A Modest Proposal Part 3


RECAP.  So, let me briefly recap what has been discussed. I am looking at a new form of governance which will maximize liberty and minimize government intrusion. We have looked at citizenship being a contract between the local (county) region and the individual that is renewed every year for people 18 years and up living within the geographic location comprising a county. Taxes are paid at the same time the citizen contract is signed and are a capitation tax of $100/year for citizens and $200/year for aliens. Taxes are distributed based on the will of each individual paying the tax where the individual lists the projects they wish to fund, placing their portion toward each project desired in $5 increments. Taxpayers are also given blanks where they can write-in projects not currently listed on the tax election sheet.  Finally, defense, emergency management, and tax project contract management were discussed.  Read Parts 1 and 2 for a more complete explanation.

UNFUNDED PROJECTS.  Now, let’s discuss what happens when some taxpayers/residents wanted a project funded with their tax money but not enough others had the same thought so that the project was not funded.  Is using government force (by getting their guy in charge) the only way for those wanting the project to be funded to get it funded, essentially forcing others not wishing to fund the project to do so while also taking money away from the projects they wished to fund?  Well, that is currently the way the US governmental system works.  Group A wants something but is a minority and can’t get the votes to get the thing passed because Group B is in the majority.  Group A goes all out during the next election cycle and gets the majority. Now Group A is able to pass the desired thing but now Group B is upset.  It is a vicious cycle constantly pitting Group A against Group B.

The new system, however, allows those who wish for a project to be worked to pool their resources and contract for the project to be completed privately.  With the lack of income taxes, property taxes, consumption taxes, corporate taxes, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, etc., those wanting the project will have more money to put toward these things.  Additionally, this avenue of resolving project issues conforms to the non aggression principle in that no one is forced to fund something that they feel is not important to them or is against their principles/religious beliefs…both groups have the opportunity to have what they wish without being forced to provide something they would rather not.

For instance, there are some that believe drug use is not a government issue and others believe it is.  The US Congress and the Supreme Court have upheld the “war on drugs” as a lawful cause and decided to place tax funds toward drug enforcement.  The current system requires (with threat of force) all taxpayers to fund this endeavor no matter the personal belief of the taxpayer.  [As an aside…why was it necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol but no amendment was necessary to prohibit “drugs”?] A similar issue that comes to mind is abortion.  The current US governmental system is against the non-aggression/zero-aggression principle.

PRIVATE PROPERTY.  What connotes private property?  Would you consider your body private property?  If so, and you believe owning property is a fundamental right, not granted by government but granted by being human, then should the government be able to use force of law and arms to steal your freedom because of the way you decide to use your private property (your body)?  The fundamental question is “Do you own yourself or does the government own you like a cow or dog or a piece of property?”

If you believe you own your own body, then, as long as you do not attempt to force your will on someone, you are free to do with your body as you wish.  This also means you are responsible for any bad consequences that may arise from your drug use, such as loss of a job, family, home, etc.  Like the beer commercial says, “With great beer comes great responsibility.”  The same goes for freedom…it requires great (personal) responsibility.

MARRIAGE.  Since this has recently come up in the news, I’d like to touch on marriage.  To some it is a religious ceremony, sanctified by holy scripture.  To others, it is a way to obtain services such as insurance for the family through the workplace.  Before the recent Supreme Court ruling, same sex marriage was a state issue with some states allowing it and others not allowing it.  Without the “license”, same-sex partners could not receive the insurance coverage offered in workplaces.  This is another area where Group A was disenfranchised by Group B through government action.  The new ruling has given Group A what it wanted and Group B is disenfranchised.  The question is never asked “Why is the government in the business of granting a person the right to marry in the first place?”  In the society I’ve been proposing, marriage would be handled like any other contract, within the law.  If someone wanted to be married by a church, it would be possible.  If the church did not want to marry a same-sex couple, it would not be forced to.  Also, divorce would be handled as the break in any contract would be handled.

LEGAL STRUCTURE.  What about the law?  Of what would laws consist?  Am I talking about a libertine society where anything goes?  Absolutely not!  All laws would be based on private property, contracts, and personal responsibility.

Each county would keep a roster of citizens and would choose an odd number (possibly 13) to hear any case involving crimes of aggression.  The 13 would elect one of their number to act as judge in the case and the other 12 would be the jury.  This court would be randomly selected, with no person being selected again until all citizens within the county had been selected.  Additionally, one of the militia members within the Adjutant Generals’ branch would be randomly selected to be the prosecutor in the case.  There would still be lawyers for defense for hire by the accused.  In crimes such as theft, the thief, if convicted, would compensate the person from which they stole whatever the value of the item was plus any damages that occurred in order to effect the robbery.  If they were unable to pay, the thief would work for the victim at an agreed-upon wage until the debt was paid.  In the case of murder or intentional bodily injury, the jury could decide to assign the guilty party to the aggrieved family for a certain number of years (not to exceed 7 years) as a servant/worker or allow the guilty party to be banished from the county in-perpetuity.  If found guilty, the guilty party could request a retrial any time new evidence is found that could change the verdict.  The aggrieved family would have the option of lessening the sentence amount after 1 year.  There would be no death penalty because of the fallibility of people and the possibility of making a wrong decision, executing an innocent person.  Each accused would be innocent until proven guilty.  Finally, if the jury decided the law under which the accused was being tried was bad, the jury could annul that law and acquit the accused.

I welcome any thoughts concerning these concepts.  More to come in Part 4.

This entry was posted in District/County Issues, National/International Issues and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s