Democracy: Who Needs It?
by Paul Hibbert
I've heard the rallying cry, "We must fight for freedom and democracy" throughout my lifetime and not once have I heard any popular observation that democracy cannot possibly foster freedom. True, Sir Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried from time to time"; and Thomas Jefferson said, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine," but despite those insights virtually all of the citizens of Western countries are uncritical.
When searching for a title for this piece I thought a good title would be, "Two Cheers for Democracy," but I quickly found out that this has been used many times. The existing articles don't have anything to do with my current theme but the sentiment that the title expresses deserves respect. Up to now Churchill was right, but by dint of the maturation of capitalism to its present form it allows another means of constructing a society — one created by capitalists, devoid of coercion.
Capitalism has the unique capability of identifying and satisfying the needs of our society, be they consumer goods, financial instruments, entertainment — virtually everything that makes our lives richer. But it's high time that capitalists recognized the greatest need of all, that of freedom. There are those who will argue that we already have freedom in most democratic countries, but by doing so they will be ignoring the embedded coercion within any democracy. They will argue that "the few" voluntarily sacrifice themselves to "the many" in order to maintain social order. That may be true but it is no longer necessary. Capitalism has the tools to completely overthrow that notion and give freedom-loving people the control over their lives that they yearn for.
To accomplish this a group of capitalists could acquire a territory, i.e. a geographical area, by any non-coercive means. The territory could be created anew by dredging the ocean bottom; building a huge ship or a floating platform; or purchasing all or part of an existing country. It is beside the point how it comes into existence — it only matters that it is owned by the capitalistic group, that they are free from any over-arching authority and that they expect to make money from their enterprise.
How can they make money, you ask? By providing a haven for freedom-seekers. The originators would provide a justice system and some basic infrastructure — the rest of the amenities would be supplied by a variety of competing companies or corporations that would pay the originators for their franchises. It would be a hierarchical structure of enterprises, each paying their fees to the next company above them on the ladder. Each level would get revenue proportional to the number of residents that are resident in their particular region. The originators can maximize their profit by using good judgment as to the legal system and infrastructure but also by their decisions on what sub-enterprises are relevant and how they manage the overall structure. Residents will pay for the total of their amenities and services to the lowest enterprise on the tier which will siphon off their profit component and pass the rest up to the second on the ladder according to their negotiated contracts, and so on. Thus, all components of the organization are motivated to provide the best services possible. There would be competition at all levels and if one enterprise were not competitive, existing and new residents would choose to live under the more beneficial one. There would be no taxes and all community relationships would be negotiated and voluntary.
The capitalists would offer a new place of residency. If a particular person didn't like the prospectus or was just unwilling to leave his home country because it suited him better where he was then he would just stay put. If a person leaves his homeland, takes up residency in the capitalist territory and then finds that he was misled, or it didn't meet his expectations then he could vote with his feet and leave. But this would be the exception because it would not be in the interests of the capitalists to defraud anyone because the knowledge of the dissatisfaction of the former resident would be known to all and this would deter attracting future residents, to the detriment of their profit.
Who would be attracted to live under this system? To start with it would be a very small percentage of the populations of the Western democracies because the first such territory would have to distinguish itself by being what would be considered to be extreme. So, only those who would be actively engaged in searching for an alternative, freedom- loving society would be attracted. However, with the success of the first enterprise additional capitalists would join the movement and provide a whole spectrum of societies ranging from the most individualistic to the most socialistic. The payoff would be that everyone would have the choice of living under whatever system comes closest to his or her individual needs; and this would foster social harmony. Governments and politicians would disappear. What else would anyone want? (Although there still might have to be lawyers.)
Paul Hibbert
Discuss this Article (2 messages)
|
