Topic: Democracy
Anarchy My thoughts on the ideal 'system' of governanceby Edward Townes
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I, like many of you I'm sure, some time ago started thinking about what the best possible government is. This followed for me after I realised that democracy was flawed. Most of you probably agree with me about this, and most of you probably also agree that compared to the apparent alternatives it is still the best system we have.
In my view democracy is flawed because it suffers from the centralisation of power, is vulnerable to media generated hysteria and ignorance, and can be quite easily be hijacked by a few loud and well financed interests. You could argue that if the government stayed within its bounds and did not intervene in the market, and thus not present an opportunity for lobbying and special interests, it could function very well. America (note, America is a republic not a democracy actually) currently is a shadow of what it could have been had the government followed the instructions in the constitution letter for letter, and it shows us that it is very difficult for even 70 odd smart and well intentioned men who were acutely aware of this problem could not found a government that stayed within its boundaries.
Recently I came to the realisation that maybe the solution to the problem of what the best government is, is no government at all. I'm not saying that I explored all the possible types of theoretical governments, that's impossible, what made me realise that anarchy could be the answer is after I considered it more closely.
To most people, anarchy brings up images of a lawless society with arson, murder and other crimes happening all over the place. But I can't help thinking that we've been educated to believe that, and other state glorifications and lies. Is the government really a necessity? Well, if you get thinking about it, you could strip the government down to about 5% or 10% of its current size by removing its function as a wealth redistribution mechanism, all its presence in the markets, and privatising the police, fire and other services. That's all very possible to execute. What would you be left with? Three main functions really; justice system, defence, and international representation. I'm hopefully going to be able to explain away these last three functions to you and show that government is actually not necessary.
The justice system would work around a victim and compensation legal structure of contracts and insurance companies. The idea is that law firms have standardised contracts that enable you to interact with other people and you have an insurance company underwrite you so that all parties in the contract are guaranteed compensation should they become victims of crime. Contracts would usually be agreed upon entering private property, either through implicit action or an oyster type card. This is an excellent way because it ensures that legal cases are always initiated by victims and thus there is no such thing as a victimless crime (political crimes, eg smoking pot). Should you commit a crime, your insurance company will have to pay out, which means your insurance premium will go up. Commit more and you become uninsurable, which excludes yourself from interacting with society because no one will guarantee your contracts.
Defence likewise would involve insurance companies. The insurance company would calculate exactly the risk (actuary science is quite advanced already) and give a price for insurance from foreign invasion. Clearly many residences will not bother with buying the insurance, but that's actually ok because houses are low targets for foreign invasion. Transport hubs, airports, seaports, industrial complexes, these are the high priority targets and they will definitely get insurance. Also, when it does come to war, the insurance company through a system of financial priorities (cost/benefit) will have excellent military efficiencies. It would probably outsource, and possibly open source, the defence and use the free market to acquire much cheaper and more effective military equipment, and its intelligence network would also be similar. The beauty is that the system is completely defensive, because there is no financial interest for the insurance company doing anything beyond protecting its liabilities.
International representation is a more abstract problem. First of all, an anarchist society would organise itself on an entirely voluntary basis, so its difficult to know exactly how that would manifest. But also more importantly, do we really need international representation? If our only interest in other countries is visiting them and trade, then do we really need representation which serves mainly as a validation of their states?
I will leave you with Somalia. Here is a "country" that has been without central government since 1992, and it has functioned extremely well under a simple and old system of Xeer law, despite what is currently going on over there. At the moment they are fighting each other because the US and the UN are trying to force a central government on them, and that just means one clan/tribe dominating all the others. That's why they fight, and that's exactly the same problem all across Africa. Central governments being imposed by the West.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 9 thumbs so far
2008 Edward Townes, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 17, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Edward Townes only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Edward Townes is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have three problems with your premise, sir.
1) the function of insurance is to gamble that the amount in claims paid out will never exceed the amount taken in from premiums. Insurance built into everything in society will undoubtably cost more than providing the service since, sadly, companies must make money.
2) those without jobs or money are apperantly left utterly and totally outside of society. The poor can afford the least services and will probably not be offered many. The rich can afford everything. The middle class will pay the bulk of all costs. So much for changing the cost.
3) as for behavior, insurance companies will want to control how you can act, what you can do, where you can go, what you can eat, etc etc to lower liability values. So much for liberty.
Still, thought provoking idea.
Anarchy would certainly be a goal to strive for. The 13 colonies did not have a central government for many years. The only thing that compelled the colonists' to unite was to repel an intrusive monarchy. The creation of our government was soley to provide for the common defense of the colonies. In fact, after declaring independence, they formed an army and then dispersed for a while.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Edward Townes, all rights reserved.