Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

POLS 2300 Political Ideologies

Shari Sowards
Paper #2

Supreme Ruler of the Universe


Statement to World Media:
Members of the World Media, people of earth. I have just been appointed
Supreme Ruler of the Universe. To make this world a better place I will issue
one single command, one order. This one order will be the largest step
toward liberty and freedom that has ever happened. What is it? I am
abolishing the position of Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and the
organization of the world government which appointed me. The people of the
world can rule themselves on a personal and local level much better than I or
the entirety of the world government can.
Beyond this, I would like to give the world advice, as it will now be creating
new governments. The governments of the past have always been
restricting, and tending to lean more and more towards totalitarianism, and
an erosion of freedom. The reason is simple; a state is a monopoly, a
monopoly of the most dangerous kind. It is a monopoly of law. When an
industry has a monopoly, of TV for example, you get poor service and
extravagant rates. Why? Without competition, they can set the price to
whatever they want, and their poor quality wont mater, because resorting to
a better service isnt an option.
The state, however, is a step worse. While a TV monopoly is bad, you can
always abstain from watching it. You might pick up a book, and become more
literate as a result. But in the case of the state, you cannot opt out. Because
the government is a monopoly of law, saying no to taking advantage of
roads, or police, or public education isnt an option. The state takes your
money regardless.
The state may even claim its your fault theyre not doing what you want.
After all, you live in a democracy. You voted in the leaders that caused this
mess. Theyre acting on your orders, not theirs. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In a democracy you might not be represented at all if youre
in the political minority, and if youre the looser, its winner take all.
As a customer to a business you can end your patronage at any time and
switch to a new one. This is the democracy of the dollar. Consumers are
kings. Under a democracy if a policy gets the majority vote, regardless of
how bad it ends up being, is applied to everyone.
Therefore I advise the people of the world to take a different approach to
government, one never tried before: Voluntary government. With voluntary

POLS 2300 Political Ideologies


Shari Sowards
Paper #2

government, the things we usually associate as state only capacities are


privatized. This gives more power to the people and eliminates the
corruptive use of force the state authorizes.
Many people would object. Things such as justice, the military and roads
have always been ran by the state because no other system worked! Id
argue its because the state wouldnt allow any other system to be tried!
These arguments make sense to people conditioned under a state.
If, for example, we had been living under a system where all food was
produced by the state and we had never tried anything else, someone
advocating a privatization of food would sound mad! So much so, the no
doubt oppressive government that would be in charge of said system
wouldnt even have to say a word to discredit him. The citizenry would do it
for him. One would cry out, without the state managing the farms who
would grow the food? Wed all starve to death! Another would rationally
argue, even if private farmers could produce enough food to feed us, what
system would they use to transport it and distribute it?
The same arguments are being levied against the idea of voluntary
government today. People would ask me how law would be handled in the
private sector. I could give a general idea that made sense, but then theyd
point out a hole here, or one there. Theyd nit-pick every detail of the theory.
Of course if you were the man speaking out against the inefficient breadlines
as I mentioned previously, similar questions would come up.
Today we know how a private market for food works. Farmers farm the
produce, which then is shipped to factories. These factories mix ingredients
completely transforming the produce into a delicious commodity. But it
doesnt end there. Afterwards it is shipped out to wholesalers who then
organize and distribute it for a final time to supermarkets. Finally you, the
consumer, can purchase a loaf of bread, which was only made possible by
emergent order, and the unconscious interaction between hundreds of
farmers, factory workers, wholesale workers, and supermarket employees; all
of this for a just a few dollars.
Of course as the person speaking against the crowd in a totalitarian
regime, how could you possibly know about all of this? Theres no way you
could make all of that up in your head and sell it to the masses. The same
thing applies to the privatization of government functions. I could try to
explain how everything could work, but I could never give a satisfactory
explanation. The functions of private law and such would grow over time.
However, a brief explanation of how such institutions would work is in
order. I can expect anyone to subscribe to the idea of voluntary government

POLS 2300 Political Ideologies


Shari Sowards
Paper #2

without at least some idea of how the institutions would work. Ill start with
law and justice.
Private arbitrators, which in todays world often mediate between
corporations who dont want to use our bulky and slow justice system, would
be the main creators of law. Say I mugged you. In a society with private law,
youd recruit a lawyer and bring your case to an arbitrator. The arbitrator
would consider your claim. If he or she felt that you were indeed wronged by
me, he or she could compel me to come to court. If I refused it would be as
good as an admission of guilt. Youd be free to take what I allegedly stole
from you. I, however, would not want to go down without a fight, so I would
recruit my own attorney and submit to the summons.

Some may complain that an arbitrator could abuse his or her powers. While
this is possible, its unlikely. The reason is that the arbitrator doesnt have a
monopoly. If he or she makes poor judgments, or shows that theyre
corruptible, people wont bring cases to them. Arbitrators will do their best to
be neutral, because they will lose business otherwise.
Some might also complain about cost. After all, wouldnt the rich have
access to better attorneys than the poor? This is reasonable, especially once
the system first begins. However, this argument ignores the fact that a more
open market in justice will produce more competition. Returning to my earlier
example of groceries, the rich arent all fat and happy while the rest of us
starve. Competition creates overall equality in standards. In our current state
run system however, competition is less rigorous.
Its hard to become a lawyer. There are many rules and laws you need to
know, and state restrictions to jump through. Because of this supply of
attorneys is low, there is less competition. Celebrities can nearly get away
with murder, while 80% of us charged with felonies will have to rely on a
public defender (Robert P. Mosteller, Failures of the American Adversarial
System to Protect the Innocent and Conceptual Advantages in the
Inquisitorial Design for Investigative Fairness, 2009)
Ultimately, if we truly believe in the power of the individual, the states
coercive powers become unnecessary. We want to live in peace and
harmony, and if the police stopped doing their jobs right now, I doubt wed
all suddenly turn into blood thirsty killers. As rational reasonable individuals,
we would organize together and live as peacefully and harmoniously as
possible. Thank you all for your time today, its been a pleasure.