I was trying to analyze how the political arena worked in France and what kind of reforms would be necessary to progressively move toward anarcho-capitalism there.
Do you think all ends to anarcho-capitalism pass through decentralization of government? Or can a national government such as France, which has virtually no federal institution and where everything is taken care of in central bureaucracies, enact reforms leading to no government?
I am personally on the side of decentralization, for transition would be much easier from one system to the other (federal to state, state to local, local to private). But then, this would mean that every single country in the world will need to adopt an American-style constitutionally-limited federal system before the world is nothing more than a free market made up of free people.
Any change towards liberty is impossible as long as people clamour for slavery. Political reforms cannot greatly effect this. Rather, it can only come about through an understanding on the part of thee general populace of the reasons why liberty is preferable to slavery. Unfortunately it is very unlikely that is will happen anywhere in our lifetimes, and it is especially unlikely to occur in France of all places.
Certainly small, short-term reforms that limit the state somewhat are achievable, but any radical long-term change is impossible without a significant ideological shift.
I don't think there's any a priori reason to prefer one approach over the other in all cases. The easiest route to anarcho-capitalism depends on the factual circumstances of the society in question. Whether you attempt to deconstruct the State through the central State reforming itself, or through a decentralization, I think gradualism is required. It's pretty self-evident that if the button were pushed and the State vanished this afternoon, the result would be chaos not anarcho-capitalism. It takes time to produce something. If the State suddenly vanished, the market would not instantly produce the supply of whatever services the government had previously been monopolizing. It would take time. Likewise, as the poster above me said, the attitude of the people has to change, and it seems unlikely that it would change overnight. Show them the benefits of privatizing medicine or education or whatever, and they will open to the idea of privatizing more government services. Either that or expect a demagogue to lead terrified citizens right back into statism, and probably a worse kind.
The U.S. is a federal system meaning the national government allows the States to have the powers it wishes them to have. It's not really decentralized.
France may be more centralized than the US, but then the scale is smaller. You can look at it as a counterpart to the US if the latter were a federal dictatorship (more centralization), but you can also look at it as a counterpart to California if the latter were independent (less centralization). But no I don't believe in reform, I think only secession will work, and then of individuals and communities, not of low-level state institutions.
This is why i advocate making taxation voluntary, this way a central government and local governments could still exist and provide services. By making taxation voluntary it would obviously bring in additional incentives to improve the value of money offered by the state. Of course if you do opt out of paying taxation then you can not enjoy the wonderful benefits of government services. It would make sense however for the individual government services to allow for voluntary payment at any time with the least amount of difficultly. This would allow for the maximum transition to a society where at least the NAP is adhered to in lawful matters. Eventually the government would transform in to a different type of entity.
Natural centralization could form, like electrical standards as an example or the OSI network model as another. A form of centralization that exists voluntarily.
I lold, Jack. Are you 12?
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I don't appreciate such a comment Maiku.
The question was, Is there any other way to liberty that does not include decentralization. So I shared a way. You might think it seems unlikely to occur but I would argue just as unlikely as decentralization with taxation. Decentralization without taxation is less likely to occur then voluntary taxation.
@OP: I think the secession strategy is the only way forward. The key is to legitimate secession in the public discussion. The Establishment has succeeded for the last 150 years since the war over Southern secession in equating secession and racism or slavery - a truly incredible leap of logic. How does wanting political separation have anything to do with racism or pro-slavery sentiment, particularly in the modern world?
The LvMI is routinely labeled a "neo-confederate" organization which is puzzling because the LvMI does not espouse slavery, does not espouse racism in any form public or private - the only resemblance is that some members of the LvMI have espoused a secessionist strategy for greater political liberty (Hoppe, et. al.). However, it is crucial to note that they have not proposed Southern secession as a strategy for greater political liberty. I can't remember where it is off the top of my head, but I remember reading a suggestiong by Hoppe that a city like San Francisco with a strong "alternative culture" and a port may actually be the ideal starting point for a secession movement. Where is the neo-confederacy in that??
Clayton -
Jack, if it's voluntary, it's not really taxation. I guess that in my native language, portuguese, it's easier to see that. Our world for tax is "imposto", what literally means "imposed".
Sure in that sense of the term, voluntary taxation is an oxymoron. But in the sense that taxation is the states mechanism for generating revenue, it would technically be possible to convert taxation in to a voluntary payment system. In the UK a lot of people would continue to pay taxes (contribute to government) if it was voluntary because they like the government and think they get good value for money.
no no no.. Jack. Once you make it "voluntary" the State loses all (almost all, ok) its power. It can never happen, at least, in a peacful way. And it is my belief. Also you said nothing if in your case government would allow comeptition. If yes, then say goodbye to a state. If not, you are not really paying your taxes "voluntary", and that's why I laughed. I know what you're saying but what you are saying would only perpetuate the mass delusion (state is good and state is caring). I, for one, would prefer breaking it. Not only because of my selfish preferences, but because of the people I love and care about. And the people who are here yet to come (if this sentence is grammatically correct).
I like Jack's idea as a transition to anarchy (seems like a process of decentralization, to me).
.. But secession is the only realistic way. I can't imagine an instance in which centralization would lend itself towards invidivual liberty. The two terms are antithetical, since anarchy is the epitome of decentralization.
Without derailing the thread I just want to add a bit more of the process. The government could even keep VAT and in the US case introduce a VAT. That could pay for services that could remain free in the sense of socialist free services. example, rubbish collection could be free to everyone, or the service could be available for everyone. In this way the government would still continue to exist and retain its centralization. It would just lose the power to take an income tax. All state or in the uk council tax or what is essentially property tax would also become voluntary. With the option for people to pay for and start their own services to compete with government services. Including police and rubbish collection etc. The government would still retain all its property ownership and could even continue with its democracy. The people would just have a financial and social choice if they want to be a part of the government program. I believe that would be a path to liberty and hopefully it would eventually change the nature of the government. Eventually it could even end government completely or it could become so popular and efficient.
And there's the fundamental paradox - there is no such thing as "real decentralization."
At one extreme, we have a fully centralized State.
Moving towards decentralization, powers are transferred to the constitutiong federated States.
As this continues, we approach the other extreme, where we have a number of federated States and no central State at all. O joy, now we eliminated the central State! Now we're "really" decentralized, right? No, you just eliminated the nation. Instead of 1 nation and 1 central State, we now have 50 little nations and 50 central States. The power of each little central State is less than the power of the old single central State in absolute terms, but each of them is just as unchecked by any division of whatever powers it does have as was the old central State.
The point is that for a given polity, there is always a domineering central State, either because there is only a central State, or because the central State is still dominant over the federated States. To have a situation where the central State is not dominent over the federated States simply means that the polity in question is not one polity anymore: it's several, each of which is dominated by its own central State.