Re: AC and power
[ QUOTE ]
I had previously proposed that exactly such an entity would constitute a legitimate government and you responded by saying that it doesn't count as a real state. We can call it whatever we want: a proto-state, a market entity, a confederacy of dunces, who cares? It's a plan for running things that might work. I just found it curious that you were shooting it down when I proposed it earlier, then suggesting it could work in your version of society.
[/ QUOTE ]
PVN just touched on this above. The difference between a 'free market government' and our current forms of government is that our current governments are territorial monopolists. There is a high cost to switching governments. The reason governments are so inefficient is because they do not have to compete for tax payers. "love it or leave it" is a common arguement used against ACists and Id love it if governments actually had to face this pressure.
Nobody really knows what AC is going to look like. If no territorial barriers is something that bothers you, you can form city states, gated communities, communes, whatever. In a real world sense we would be taking a huge step toward AC by splitting up the American union. If North America was made up of 50+ competing governments the costs of switching governments would be drastically reduced, which would create competition between the governments for taxpayers. I really dont understand how anyone can argue for freedom or democracy and at the same time argue against the reduction of monopolistic control of territory that our curent governments represent.
|