house fire, or the damage to his neighbors homes, should they be damaged because he refused the service. Whoever owns the land is responsible for the fire on their land and the damage it does to other people's property."
I see...
So I get my property burnt to the ground because my neighbor "refused service" and then I spend the rest of my life waiting for an old guy with no money to pay me for damages?
Got it.
>>So I get my property burnt to the ground because my neighbor "refused service" and then I spend the rest of my life waiting for an old guy with no money to pay me for damages?
No Scott, the firemen will have saved your house because you were paid up with them. Also, if your neighbor doesn't pay you he will be punished. Maybe some time in jail will motivate him to find a way to raise the money. You will also know, at the time you bought your house, the details of your neighbor's contract with the city, and you should be aware that you are taking that risk when you buy that house. Finally, everyone should have private insurance against situations like that. if you didn't, too bad for you. It is no one else's responsibility.
"What do you think of a system of voluntary contract with the community? In that system our guy would be left alone, and he wouldn't benefit from any services. If he called the cops to stop an intruder, they would bill him a good deal of money for it, which he would have to pay later, under penalty of incarceration for theft, perhaps-- I see no problem with that."
See answer above. How do you divy up benefit?
>>How do you divy up benefit?
You don't. You let people opt in or out of the system, and decide for themselves if they want the benefit. The person who does not pay for firemen will spend the rest of his life trying to pay for the brigade that came over to put out his house fire, or the damage to his neighbors homes, should they be damaged because he refused the service. Whoever owns the land is responsible for the fire on their land and the damage it does to other people's property.
Use of roads could be paid for either through the voluntary property tax I described above, or maybe by a fee to be paid when you renew your driver's license.
"You answer yes, but then you suggest the alternative of leaving the guy be, and taking the money from his estate. Could that be because on some gut level you are uncomfortable with what it would take to actually force someone to pay for a service he doesn't want?"
Ummm, it has to do with creating a just and functioning system that is minimally intrusive to the mostest people.
The reality is, the guy WILL use police and fire and the roads and the schools and maintenance on the traffic light. He can claim he won't, but he will.
The guy who delivers bread to the store he buys from will use the road, for example, to get there. He'll stop at the traffic light and he'll be glad that the fire across the road is being put out so that he can make his delivery. The cop that keeps the store from being robbed benefits the guy as well, since the store will only stay open if it makes money...
The fact that kids are all off at school and not throwing rocks at his house because he is such a miserable old fool will benefit him too.
Who is going to be the person who makes the divination as to how much he owes for these benefits?
>>The fact that kids are all off at school and not throwing rocks at his house because he is such a miserable old fool will benefit him too.
In fact, having the collective take over child rearing tasks which should be the responsibility of their parents is the best way to promote juvenile delinquency. Parents are much better than the government at parenting their kids. If they have to pay for schools they will be much more involved and much more demanding of their children. If they are liable for any damage caused by their minor children, they will work harder to keep them in line. And if they know they have to pay for all of their children's needs, they will have only as many children as they can handle, and they will wait until they are ready before starting a family. You will be much safer from delinquent kids in a libertarian society.
I think the departments of education and child services should be compensating us for the damage they are doing to our children (just kidding-- but almost serious)
"Actually, your selection of 10th grade is arbitrary stupidity--and "enough education" is a relativist answer to a concrete question. 12th grade education is not enough to survive in today's environment, so your "enough" answer lacks footing. "
Ummm, how do YOU know 12th grade education is not enough? So you assert "relativist" right before you make a relativist statement and right after asserting arbitrary stupidity...
Thanks for keeping me amused!
"""""Whichever. His community if you like, it makes no difference. Coercion is coercion. Are you saying that it is all right to incarcerate someone, seize his property, or evict him from his home for refusing to pay for services that he does not wish to use?"""""
Yep. Or you could penalize his family by stepping in after he dies and recover losses from him by selling off his home and leave him be...
>>Yep [it is all right to incarcerate someone, seize his property, or evict him from his home for refusing to pay for services that he does not wish to use?]. Or you could penalize his family by stepping in after he dies and recover losses from him by selling off his home and leave him be...
You answer yes, but then you suggest the alternative of leaving the guy be, and taking the money from his estate. Could that be because on some gut level you are uncomfortable with what it would take to actually force someone to pay for a service he doesn't want?
You are right to suggest that if someone voluntarily uses a service that they do not pay for, or are otherwise not entitled to, that is theft, and it is legitimate to punish people for theft. However that does not mean that you can make someone's neighborhood prettier, or otherwise give him something over which he has no control, and which he cannot return to you, and then claim that he has stolen it by not paying for it.
What do you think of a system of voluntary contract with the community? In that system our guy would be left alone, and he wouldn't benefit from any services. If he called the cops to stop an intruder, they would bill him a good deal of money for it, which he would have to pay later, under penalty of incarceration for theft, perhaps-- I see no problem with that.
"What, you can't come up with a logical explanation for why the cutoff of full-on public education funding ends at 12th grade and not graduate school? I'm ashamed of you. "
Sure. Because 12th grade is deemed "enough" education. Education after that is deemed "optional".
I say the 10th grade is sufficient.
It is not "abitrary" because you claim it is. Many hours of debate and compromise have gone into the sytem so far... Nothing arbitrary about that.
Actually, your selection of 10th grade is arbitrary stupidity--and "enough education" is a relativist answer to a concrete question. 12th grade education is not enough to survive in today's environment, so your "enough" answer lacks footing.
I would suggest a reading of John Taylor Gatto's fabulous offering titled, "The Underground History of American Education," and you'll discover sufficient evidence to determine that the secondary education addition for public schools was for the purpose of extending childhood longer than necessary. Also, compulsory education was created to further the socialist agenda and provide a psychological killing ground for ideas that oppose said agenda. You're right, the age limit is not arbitrary, it was designed to specifically dumb-down American children, extend their psychological childhood, and provide a longer time-frame for socialist indoctrination--all on the public dime. It's really quite brilliant if you think about it. The perfect crime.
"where do you draw the line? You can't. "
10th grade. I just did. Next question...
What, you can't come up with a logical explanation for why the cutoff of full-on public education funding ends at 12th grade and not graduate school? I'm ashamed of you. Maybe we ought to just not fund public education, and we won't have to stoop to such arbitrary stupidity. That would seem to make a lot more sense than the lame answer you provided.
"However, everyone needs police protection. Without it, they are in danger of someone stealing their money - maybe even to pay for education.
Your example authorizes government to do what it is supposed to prevent - steal."
Ummm, no. I could argue that since I am big and can shoot a gun, I do not need police protection, but that my neighbor who is a frail woman, does. Should I be allowed to not pay for service, because I do not need it, and make the woman pay double?
You would be stealing from me (under your argument) to pay for police (or fire, or whatever), which is what you declare to be immoral, yet you agree with the premise of stealing to promote civility.
"Government" is only expensive because it does not act like a business because it has taken on functions from afar and has lost the accountability of local pitchforks.
Local government has the pitchfork factor to keep it running lean and mean, like a business...
"Coercion to eradicate slavery is nowhere to be had in Lincoln's statements. In that fabrication, you are dead wrong. "
Ummm, I do not recall mentioning Lincoln nor the civil war in my statement.
Laws were created regarding slave ownership. Coercion was used to enforce the laws. The end.
Laws were created to RECOGNIZE the unalienable rights of slaves and women--"all Men are created equal . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Creating, and enforcing, laws to uphold unalienable rights is the proper role of government, so your assertion that "coercion" created those rights ex nihilo is rhetorical gas. The mere fact that slavery existed was contrary to the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" spelled out in the Declaration nearly a century earlier. Again, your revisionist history comes back to kick you in the fanny. Force is used by government to uphold the rights of everyone, as it is just, necessary and possible.
Your argument continues to implode, like WTC7. . .
"Does the city have the right to evict this person from his home, to seize any portion of his property, or to incarcerate him if he continues to refuse to comply?
I think a system like that would be wrong, because it involves coercion."
"The city" or you mean "his community"?
Banishment used to be the preferred method of dealing with societal oddballs who refused to live within the rules of the community. Now we have leins and what have you's...
The community should have some say in how a community functions. If all decisions were left up to individuals, you would eventually get an Indian intersection everywhere.
Defining the fuzzy zone between where a person's rights end and other people's rights begin is never easy. That zone is called "politics". Keep politics local and you get a better match and ratio between the two opposing needs.
>>"The city" or you mean "his community"?
Whichever. His community if you like, it makes no difference. Coercion is coercion. Are you saying that it is all right to incarcerate someone, seize his property, or evict him from his home for refusing to pay for services that he does not wish to use?
"Maybe we're out of sync, as I've addressed police several times, but government force is authorized under a system of individual liberty - a libertarian system - to collect taxes for police, courts, armed forces, a legislature, an executive, and all public works that are necessary to protect each individual and which benefit each individual equally"
So you agree govenment should be able to take money from you by coercion to "provide" for things you agree to be beneficial to an individual...
So you agree with me that government coercion is an essential part in maintaining a functioning society.
Now, what if I claim that I am benefitted by having all children in school, learning to read and write instead of in my front yard, throwing balls around and breaking windows? What if I claim that my standard of living is elevated by the level of education I am surrounded with? The better children are educated, the more pleasant my life in my communty.
Why punish me by surrounding me with illiterate children in order to maintain your perfect ideal libertarian society? Why not just fund the public schools?
Why are my rights to happiness inconsequential to you?
Under your logic, where do you draw the line? You can't. If publicly funded k-12 education benefits society, then so should undergraduate and graduate education. Education is firstly a benefit to an individual, as it provides for them the knowledge of how to provide an exchange in an economy based on exchange. If the argument is made that society benefits from k-12 education of every child, then would it not benefit more fully from publicly funded graduate level education for every student? The problem here is that the proper role of government is distorted when you start providing benefits to individuals from money taken from the whole.
"READILY and, I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all . . . to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and to disease of body or mind; but I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."
- President Franklin Pierce
From a veto message in 1854
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
- Alexis de Tocqueville
"It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle."
- Alexis De Tocqueville
Everyone doesn't have children. Everyone doesn't use the public school system. Paying for it with taxes taken by force benefits some people at the expense of others.
However, everyone needs police protection. Without it, they are in danger of someone stealing their money - maybe even to pay for education.
Your example authorizes government to do what it is supposed to prevent - steal.
You don't have a right to anything you want or anything your claim makes you happy. You have a right to be protected from harm by someone else and to pursue your happiness as long as you do not violate the rigths of others. Taking their money to pay for someone else's education is violating their rights. Even forcing them to pay for government provided education for themselves violates their rights - they should be free to choose who to purchase it from or not to purchase it at all.
I'm not sure why you cling so religiously to your supposed right to plunder other people. History shows over and over again that it does not work, and that voluntary exchange does. Everything that government gets involved in results in higher prices and lower quality and availability. Everywhere free market forces are (relatively) allowed to work results in higher quality, lower prices, and more availability.
Contrary to your repeated assertion, free markets and voluntary exchange are more functional than coercion. That is why even within healthcare, those products and services NOT covered by government insurance are so much cheaper - like contact lenses. Everything that government provides skyrockets in price.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Scott, what do you think should happen to someone who refuses to pay municipal taxes for education, because they don't have kids in public schools, doesn't want to pay for local law enforcement, because they prefer to defend themselves, and does not wish to obey city ordinances, because they have owned the property they live on since before those ordinances were enacted and never agreed to them at the time they became law?
Does the city have the right to evict this person from his home, to seize any portion of his property, or to incarcerate him if he continues to refuse to comply?
I think a system like that would be wrong, because it involves coercion.
People have a right to enter into whatever contract they like with other people, but no one has the right to force anyone else into a contract. In entering a contract you agree that you will submit to the conditions of the contract. A person who breaks a contract has done something illegal, and it is legitimate to punish them for breach of contract, as long as the punishment is commensurate with the crime. Some contracts are unenforceable-- for example, you can't enforce a contract whereby a woman agrees that her husband may beat her if she leaves the house without a veil. If the woman is beaten and the husband is prosecuted, he can't use the contract as a defense; the contract was invalid since one of its terms is an illegitimate action.
Here is how you could still have collective agreements in a libertarian system:
In a community setting, you could have a system based on contracts with the community, contracts that would be attached to the property you buy. The seller of the home would have agreed, by prior contract with the community, that the sale of the home be contingent on the buyer agreeing to the contract with the community. When you bought that home, you would have to agree to the contract as a condition of purchase. Some homes would have a lot of conditions attached, if you bought one of these you would be agreeing to higher taxes and more regulation, but you would also be getting better services and a more pleasant environment. A family without children might want to buy a home that does not come with an obligation to pay for schools, for example, but if they found one that they really liked that did bind them to such an obligation, they might buy it anyway, and still have to pay for schools.
The important thing is that obligations of this nature have to be voluntary. That is not to say that anyone can do what they want to any one else. It is legitimate to use force to prevent theft, assault, fraud or breach of contract-- but not to make someone do something they do not want, and have not agreed, to do.
No one should have a tax or regulation foisted on them after the fact. You could opt into the existing community contract at any time, thereby agreeing to pay and benefit from the services. In so doing you would be adding these obligations to your property, so that the next buyer would have to agree to them in order to purchase the house. Communities could propose amendments to existing contracts, for example adding a new regulation or service, or removing an obligation. The content of these proposals could be agreed upon by vote. The option would then be offered to every home owner in the community either to accept or refuse the proposal, and to amend their contract if they accept. For example, if the school system weren't good enough in the opinion of the majority, they could offer an option to opt out of it. Those who wished to stay in would continue pool their money to pay for the schools, and they would have the right to use the schools for their children, but everyone else would be released from that obligation. If one of the opt-in families sold their home, the buyers would be allowed either to adopt the current community contract, or to maintain the contract of the previous owner.
No one would necessarily get a "free ride". If you wanted to opt out of police protection and ended up making use of the police, you might have to pay for the cost of that individual service. If you opted out of contributing to roads and other shared infrastructure, you might still have to pay for using them, maybe by a charge attached to your driver's license. If the community wished to ensure that those using community parks had paid for the privilege they could have park wardens periodically coming by to check whether the people in the park had a right to be there. Some parks might charge admission. My guess is that most communities, preferring to maintain an open, welcoming atmosphere, would only resort to measures like this if there was really a lack of money. Likewise, most homeowners and business owners would want to pay for roads, bridges and parks, because they would feel that is the right thing to do. There is no doubt that in most communities there would be a minority of people who were not paying their way, but the community could find non-coercive ways to limit that number.
Who pays for stop signs? How do you make sure there are no slackers?
Coercion.
Who pays for the police? Who pays for stop signs? How do you make sure there are no slackers?
Coercion.
Maybe we're out of sync, as I've addressed police several times, but government force is authorized under a system of individual liberty - a libertarian system - to collect taxes for police, courts, armed forces, a legislature, an executive, and all public works that are necessary to protect each individual and which benefit each individual equally (like county roads). However, government force is not authorized to collect taxes for any other reason, i.e. to provide healthcare, to provide education, to provide... to provide anything where the property of one person is taken to give something to another person.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"No, again, illogical. The system that they built and the principles of individual liberty were not tainted by the fact that the founders didn't follow them, or allow women and slaves into their system."
Ummm, I think a black man or a woman might disagree with you about the "tainting" thing.
That said, I suppose you could argue that the system was good, just the adherance to it faulty.
Ironic that it was coercion that rectified the faultiness of the system, isn't it?