Fellow anarcho-capitalist Stephan Kinsella¹ had a hilarious post at the Mises Blog yesterday titled Taxing Astronauts and the President.². His thoughts are to look at government jobs that are definitely monopolized but that wouldn’t be considered jobs in the free market — in his article he details the role of the President as well as the role of NASA astronauts. In the latter, we see quite a few millionaires who have already put up tens of millions of dollars in order to fly to outer space (or just shy of it), and we really don’t know how many might put up money if the price were half of the current amount. While his article hints at the income taxes that these “public servants” are failing to pay, I’m seeing that this unique perspective is one that we should really put to good debate.

I’ve been thinking about his article this morning and even brought it up in a few morning phone calls with collegues and customers — what government monopolies exist that use huge sums of taxpayer dollars, but might be things that others would actually pay to do? I’m sure that most people would love the power of the Presidency — have your finger on the button that controls the world, and get paid huge sums of money to do it. As Kinsella shows, the President doesn’t just make a few hundred thousand dollars in income once you include all the campaign donations that people “gift” to him.

If you forget about your anti- or pro-political feelings in general, what job would you love to do (as a hobby or a job) and would you actually pay to perform the action, especially if there is a gain on the outcome? At first I figured it would be “great” to be a regulator of some kind — wield massive power over some industry or market, controlling the lives and directions of millions of people on a whim without having to back it up with any understandable data. Then I thought about being a military general (or even higher) — taking care of my frustrations against others and be protected by a myriad of law convenants that history has shown only punishes the loser in any conflict. Or how about being an IRS auditor? With that kind of power, I could snuff out the few that hurt me financially; there’s no one safe as long as I can bungle up the audit database enough to not point the finger at me — we all know that all of us are guilty of missing some tax requirement since the code conflicts itself repeatedly and even the IRS can’t give straight answers.

The few people I joked with this morning about the topic all laughed and said they’d never want me in a situation of control and power if they were required by law to follow through with my edicts. I asked them why I’d be a bad government hobbies and they replied that I was too moral — I might actually force them to do something that I considered necessary for society but what they didn’t want to do. Our new forum moderator and overall webtech Mike Bryson even said that he thinks I’d be the worst person to do charitable work on behalf of the People because he knows already that I spend so much of my time with charities trying to make people’s lives better — voluntarily.

Mike and the rest of the bunch are right, though. I’d be a bad government volunteer hobbyist. Sure, most of my opinions aren’t share by others, but isn’t that the overall fear of government to begin with? How many of the paid government workers are doing things in the way you’d do them? Even though they’re paid to be neutral, how many of the regulators control the lives of millions on a whim without having to produce data to prove that the regulation is really needed? How many generals take out their frustrations on an unseen unnamed “enemy” without fear of repercussions? How many IRS auditors fill the audit database anonymously against someone who may (or may not) have harmed them? How many times have you done something at work that may have minorly harmed an employee or a customer or someone who was getting on your nerves — and if you had that power, that “legal” monopoly on using force against another, would you? Would you do it if the chance of getting caught was slim to none?

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

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.