Libertarianism

[Michael Hardner]

MH, there are more options today then when highways were initially built. For example, the 407 highway, while initially built with public funds, those funds were recovered (and more) when the highway was sold. It did not require the forced taxation to build public infrastructure as in the past.

There is now a measurement system in place which allocates cost to beneift. While this measurement system would not have been possible in the past, it is today.

Very true, but the major factor that allowed these systems to be built was forcible confiscation of land through expropriation.

It is also true that the whole US military industry and miliatary infrastructure was built by the forcible taxation and the use by the government of what they saw as a benefit to the country. Individual citizens were not given an option on if they thought their taxes ought to fund nuclear bombs, and wars in Vietnam or Iraq. I leave it to you to decide if this was really a "benefit" to society as a whole.

You're going after a soft spot there.

I'll grant you that these are different times, and that things are more conducive now to a Libertarian system than they were. Information technology decentralizes power, and that offsets monopolies of information and goods. Also, we're not starving as a population, or even close. The bare essentials are by and large taken care of.

But a drastic change such as Libertarianism would still need to be taken in baby steps.

[Renegade]

Very true, but the major factor that allowed these systems to be built was forcible confiscation of land through expropriation.

As I've said, I concede that sometime there is no alternative to the use of government force. Land expropriation for such infrastructure is one of those occasions. My view is that the use of government force should be exceptional and barriers should be put in place to make it difficult for the government. Perhaps land-owners who's land was expropriated shoudl be compensated with a premium value on the land, as not only did they lose the land, they lost their individual right to determine what to do with it.

But a drastic change such as Libertarianism would still need to be taken in baby steps.

Any shift in political philosophy will cause disruption. I for one am not advocating a wholesale shift. I agree it has to be gradual. But even before that happens, the population needs to accept a mindset shift to make that possible.

In the 20th century, the public simply accepted large scale government projects which the government deemed beneficial. The irresponsible spending debacles of the 70s and 80s, drew public awareness to the fact that they could not simply turn a blind eye toward government spending decisions and such decisions had a significant impact on them personally. This made them much more aware of the fiscal cost of such projects, and public attitude has shifted so that there is now a reluctance to take on public debt to finance infrastructure. Expensive projects like the Space exploration program which the US undertook in the 60s and 70s would no doubt undergo a lot more scrutiny today.

Governments needing infrastructure will explore newer funding models, such as pay-per-use, as was done for the 407 highway. Despite the number of people who complain, one only has to see the taffic on the highway to know that this model has been successful.

[August1991]

Let's say a population exist of 3 different largely homogenous groups. Group "A" is 40 % of the population. Group "B" and Group "C" are each 30% of the population. If the groups vote as a block, Group "A" will get to vote its govenment in 100% of the time. How about if Grouip "A" votes in a government which decides it should only tax Group "B" and "C" to pay for the costs of society? Are the economic rights of Group "B" and "C" protected?

Democracies are rarely based on a simple majority rules for the reasons your describe. In Canada, we have three levels of governments with significant spending powers which help ensure the interests of geographically concentrated minorities are not as subject to the whims of the majority. Furthermore, if Group A starts being particularily unreasonable then Groups B and C could form a coalition.

Riverwind, Renegade's basic point is correct. The democratic political process does not accurately elicit the opinions of citizens about what they want government to do. My own opinion is that representative democracy amounts to appointing a dictator. As you note, we understandably (and wisely) hem this dictator in by various rules. (I don't ascribe to the median voter theorem.)

August, it is a facinating proposal. Assuming one could overcome the practical obstacles in finding measurement systems that could implement such a proposal, it would lead to some interesting cost allocations.

Measurement is not the problem. We do that seamlessly when we choose the baked potato rather than the salad. (When people order in a restaurant, they usually manage the complex calculation of benefit versus cost, although some hesitate and others regret their calculation.)

Rather, the problem is eliciting an honest answer. Prices are an ingenious truth telling mechanism and IMV, someone smart must devise such a mechanism for goods now provided by governments.

Let's say we were considering two people's marginal willingness to pay for the benefit of health insurance. One individual was very rich and could easily afford to cover any medical procedure necessary out of his own funds. The other individual is of modest means and pretty much needs health insurance to insure against ill health and the corresponding loss of income. To the rich individual the health insurance is only worth say $100. To the poor individual, the health insurance is worth considerably more, say $1000. Assuming all other things being equal, your proposal would have each of them pay $100 and $1000 respectively, despite the fact they receive the same benefit. Is that what you intend?

Uh, yeah. I was walking in Westmount today and I have no doubt some wealthy, retired people there spend less than $100 per month on personal transportation. At the same time, I know "poor" people who spend more than $1000 per month on their car/insurance/gas.

Renegade, your health insurance example is bad for three reasons: first, insurance is complicated. Second, the important issue of "fairness" (rich people and poor people) complicates things. Third, it loses sight of the main issue: how to know when a society is creating value or destroying value.

In your scenario above, I would expect that the streetlights would be up in the town in the Far North long before the blind arrived as it would be a necessary part of the infrastructure for operating cars at night. So, yes, the drivers would still have borne the cost.

My scenario was a quick, good example: streetlights, with blind people, in Northern town where street lights are necessary 24 hrs, or not at all!

Look, on a desert island starving, you and I both spot the banana tree at the same time. Who owns it? Well, whoever owns the tree, if I'm allergic to bananas, I hope you get to eat them. IOW, in the grand scheme of things, it matters less who owns something and matters much more that the something goes to the person who can use it.

Of course, it is directly important to the drivers and the blind people who will assume the cost - but for society as a whole, what matters is that the streetlight is installed.

Yes, that is true that from a big picture society only cares that it is installed, but in practical terms unless society adequately address the issue of who bears the cost frequently the streetlight will never get built. I think you have already pointed this out.

My point above.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Look, on a desert island starving, you and I both spot the banana tree at the same time. Who owns it? Well, whoever owns the tree, if I'm allergic to bananas, I hope you get to eat them.IOW, in the grand scheme of things, it matters less who owns something and matters much more that the something goes to the person who can use it.

Rubbish, this is pure 'commie talk'. As a 'libertarian', (or a capitalist), you wouldn't care one whit where the bananas went (to each, according to his need?). You would strive for sole ownership, and charge as much for the bananas as you could get away with, solely for your own personal gain. You yourself have argued that this is the best way to do things.

[August1991]

The situation is worse than you describe. In almost every case in Canada it is not the majority which elects the government, it is the largest minority which does so. I did not suggest that the groups were geographic groupings, they could easily be racial, religious, devided along socio-economic or political lines. So I can't agree that a three levels of government can address the issues of a majority or large minority imposing its will on the rest.

It's even worse than that Renegade. You assume the groups are well-informed about how government policies will affect them. I doubt that is the case.

A typical Canadian writes a $500 cheque every month for the federal government. Yet few Canadians follow federal politics closely (posters to this forum are an exception) and many don't even bother to vote. The same Canadians, when looking for a new car to lease and a monthly deduction of, say, $400, will devote days talking to friends, going to dealerships, reading reports to decide which car/deal is best for them.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the way we spend our own money for what we want and the way government spends our money supposedly on our behalf. This disconnect has to be resolved.

At the heart of Libertarianism is the respect for individual rights. I am not convinced that even in a PR system, the economic interest of the minority are protected against bullying by the majority.

I don't think bullying is the problem. When a democratic majority (non-smokers against smokers) exercices its authority and "steals" from a minority, that's theft.

Bullying involves only a threat. I see a difference between a threat and theft.

The US economy would not have been built without the force of government, taking taxes and using them for what they saw to benefit their country.

The interstate highway system, for example, made it possible to distribute goods and engendered growth in many related industries - cars, tourism, heavy machinery. No piecemeal system of roads could have produced that. That also goes for many other large projects funded and pushed through by the government.

I agree with MH.

We suffer critically because private markets cannot provide many goods. When the State intervenes and gets this approximately right, it is successful. The US is an example.

MH, there are more options today then when highways were initially built. For example, the 407 highway, while initially built with public funds, those funds were recovered (and more) when the highway was sold. It did not require the forced taxation to build public infrastructure as in the past.

Forced taxation? Theft?

Out of curiousity, I drove on the 407 to see what happens. The technology impressed me and the basic premise is right. I thought that this is like radio in 1907 and much remains to do. The whole point, I thought, is how to force people to reveal honestly if they want to avoid traffic jams on the 401. If I operated the 407, I'd advertise sales.

In our system, the majority have the power. If the rich minority had ultimate power, they would no doubt give themselves a free ride. Tax statistics prove that they don't have a free pass and pay a disproportonate share of the costs of society.

To be honest and direct, the principle of "one man, one vote" favours the poor. (There are more poor than rich.)

OTOH, our ballot doesn't state: "Vote here and if you are poor, you will receive a cheque for $1000." Many poor people don't care, don't know and don't vote.

----

Reading through this thread, and thinking about it, I am struck by how individuals see the issues of the world as issues of fairness. "She got it! But I deserved it! It's not fair!"

I am also struck by how individuals see personal issues so easily: each is very quick to judge what matters to them, and to ignore the rest as irrelevant.

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

Look, on a desert island starving, you and I both spot the banana tree at the same time. Who owns it? Well, whoever owns the tree, if I'm allergic to bananas, I hope you get to eat them.IOW, in the grand scheme of things, it matters less who owns something and matters much more that the something goes to the person who can use it.

Rubbish, this is pure 'commie talk'. As a 'libertarian', (or a capitalist), you wouldn't care one whit where the bananas went (to each, according to his need?). You would strive for sole ownership, and charge as much for the bananas as you could get away with, solely for your own personal gain. You yourself have argued that this is the best way to do things.

Thelonious, how can we determine who benefits most from a banana unless we first decide ownership, and then offer it up for trade. Without clearly defined ownership (or ownership up for debate), we could possibly argue (rabble.ca style) until the banana is black. Wastefully, no one would get it.

Then again, a quickly and well-defined but allergic banana owner, lacking the possibility of trade (co-operation) would watch alone the banana wastefully turn black.

IMV, the trick is to define ownership and then allow trades.

Thelonious, you seem to be saying that you want to own all the banana trees. From the perspective of an individual, I see your point.

[ClearWest]

Dear August1991,

Look, on a desert island starving, you and I both spot the banana tree at the same time. Who owns it? Well, whoever owns the tree, if I'm allergic to bananas, I hope you get to eat them.IOW, in the grand scheme of things, it matters less who owns something and matters much more that the something goes to the person who can use it.

Rubbish, this is pure 'commie talk'. As a 'libertarian', (or a capitalist), you wouldn't care one whit where the bananas went (to each, according to his need?). You would strive for sole ownership, and charge as much for the bananas as you could get away with, solely for your own personal gain. You yourself have argued that this is the best way to do things.

Are you kidding?? Capitalists aren't stupid, nor monsters, as depicted in your scenario. If they are both starving their main concern will be for survival, not for trying to scrape an extra buck. The difference is that in capitalism, the owner of the bananas (if that was even an issue under the circumstances) wouldn't be forced to contribute his crop for the benefit of the group. That's not to say he won't share willingly.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Thelonious, how can we determine who benefits most from a banana unless we first decide ownership, and then offer it up for trade. Without clearly defined ownership (or ownership up for debate), we could possibly argue (rabble.ca style) until the banana is black. Wastefully, no one would get it.

In the thread 'tyrrany (sic) vs. freedom' ownership 'rights' (indeed, all 'rights') were defined as what is given to you by others.

IMV, the trick is to define ownership and then allow trades.

Generally, the more powerful dispense rights (including 'the right to ownership') to the less powerful.

Thelonious, you seem to be saying that you want to own all the banana trees. From the perspective of an individual, I see your point.

Well, were I to aspire to become God, I would say, "The banana trees are mine, and the bananas are free". Then, I would shake my head sadly as the people killed each other for 'ownership' of something they cannot own, but only control.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

The difference is that in capitalism, the owner of the bananas (if that was even an issue under the circumstances) wouldn't be forced to contribute his crop for the benefit of the group. That's not to say he won't share willingly.

'Sharing willingly' is anathema to capitalism, though it does happen. Have a quick read about the Dulles brothers, the United Fruit Company, and Nicaragua. "Sharing bananas' , or the 'fruits of your labour', is something the US gov't, and all capitalists, are willing to kill to put a stop to.

[August1991]

Thelonious, you seem to be saying that you want to own all the banana trees. From the perspective of an individual, I see your point.

Well, were I to aspire to become God, I would say, "The banana trees are mine, and the bananas are free". Then, I would shake my head sadly as the people killed each other for 'ownership' of something they cannot own, but only control.

You're missing the point here Thelonious.

I think you and I can agree that a banana should go to the person most likely to benefit from having it. And the most likely chance of that happening is to define ownership and then let people trade.

This thread is about Liberterianism (the idea that society could be organized solely with voluntary relationships and without a coercive government). I have argued that such a society would be worse than a society with a coercive government.

My argument is directly connected to the banana, ownership and trading. There are many instances where it is difficult or impossible to "own" something or trade it in a market. Then, government (among other institutions) may improve the situation.

To return to the streetlight example, who could own it? If someone did, how could they easily trade "light"? Hugo never answered these simple questions in a satisfactory way, falling back usually on a deus ex machina that had all the makings of a government in all but name.

I hope this fruitful post has shed some light on the topic. (Sorry, I just had to add that.)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I hope this fruitful post has shed some light on the topic. (Sorry, I just had to add that.)

Well done, very droll.

This thread is about Liberterianism (the idea that society could be organized solely with voluntary relationships and without a coercive government). I have argued that such a society would be worse than a society with a coercive government.

I agree, and disagree with Hugo's notion that the 'summum bonum' of gov't was to eventually enslave and murder it's subjects.

[ClearWest]

My argument is directly connected to the banana, ownership and trading. There are many instances where it is difficult or impossible to "own" something or trade it in a market. Then, government (among other institutions) may improve the situation.

Or a private non-profit organization could improve the situation. One that didn't take it's funds forcefully.

To return to the streetlight example, who could own it? If someone did, how could they easily trade "light"? Hugo never answered these simple questions in a satisfactory way, falling back usually on a deus ex machina that had all the makings of a government in all but name.

You guys seem to desire that the streetlight be in the ownership of a collective group. That, to me, is fine--so long as they do not use force to get their way. It is force that makes the difference between a government and a voluntary institution. How about this for an idea to a non-force solution; "The Society for Streetlights"-- a voluntary organization (not a government) which can own and operate the streetlight within a city or region. People who wish to be a part of the decision making process can sign up to be a part of this society. People who wish to support this society can contribute their funds. The group can even run themselves democratically, so long as they don't think try to enforce the groups decisions on people outside of the society.

The Rotary, The Legion, The Shriners, The Red Cross, and several more all do charity all the time. All on voluntary funds. And it doesn't have to be a pain (or even a noble deed) to donate money. It can be that you just want to play bingo, and proceeds from every game goes to The Streetlight.

And even if such society doesn't exist in your area, there's always a business opportunist ready to step up and fund the streetlight. Why? Because it will give his company a good name--plus you can use the post as advertisement space. Combine that with voluntary donations, then you've got a streetlight in the bag.

'Sharing willingly' is anathema to capitalism, though it does happen. Have a quick read about the Dulles brothers, the United Fruit Company, and Nicaragua. "Sharing bananas' , or the 'fruits of your labour', is something the US gov't, and all capitalists, are willing to kill to put a stop to.

I had a look through a write-up about them. Apparently the United Fruit Company had to go through governments in order to obtain their 'unequal land holdings'. It wouldn't have been possible in a free and competitive market.

I hope this fruitful post has shed some light on the topic. (Sorry, I just had to add that.)

Love it!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

I had a look through a write-up about them. Apparently the United Fruit Company had to go through governments in order to obtain their 'unequal land holdings'. It wouldn't have been possible in a free and competitive market

What was the 'deciding factor'? Superior force of arms.

[ClearWest]

Dear ClearWest,

I had a look through a write-up about them. Apparently the United Fruit Company had to go through governments in order to obtain their 'unequal land holdings'. It wouldn't have been possible in a free and competitive market

What was the 'deciding factor'? Superior force of arms.

Exactly, by the Colombian Army.

[August1991]

You guys seem to desire that the streetlight be in the ownership of a collective group. That, to me, is fine--so long as they do not use force to get their way. It is force that makes the difference between a government and a voluntary institution. How about this for an idea to a non-force solution; "The Society for Streetlights"-- a voluntary organization (not a government) which can own and operate the streetlight within a city or region.

You are describing a municipal government that pays for streetlights through property taxes. Before moving into a neighbourhood, people presumably take a look at the streetlighting and then property taxes and choose the neighbourhood according to what suits them best. Different municipalities offer different streetlight/tax mixes. (Incidentally, this is known as a Tiebout equilibrium.)

Once a person has bought a house, what happens if the municipality decides to raise taxes and install more streetlights? ClearWest, you might say that the homeowner is being forced (coerced) to pay taxes (and have more streetlighting) that were not part of the original agreement. Yet, it cannot be considered a breach of contract since the municipality has the right to increase taxes. The homeowner can't opt out of the tax increase except by moving to another municipality - and that might be very costly.

This apparent dilemma of coercion is at the very heart of what government is and why it exists. I could make a comparison with marriage and say the same thing.

----

I'm going to provide links here to threads (in the order they were started) with discussions similar to this thread:

Hugo's Defence of Anarchy

Justification of Coercive Government

Tyranny vs. Freedom

Hitler: Democratic Dictator

Is Government necessary? (This is the thread in which I argued best against Hugo, I think.)

What is land ownership anyway?

[ClearWest]

You guys seem to desire that the streetlight be in the ownership of a collective group. That, to me, is fine--so long as they do not use force to get their way. It is force that makes the difference between a government and a voluntary institution. How about this for an idea to a non-force solution; "The Society for Streetlights"-- a voluntary organization (not a government) which can own and operate the streetlight within a city or region.

You are describing a municipal government that pays for streetlights through property taxes.

I was describing a society which raised its funds voluntarily--not through taxation. Perhaps I should have made that clear; the organization can own the streetlight, but they cannot take people's money unless they have specifically agreed to it--which brings us to your next two points.

Before moving into a neighbourhood, people presumably take a look at the streetlighting and then property taxes and choose the neighbourhood according to what suits them best. Different municipalities offer different streetlight/tax mixes. (Incidentally, this is known as a Tiebout equilibrium.)

This could work, and would likely be the case if such a system of non-force came in today. Many people would voluntarily become a part of a socialist community because that is what they're used to. Paying taxes and giving the responsibility to someone else. As long as that is a choice, and it doesn't affect others, then it's fine, and it fits under Libertarian society. Non-force.

Once a person has bought a house, what happens if the municipality decides to raise taxes and install more streetlights? ClearWest, you might say that the homeowner is being forced (coerced) to pay taxes (and have more streetlighting) that were not part of the original agreement. Yet, it cannot be considered a breach of contract since the municipality has the right to increase taxes. The homeowner can't opt out of the tax increase except by moving to another municipality - and that might be very costly.

If the person, upon entering the community, agreed to be subject to a municipal government which can legally tax, and raise taxes, and make and change laws, then it is perfectly within the contract for them to do that. I would personally never sign such a contract--which is sad, because, frankly, we are all part of a contract like that, living in Canada, sadly not having a choice over it.

This apparent dilemma of coercion is at the very heart of what government is and why it exists. I could make a comparison with marriage and say the same thing.

You make a good point. Once we get into contracts thing get complicated, because theoretically you can make a contract say anything you want. Some would debate this--Should contracts be limited so that you cannot 'agree' to being subject to an entity which can take away your life, liberty, or property? It's a tough one. I think that you should always be able to 'opt-out' of an agreement. But then, what if the agreement was to not opt-out? Would that be undermining the agreement? Yes. But was the agreement unconstitutional in the first place? Is it even constitutional for an agreement to be unconstitutional, because afterall individuals should be free to make agreements and trades between one another. It's tough to say. We could get into endless philisophical debates about this.

The point is, forcing everyone to conform to the will of the majority (or the largest minority as some have put it) isn't right. People should always have individual choice over what they do with their own life, liberty, and property--so long as they do not affect others.

Bytheway, thank you for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.

[Renegade]

Measurement is not the problem. We do that seamlessly when we choose the baked potato rather than the salad. (When people order in a restaurant, they usually manage the complex calculation of benefit versus cost, although some hesitate and others regret their calculation.)

Rather, the problem is eliciting an honest answer. Prices are an ingenious truth telling mechanism and IMV, someone smart must devise such a mechanism for goods now provided by governments.

The reason why I say measurment is a problem rather than getting an honest answer, is because an honest answer requires some measure of self-reporting. I agree that getting an honest answer is troublesome if not impossible.

Diffrentiated pricing is one way to measure marginal value. Airlines used to do this all the time (and some still do). Basically if you booked your seat well enough in advance, or alternatively at the very last minute you paid a lot less than someone booking it only a few days in advance. Why different prices for the same product? Because the pricing diffrentiated the retail traveller, from the business traveller, from the bargain traveller. Each was willing to pay and was charged a different price because the marginal value of the seat was different. Unfortuately this model suffers some shortcomings and can't easily be used in many government initiatives. First, it needs to do approximations in order to group people into segments so the marginal value of the product can be determined. Second, it is not as easy to differentiate customer segements as the example above.

Look, on a desert island starving, you and I both spot the banana tree at the same time. Who owns it? Well, whoever owns the tree, if I'm allergic to bananas, I hope you get to eat them. IOW, in the grand scheme of things, it matters less who owns something and matters much more that the something goes to the person who can use it.

The one who owns it is the one who is stong enough and willing enough to exercise ownership and protect it.

If the owner is alergic to bananas, he surely will still see the value of the banana and trade it for something of value to the other inhabitant.

[Riverwind]

The one who owns it is the one who is stong enough and willing enough to exercise ownership and protect it.

IOW, you envision a world where the school yard bully is king.

[Renegade]

I don't think bullying is the problem. When a democratic majority (non-smokers against smokers) exercices its authority and "steals" from a minority, that's theft.

Bullying involves only a threat. I see a difference between a threat and theft.

August, we are saying the same thing. The only difference is that I considering bullying both the threat and the exercise of force to carry out that threat.

Forced taxation? Theft?

The fact is we give the government almost unlimited power to raise money through taxes. Where does the line stop between paying for necessary services and unilateral spending? In my view the line is blurry and many times forced taxation=theft.

Reading through this thread, and thinking about it, I am struck by how individuals see the issues of the world as issues of fairness. "She got it! But I deserved it! It's not fair!"

Percieved fairness is a surprisingly important issue to most people. People accept actions which are not in their self interest if they perceive them as being "fair", and are most vocal on issues which are both against their self-interest and percieived as unfair.

[Riverwind]

If the person, upon entering the community, agreed to be subject to a municipal government which can legally tax, and raise taxes, and make and change laws, then it is perfectly within the contract for them to do that. I would personally never sign such a contract--which is sad, because, frankly, we are all part of a contract like that, living in Canada, sadly not having a choice over it.

ClearWest, you have the exact same complaint if no countries existed and taxes were imposed by private companies that existed from before you were born. However, you are infinitely better off in the system we have now because you have democratic rights. In the feudal/liberatrian system you advocate you would have no rights if you did not inheirit property.

[Renegade]

The one who owns it is the one who is stong enough and willing enough to exercise ownership and protect it.

IOW, you envision a world where the school yard bully is king.

Not necessarily. Exercising power comes at a cost. There are many situations where the exercise of power is more expensive to the exerciser than the gain. It is in the interest of even the bully to maximizie value by agreeing to an orderly set of rules about the sharing of power and resources.

[Renegade]

Well, were I to aspire to become God, I would say, "The banana trees are mine, and the bananas are free". Then, I would shake my head sadly as the people killed each other for 'ownership' of something they cannot own, but only control.

There is really no practical difference between ownership and control. If you were God, unless you were willing to forcibly enforce a system where everyone who wanted a banana could have one for free, what you pronounce is meaningless.

[Renegade]

To return to the streetlight example, who could own it? If someone did, how could they easily trade "light"? Hugo never answered these simple questions in a satisfactory way, falling back usually on a deus ex machina that had all the makings of a government in all but name.

You guys seem to desire that the streetlight be in the ownership of a collective group. That, to me, is fine--so long as they do not use force to get their way. It is force that makes the difference between a government and a voluntary institution. How about this for an idea to a non-force solution; "The Society for Streetlights"-- a voluntary organization (not a government) which can own and operate the streetlight within a city or region. People who wish to be a part of the decision making process can sign up to be a part of this society. People who wish to support this society can contribute their funds. The group can even run themselves democratically, so long as they don't think try to enforce the groups decisions on people outside of the society.

The Rotary, The Legion, The Shriners, The Red Cross, and several more all do charity all the time. All on voluntary funds. And it doesn't have to be a pain (or even a noble deed) to donate money. It can be that you just want to play bingo, and proceeds from every game goes to The Streetlight.

And even if such society doesn't exist in your area, there's always a business opportunist ready to step up and fund the streetlight. Why? Because it will give his company a good name--plus you can use the post as advertisement space. Combine that with voluntary donations, then you've got a streetlight in the bag.

CW, I consider myself a Libertarian, however I think you are painting a scenario which is a pipe dream. The examples you give are all charities. In most cases what that means is if they don't collect enough (and they rarely ever do) they just distribute less. What if we did the same with public infrastructure and programs? Each program is made up of fixed cost and variable (ongoing) costs. What if we didn't collect enough voluntarily to pay for the fixed cost, would we abandon the program? What if there wasn't enough to pay for "essential" programs like, border, armed forces, or the building of roads? The society you describe would decend to caos pretty quickly. That is why, I propose minimal government and for the programs and infrastructure that the govenment is forced to impose, the allocations of cost according to benefit.

[Renegade]

If the person, upon entering the community, agreed to be subject to a municipal government which can legally tax, and raise taxes, and make and change laws, then it is perfectly within the contract for them to do that. I would personally never sign such a contract--which is sad, because, frankly, we are all part of a contract like that, living in Canada, sadly not having a choice over it.

By agreeing to stay in Canada (and not emmigrate) are you not implicitly accepting a contract which subjects you to paying for infrastructure and programs the government deems necessary? In that sense isn't it voluntary?

[Charles Anthony]

By agreeing to stay in Canada (and not emmigrate) are you not implicitly accepting a contract which subjects you to paying for infrastructure and programs the government deems necessary? In that sense isn't it voluntary?

No.

Rather, you are accepting the unfortunate reality that your freedom is violated. If you do not have the strength to defend it (or you can not afford to emmigrate), it does not make your submission voluntary.

If a slave is bound by a ball-and-chain or over-powered by a violent master, will you say the slave is voluntarily "accepting" his plight if he does not bother to fight back?