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. Defense, emergency management, and tax project contract management were discussed. We covered what happens to tax money when it is insufficient to create a contract to perform the desired work, that the individual owns and is responsible for himself and his actions, that marriage is outside the purview of government, and how the legal system might work. Read Parts 1 thru 3 for a more complete explanation of these issues.
Immigration. While this was briefly discussed when covering citizenship, I’d like to look more deeply into the subject. There are some who believe that immigration or migration should not be controlled in any way but that all should be free to immigrate at will. I believe one of the reasons this is such a big issue at this time is the welfare structure instituted by the federal and state governments, using taxpayer funds to support non-citizens. I recently read an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/hans-hermann-hoppe/open-borders/) where he discusses this issue. In its basic form, it is property rights that should be the primary driver.
In the governance I am proposing, each county would have an immigration board. The board would consist of citizens of the county and would meet to interview and vote on whether or not to accept a prospective immigrant. If the board accepted the immigrant, the immigrant would be allowed to either become a citizen, or could apply for a 1 year visa and pay the required capitation tax (see Part 1). The tax would be pro-rated depending on the date in which the agreement is signed. If the immigrant was rejected (maybe they were found to be criminals or were not selected for other reasons, the immigrant would need to leave the county.
There could be agreements with surrounding counties concerning citizens living in their counties but wanting to migrate to a different county where these counties would share information concerning prospective immigrants. This information would assist the immigration board in its decision.
As was brought out by Mr. Hoppe, the board would be the body protecting the interests of the citizens of the county, ensuring use of common assets (roads, garbage, any tax-funded enterprise) was not being used by someone not contributing to that enterprise. It would also be the protector of the peace, looking at the character of the prospective immigrant and deciding whether or not they would be an asset or a detriment to the county.
Roads. In a previous installment we briefly looked at roads, mainly as to whether or not the county would pay for them through the will of the taxpayer or the citizen would privately contract for the service.
If the county taxes are used to maintain the roads, should those outside of the county be charged a toll to use these roads to assist with upkeep since they would be using the roads freely? This might depend on whether or not the roads are used for commerce. If tolls were levied on some county’s roads but not on an adjacent county’s roads, would that commerce bypass the tolled county, basically isolating it from commerce? Would it instead cause prices within the tolled county to be greater to cover the toll the trucks would have to pay to deliver those goods, thereby causing the citizen to bear the cost anyway? What about the person just wanting to cross the county to continue a journey? Would toll roads make a difference in which route they would take and would it make any difference in whether or not tourism or other commerce such as buying gas or getting a hotel room would or would not occur?
Again, this could be handled by the taxpayer if they decided to fund the toll booth construction and toll booth salaries. Would the expense of the system outweigh the revenue gained? Up to the citizens investigate and decide.
Licenses. Would the government issue licenses? No. The individual is responsible for any damage to private property or life and limb. Getting the government out of the licensing business would help rid it of cronyism and politicians being paid off by trades people to make it difficult for competition to enter the trade. For instance, home inspectors were not required to have a license in Texas until a few years ago. Now, in order to get a license, the new inspector must work as an apprentice for a period of time (over a year) before they can be licensed. This apprenticeship is, naturally, at a reduced wage. Wonder how this bill got passed? Older inspectors go together and lobbied to get the law enacted, making it more difficult for new people to enter the trade. This is just one example of the phoniness of licensing.
We already eliminated the marriage license. How about drivers licenses? Not needed if people are required to take responsibility for their actions and are required to compensate the injured when at fault.
Mandatory Insurance. As we all know, there are several mandatory insurance policies that we currently require, the most recent, that of health insurance. Automobile insurance is another requirement. Freedom requires personal responsibility. This means that, while not mandatory, you are responsible for your own healthcare expenses and your own automobile accidents and the ensuing damage to property, should an automobile accident occur. If you are unable to cover the cost of a possible automobile accident either through your own bank funds or insurance coverage, you should not drive. In this type of economic environment where taxes are minimal, philanthropic organizations should thrive, to include free clinics or hospitals, as was the case in the early 1960’s , before government got into the healthcare business.
Conclusion. In this post we continued our discussion on what a free society could look like. If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, please send them my way. Next time I’ll explore ways to implement these ideas.