Solution to the partisan problem: voluntary association.

Started by TowardLiberty, November 09, 2012, 09:24:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TowardLiberty

Here are some thoughts that ran through my mind on political philosophy.

I think I may have a solution to the grand disagreement of our day.

It is no small secret that partisan passions are running high right now. With the Presidential election just over, a little more than a quarter of the population is elated, while a little less than a quarter of the population is very disappointed.

The rest of us, something like 45% of the population, didn't even bother to vote.

It dawned on me today that the reason why elections are so controversial, and the reason why particular political policies and laws are so controversial, is that the losing side of the battle is going to have the policy or law forced on them, with violence backing it up, regardless of their preferences or thoughts on the matter.

The reason why the parties are so polarized is that they want vastly different rules and institutions, and when one gets their way the other has been forced to accept it and go along.

We are forced to pay for abortions we don't want, wars we don't want, bailouts we don't want, subsidies we don't want, and the list is literally endless. Though some people do want these things.

The point is that others are forced into paying for them or participating.

I am 100% positive that every single act of government goes against the wishes of someone.

So it seems to me that this sort of arrangement of forced association is doomed to failure. Politics will never be an efficient or effective form of decision making. This whole idea of collective decision making involves this inherent contradiction- who decides for the rest of us? Who becomes the slave or serf? And who gets to force their vision and values on the rest?

This is a forced association and necessarily ensures that violence will be used to force some to act according to the preferences of others.

What is the way out?

In my view, the way out is to make participation in these welfare, wars and wealth redistribution schemes optional.

If I can opt out of social security, the various welfare programs,  the war on drugs, the war on terror, fiat money, patents and intellectual property laws, so on and so forth, then I am no longer victimized and burdened by the tyranny of the majority.

Let those who want to participate in these programs do it, and let those who don't want to, opt out.

Of course, this is not an argument for making the rule of law optional. So this is not to say that we can choose what laws we want to obey and which we don't, as it regards the individual property rights of another.

In other words, if the citizen can opt out of the positive rights and privileges created by the state, this does not mean they can opt out of the negative side of their rights, or the rights of others. So stealing, rape, murder and all violations of individual rights are laws protecting negative rights, and cannot be opted out of without destroying society in the process.

Though laws and programs mandating wealth redistribution are not based on negative rights, rather, they are based on positive rights, and these sorts of associations should not be forced, rather they should be voluntary and optional.

In this way, the political relation could be converted into a voluntary one, and the forced association left behind, and with it, all the worst parts of the political process.

This could be described as individual secession and a first step toward a truly voluntary society.