Anarcho-capitalism

Unanimity - Agreement by everyone — a 100% vote for one thing.
Anonymity - Without a name — The ability to keep one’s identity private

It seems a few people get it confused. The Unanimocracy basically means “government with 100% participation.” In a unanimocracy, everyone that is bound by an agreement has agreed to be part of it. Imagine a government that won’t pass a law without a 100% referendum. That is part of the basis for what a Unanimocracy is — everyone either agrees, or the contractual obligation does not go into effect.

For many people, they want to be able to vote in a system anonymously. Some argue that we need anonymous voting so that people won’t be pressurized to change their vote — I tend to see why that would be a problem, even though I don’t necessarily agree with it. If I get fired because I voted against my boss’ wishes, it is his right to fire me for any reason. In a unanimocracy, it is quite possible to be fired for one’s beliefs. I am not working on my property, I am working on someone else’s. This is a stickler for many people.

Another stickler is the Free Rider argument. Many pro-State advocates say that if a few people vote against a public spending resolution, they might still get access to the construct that the State created. Let us consider a referendum to build a highway between Town Absolute and Town Zebra. Both towns pass the referendum by 80% — 20% either didn’t vote or didn’t vote yes. In a unanimocracy, NOT voting is equivalent to voting “No” or “None of the Above” (NOTA). Even if you don’t show up, you vote “No” or “NOTA.” 80% of the people will now have to pay for the highway — the 20% who disagreed are not contractually obligated to pay for the highway.

If the highway is prepaid without tolls or future fees (in the short run, disregard maintenance), how do you police the 20% who didn’t vote yes for the highway or pay for it? Under a unanimocracy, I see many more reasons why anonymity is really not a good policy. Even in democracy, I think I have a right to know not just how my tax money is spent but who is getting it. If I had a list of people using my income through welfare checks for more than 3 months, you better believe I’ll have a talk with them and find out what the problem is.

There is a fact in life that I’ve always tried to live by — if you get caught lying or defrauding someone, the worst penalty is not a legal one but an embarassment to your own self and your family. If one of the 20% who did not vote were caught on the highway paid for by the 80%, there is definitely the risk of being caught and being labeled an abuser. In a free market, there is nothing wrong with this occurring.

Some will argue that it might be hard for someone to battle such labels — a non-anonymous voting system could create blacklists and outcasts. So? At my retail store, one of my regular customers was a repeat sex offender. We found out about a year after serving this person repeatedly. We had asked him to stop coming to our store since many of our shoppers were under age, and we didn’t want him around. We found out he was a sex offender based on the public record. Why would a voting list be any different? Our right to congregate with whomever we want to should not be barred — and if we want to protect ourselves against repeat offenders, is it wrong to request a history of a voter’s record?

I think anonymity causes many problems in society. Imagine if every action you made with another person could be given feedback on eBay. Would people cheat on their spouses if the risk of public feedback was there? Would people steal from their jobs or stores if they might be marked with a negative feedback? Of course there is the risk of people leaving bad feedback out of spite, but looking at eBay, even the best sellers get negative feedback on occasion. The feedback system works — if a seller has a lot of negative feedback, no one buys from them. If a buyer has a lot of negative feedback, no one sells to them. Why shouldn’t a contract society also be onymous rather than anonymous?

I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why onymity could be bad, I’d like to know what those situations are.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.