The monopoly model of government

I begin with a quote from Tom Woods that I agree with completely:

But as long as we refuse to entertain original thoughts, and instead stay wedded to the monopoly model for police, there will be problems. The predictable results of any monopoly are less satisfactory service at ever-higher prices. There is no reason to expect that security provision to be any different.

Allow me to expand it: As long as we stay wedded to the monopoly model for government, there will be problems.

To those who think it wouldn’t work, keep in mind two considerations:

1.  Does the current monopoly model for government work?

2.  Does the absence of monopoly work in other areas of our life?

Any institution, whether it’s Amazon or the government, needs funding.  Amazon gets it through voluntary trade. Our monopoly-model federal government acquires its revenue not merely through taxes, but with the “accommodative” activities of the central bank, itself a monopoly counterfeiter established by law.  

In today’s liberal media large organizations like Amazon are considered monopolies.  True, they have enormous market influence but a critical distinction still exists.  Bezos and his employees don’t have a police force at hand ready to break down your door and haul you off for failing to buy the latest Prime video offering.  Amazon relies on voluntary trade and advertising (persuasion) to acquire revenue.  You and the rest of the world could shut it down permanently by taking your business elsewhere.  No such option exists for monopoly governments.  If you don’t pay your taxes, you’re either fined, incarcerated, or murdered.

The situation is not one of lily-white businessmen versus evil politicians.  To a large extent both sides conspire against the public.  Historian Gabriel Kolko wrote about this in his landmark study, The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900-1916.  Essentially it refuted the idea that businessmen were predominantly laissez-faire while trenchantly opposing political “reforms.”  In Kolko’s words,

It was never a question of regulation or no regulation, of state control or laissez faire; there were, rather, the questions of what kind of regulation and by whom. . . . 

The federal government was always involved in the economy in various crucial ways . . . laissez faire never existed in an economy where local and federal governments financed the construction of a significant part of the railroad system, and provided lucrative means of obtaining fortunes. . . 

Despite the large number of mergers, and the growth in the absolute size of many corporations, the dominant tendency in the American economy at the beginning of [the 20th] century was toward growing competition. Competition was unacceptable to many key business and financial interests, and the merger movement was to a large extent a reflection of voluntary, unsuccessful business efforts to bring irresistible competitive trends under control. . . . 

Important businessmen did not, on the whole, regard politics as a necessary evil, but as an important part of their larger position in society. Because of their positive theory of the state, key business elements managed to define the basic form and content of the major federal legislation that was enacted. They provided direction to existing opinion for regulation, but in a number of crucial cases they were the first to initiate that sentiment. [All emphasis mine]

For example, those sentimental bankers back then, led by Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn-Loeb, publicly calling for reform of the Money Trust, established the Federal Reserve System, a central bank that feeds the fat cats and their wars while penalizing anyone foolish enough to save its paper/digital product. 

Free markets free the people

Free markets deliver the goods — and you’re not forced to take delivery.  Competition and the drive for profits ensures that consumer satisfaction is the foremost consideration of participating firms and individuals.  And what keeps consumers satisfied?  Low prices and high quality.

But only with a government based on contracts and consent will we have free markets.  For details start with Robert P. Murphy’s Chaos Theory. 

By contrast you live under an arrangement that was imposed on you at birth.  Did you personally vote for ratification of the 16th amendment?  Did you personally approve the late-December 1913 passage of the Banking Bill, as the media referred to the Federal Reserve Act?  For that matter, did you personally ratify the U.S. Constitution?  Since you didn’t do any of these things, why is it incumbent on you to live under them?  Why, in other words, are you complicit in your own enslavement?  Were you not born free, to make your own choices?  If you’re a Believer, do you think God is in the business of recruiting masters and slaves for monopoly government?

The usual comeback is to say voters can change government if they don’t like it.  Try finding a politician who will vigorously support repeal of government’s theft machines, the income tax and the Fed.  The uber-heroic Ron Paul did try.  He couldn’t do it.  

What about the prospects for the 2020 government election?  Are any of the candidates raising the flag of liberty?

And since none of them are, what will you do?  Vote anyway, knowing you’re underwriting government as it exists?  When will we see monopoly government respect the rights of individual citizens?

If you think the answer is never, I agree.

If you vote in monopoly government’s elections you’re implicitly endorsing it, though admittedly some choices look better than others.

So how can you get your cry for liberty heard?

Trying voting outside the voting booth. 

***

George Ford Smith is the author of nine books, father of twin daughters, and grandfather of an active grandson.  He's also a filmmaker whose short movies are available on Amazon Prime.  His latest book is Do Not Consent: think OUTSIDE the voting booth.