Control stifles economic process
October 25, 2012
In normal life, people generally see a monopoly as a bad thing. Lack of competition leads to poor services or products and inflated prices. Customer service gets put on the back burner because the money will come in regardless.
Business monopolies can only exist in collusion with government. Without the protectionism of regulation and red tape, competitors would quickly arise to satisfy the unhappy customers.
Government stifles this natural process for the benefit of its corporate supporters and donors, and to the detriment of everyone else.
Government is the ultimate destructive monopoly. One whose "services" you can't even refuse. This results in the worst possible scenario.
Why pretend this particular monopoly is good?
A local church doesn't declare rulership over its neighborhood; instead the members mix and mingle in the community on equal footing with members of other churches whose "territories" overlap without borders.
You don't tithe to your neighbor's church, you are not subject to its rules, nor are you entitled to any help from them. Those who wish to opt out of membership altogether are not assaulted or robbed for not going along, nor are they forced to leave the area.
A legitimate government would follow the same
template: overlapping autonomous "associations" competing for "customers."
The only universal rules that would apply everywhere would be based on Natural Law: Don't attack others, and don't steal or damage other people's property.
Everything else is a matter of opinion.
Overlapping governments could allow people to contract with them, pay the applicable taxes, abide by a set of rules, and get specified benefits in return. Your neighbors on each side might contract with different governments than you do.
When signed up with one government you owe no taxes to the others and could get nothing from them without paying for it directly on a per-use basis.
Only those who wanted to would have to finance a service.
Those who choose to not join any government at all would still have to pay for any government service they wished to use. Or they could choose a non-governmental provider, since a lack of a monopolistic government would allow a market in services to develop.
That includes those things people wrongly assume can only be provided by government, such as roads and bike paths, security, education, water and sewer, and justice.
Anyone who feels they do not need any particular service would not be forced to pay for it.
Then the market would decide whose services were superior and which would die off.
Everyone wins except those who want to justify their coercion and force everyone into a one-size-fits-all mold.
Kent McManigal is a freelance writer who sometimes offers commentary on our websites. Contact him at: