Privatization and Voluntarism Are the Only Solutions to Government Ineptitude and Tyranny

I used to completely agree with socialist solutions to issues in a democratic system and market economy.
I was a supporter of Bernie in the 2016 election, but had a wake up call when I started to study government and economics more and discovered Agorism, Larken Rose, Murray Bookchin, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Kurt Russel When You First Discover Libertarianism

Post-Scarcity Anarchism by Murray Bookchin

We can elect one good, and honest politician for sure, but what about the next one and the next one? And what about all of the others in power from the rest of congress to state and local?

Government is made up of people and they are always fallible and corruptible and no amount of laws can stop someone in power from being corrupted.
 
The only answer is to take the power away from government and take back our money.
 
There needs to be oversight of goods and services, but that oversight doesn’t have to be through government and funded by taxation.
 
Government is one of the most inept structures to provide goods and services. Look at the Flint, Mi water crisis.
It was all done by government and no one went to jail.
 
Why? Because both the services and the oversight was provided by the same system of government. Making it overpriced, and of dangerous quality and unaccountable.
 
If the people of Flint were free to contract with a private company for water services they would be provided a better price and better accountability and they would have CHOICE where to spend their money voluntarily.
 
If the private water company poisoned people it would go out of business, be stripped of assets and some people would be jailed, but not so in a government controlled system.
 
The same goes for primary education. If parents paid the schools directly instead of being forced to pay taxes, they could use their choice and that would drive higher quality than we have with federal schooling. Take a look at the success rates of “no child left behind” and “common core” and see how central governments fail at providing services.
 

Privatize the Police

07/11/2016

“….Free-market police would not only be efficient, they would have a strong incentive to be courteous and to refrain from brutality against either their clients or their clients’ friends or customers. A private Central Park would be guarded efficiently in order to maximize park revenue, rather than have a prohibitive curfew imposed on innocent — and paying — customers. A free market in police would reward efficient and courteous police protection to customers and penalize any falling off from this standard. No longer would there be the current disjunction between service and payment inherent in all government operations, a disjunction which means that police, like all other government agencies, acquire their revenue, not voluntarily and competitively from consumers, but from the taxpayers coercively. In fact, as government police have become increasingly inefficient, consumers have been turning more and more to private forms of protection. We have already mentioned block or neighborhood protection.

There are also private guards, insurance companies, private detectives, and such increasingly sophisticated equipment as safes, locks, and closed-circuit TV and burglar alarms. The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice estimated in 1969 that government police cost the American public $2.8 billion a year, while it spends $1.35 billion on private protection service and another $200 million on equipment, so that private protection expenses amounted to over half the outlay on government police. These figures should give pause to those credulous folk who believe that police protection is somehow, by some mystic right or power, necessarily and forevermore an attribute of State sovereignty.”

 

The Next Evolution of Human Organization is Voluntary Association

Governments are the new monarchs. Time to end the coercive control of one group of people over another. Time to make society and governance voluntary.

Children Need to be Taught the Real History of the World

Why An Ideal Society Would be Based on Consent
By Joe Jarvis – September 14, 2018

… A society based on consent is ideal because:

  1. It is prosperous. You are free to keep the products of your labor. You may not steal what someone else has produced. This provides an incentive to produce, and trade the excess, enriching all of society.
  2. It is peaceful. You are free to defend yourself from any aggressors. This makes a peaceful society because everyone understands the consequences of victimizing others.
  3. It is fair. You cannot have your property taken without your consent. You cannot be forced to labor for another without your agreement.
  4. There is no coercion. You are free to associate or disassociate with whomever you wish. No one can force you to participate in something you find objectionable. No one can prevent you from participating in anything that doesn’t hurt others.
  5. You are free. Without a victim, there is no crime. If what you do isn’t hurting anyone, no one can stop you from doing it. The ultimate freedom of expression.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

Read More: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/why-an-ideal-society-would-be-based-on-consent/

Men Against the State: The Expositers of Individualist Anarchism in America, 1827-1908
James J. Martin06/13/1970

America was home to the first full-blown movement of individualist anarchists in the 19th and early 20th century. The author of this book on the topic adds the adjective “individualist” to distinguish them from socialists. They were champions of liberty, and, yes, they were as quirky as any movement of this sort might be. But they made mighty contributions to the history of ideas, and this book explains those contributions and the minds behind them.

The names are tragically lost to history: Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner, J.K. Ingalls, among many others. They were thinkers and activists, not mere protesters or political dissidents. They had a positive agenda centered on the confidence that whatever kind of world would emerge without a state, it would be a better world than the one the state made.

The author explains that “the communist anarchists rejected private property, and taught the ideal of the collective autonomous commune. A portion of their number advocated the overthrow of the State by violence. The individualist anarchists held that the collective society in any form was an impossibility without the eventuality of authoritarianism, and ultimately, totalitarianism, and adhered resolutely to the concept of private property insofar as the term could be defined as the total product of a given individual’s labor, but not more broadly than this.”

“They abandoned the idea of an equalitarian utopia, and worked for a world free from arbitrary restrictions on opportunity and legal privilege, which breakdowns they claimed ‘laissez faire’ really produced. No other radical group denounced the prevailing system more vigorously than the spokesmen for individualist anarchism.”

James J. Martin wrote a book for the ages in 1952, a survey that is indispensable for anyone interested in the roots of modern libertarian thought. You will find these roots not in the postwar “conservatism” of the Buckley movement but much further back.

Read More: https://mises.org/library/men-against-state-expositers-individualist-anarchism-america-1827-1908