Chartered Cities – (R)evolution der Bürger
Floating, unbound and independent city-states for free people – spinning, or one day reality? Imagine you lived in a system in which you are required to buy a car. However, unilaterally determined by the seller model, equipment, engine and even the price! Buyers have to pay his choice in any case accept. Outlandish? Just replace the words „Seller“ by „government“ and „buyer“ through „citizen“, and you will notice that you are exactly in such a system.
As tax-paying citizen, you must sometimes co-finance subsidies for inefficient technologies, national television channels, chairs of gender studies and theology and likely also military missions abroad, even if you reject all of this. They will continue to be forced to take out pension, health and nursing care at predetermined conditions, whether you agree or not. You may not purchase bulbs, powerful vacuum cleaner, plastic bags or cigarette without warnings. In other words, you are not a client, but subject. Which contract is selling to you this tax as discharge of a supposed „social contract“. This should exist between citizens and the state. Or at least to the citizens among themselves concluded such by transfering the part of their sovereignty to the state.
After the civil law of most jurisdictions Western-style would be highly questionable whether such a construct – we call it a submission contract – lack of certainty of its reciprocal transfers can ever be considered a person. Moreover applies under civil law agreement, when not agree on all the important points is not closed in doubt because of lack of agreement as such. One point is important in this sense, even if only one of the two parties subjectively considers it an important. All this argues against the existence of the supposed association.
Why should a group of people, we call them the political class, ever decide how you have to live your life? As these objections can not be resolved positively, led by physical whereabouts of the citizen in a particular state would take its implied consent to the applicable social order. That’s about as if one would say, a slave who does not try to escape daily, voice implied his slavery. In fact, here a balancing takes place as there. The slave is thinking about where he might ever run away and if the risk of an attempted escape was not too big. The citizen takes his home, his job, abandon his habitual environment and may even leave parts of the family. Therefore might be to remain in the respective system in both cases of the decision. This is merely because the lesser evil, an agreement is not associated with it.
But why should a group of people, we call them the political class, ever decide how you have to live your life? This applies especially when you have these people neither selected nor mandated in much detail, these are especially qualified. You might be about the view that you have the right to make your life and your circumstances as you consider appropriate, and if you want something other to do this volunteer based power exchange. You do not want participation, but self-determination.
This results in two general principles following: first, that the one or the other which does no harm inflicted, has the right has to be left in peace. And even by the government or the majority. And secondly, that human interaction takes place only on a voluntary basis and not based on coercion. Today States, democracies included, can not only guarantee none of the two principles. Rather, they are based on the same injury.
Two questions are sufficient to prove this conclusion: First, by what right do you take the others lawfully acquired property from (such as income or property taxes)? Second, what do you do when the other is no longer willing to pay? While the answers are technically simple: First, the government / parliament / the majority has so decided. Secondly, the government expropriated. But in fact this is nothing but robbery, based on the law of the strongest. It makes no difference morally, if you rob your fellow man under threat of violence itself or entrust elected representatives to do so.
A howsever legitimate system which provides expropriations favor of third parties by law, can create permanent neither peaceful nor a predictable cooperation. Instead, it encourages never-ending conflicts over distribution, social unrest and resentment. Such orders have no future, they are Ancien Régime.