But you'd still need to abolish the Federal, and State governments and maybe even the county ones to provide that level of competition that we need for politicians to behave like businessmen right?
Tracy Saboe
as long as the government the politicians inhabit confers more rights and powers onto itself than an ordinary citizen has, then politicians will never act like business men - they will act like men with immense power over others... whereas the wealth (that is a poor substitute for power) that businessmen have has natural limitations, the dividing line where their 'money power' ends is right where my rights begin... not so with governmental power, it knows no boundaries...
michael
I'm simply referring to how small geographic areas as oposed to larger geographic areas increase the threat of Emmigration to the government. If it's relatively easy for individuals to move out of the government, they can't be too tyrranistic otherwise it'll be a ghost state. Small localised governments (citi-states) contain the greatest threat of emmigration to the local government. The bigger the government (geographically) is, the harder it is to leave and escape tyranny because, "There's no place to go."
So having citi-states, as opposed to county, or State, or Nation-states, forces politicians to behave much more like businessmen in that, if they steal too much people will simply leave.
States can steal more, because it's harder to leave them.
Nations can really be tyrranical because it' next to impossible for most victums of state tyranny to emmigrate.
Of course World-government would be the epitomee of tyranny. Simply because, "There physically isn't anywhere to flee to."
Anyway, that's all I meant about abolishing State and Federal governments. I don't believe it's possible for federal and state governments to behave as businessmen. There's simply too much monopoly control over said geography, for politicians to have any incentive to behave like businessmen.
In responce to NI
How would the verdicts of the state courts be enforced without some kind of police body? Perhaps all regular security could be handled by private companies, but shouldn't there still be sheriffs to enforce the orders of the courts?
I would just like to say that this is a perfect example of how a little bit of hampering leads to more hampering. Public courts, naturally lead to public protection.
Yes, I don't neccessarily have a problem with a public Constabulitory (like a Sherrif) to help try to enforce the public courts eddicts. However back when all we had was the Sherrif, they relaly didn't have the neccessary fire-power, physical authority themselves to FORCE people to obey the rulings of the public courts anyway. They relied on private help. (Posse's, etc.)
So, quite frankly, I don't think we would even need the Constabulitory. Simply if somebody needs to be tried for murder, put a bounty out to bring him in to court (ALIVE! If he get's killed, then the private person, entity, or police business that killed him would definetly be responsible.) To face trial.
If somebody's found guilty, The victum would require both restitution, and punishment. Force the perpetrator to pay for his restitution, and he could choose whatever private prison he wanted to go to to work that restitution off and punishment.
The public courts could auction off to the availible private police services out there the responsibility and right to enforce each specific ruling (regarding two parties and only those two parties) of the public court -- in much the same way road repair work is curently supposed to be actioned off to the lowest bider.
It's messy. And perhaps it could be looked at rightly as a fascist police system instead of a totally private. (I don't know. What would you call a police system in which each individual job the state needs done is auctioned off to the private police companies?) But that would still be infinitely better then the modern completely socialized modern police system's we have now.
Then, if the market as a whole didn't agree with the public court's rulings, they might have difficulty finding somebody to help them enforce it? If a private police company takes a job that the market as a whole feels is wrong, it might face boycott. It could be another check against government tyrrany. Meanwhile if the ruling is just or boarderline it would be easier to find a private company willing to enforce it (for a fee obviously). Where that money would come from? A government that minimal could probably survive on a volentary funds system (donations, lotto, etc.) You'd have private citizens volenteering as the jury somehow (With full knowledge about jury nulification, etc.) and private citizens and entities as the enforcer as well (With full knowledge about police nulification, etc.). The only part of the 3 parts of the courtroom (Judge, Jurry, and Executioner) that would be state, would be the Judge.
Perhaps you could have a system whereby any trial that comes to the public court system, would be auctioned of to the private police companies to carry out it's verdict (whatever it is.) and then if the private police company that wins the bid, hears the verdict, and doesn't like it, that particular company would have full rights to simply refuse to enforce it, just like Jury's can nulify bad laws, etc.
Anyway, this is all off the cuff.
BTW, we don't need government courts for civil suits, private arbitration can deal with that. I just haven't been convinced that we don't need them for criminal suits (Murder, Rape, Kidnapping, Theft, Vandelism. That's about it I think. Maybe fraud, but here some people would expand and widen the definition of fraud so much that everything would be a government matter. So, I think fraud should be left to private courts also.)
Tracy
