Tax-Free Society - Introduction

[nickcoons]

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=29

On the Libertarian Solution Radio Program, in my campaign newsletter, and in various other places, I and other libertarians often talk about the idea of taxation as theft (I would recommend reading here (http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=9) and here (http://www.libertariansolution.com/advocates/view.php?id=16), if you have not already done so, before proceeding). As the question goes at the end of the second article linked above, "but how do we pay for X?" It is the intention of this multi-part series of articles to answer that question.

Libertarians realize that the market serves need better than government does. We can look at services provided by government (Education, the Post Office, the Department of Motor Vehicles, etc) and compare those to services provided by the market (Technology, Food, Clothing, etc), and to even the most casual observer it becomes obvious that everything originates from and is served better by the market. That being the case, libertarians wish to turn over most or all other services to the market, opening them up for competition and therefore improvement and lower costs. Because of this, most answers to "how do we pay for X?" are in the form of a speculative business plan, and are not necessarily "the way" it would work if government left the picture in a certain area.

Take, for instance, the first flight by the Wright Brothers. If someone had asked, "How will this be used commercially? How many planes will there be? Will people eat and watch movies on planes? Will there be people on board to serve them? How many?" It would have been impossible to answer these detailed questions. Nonetheless, there was a demand for air travel, so the market met that demand. Enough people wanted to be able to eat meals on long flights, so it happened, without government mandates, because customers wanted it.

In 1947, computer engineer Howard Aiken made the prediction, "USA will need in the future at most 6 computers!" We seem to have a magnificent ability to underestimate the power of the market.

Because libertarians don't want to control the lives of others (and this is why I believe there are many people who are truly libertarian, even though they may not self-identify as such), we don't want to implement a one-size-fits-all solution. When I suggest how it would work in the absence of taxation, it's only one example of how it can work to illustrate that it is possible, and that it will work without the aggression of taxation.

[nickcoons]

http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/blog/view.php?id=30

It is sometimes said that if people are good, then we don't need government; and if people are evil, then we don't want government. The first part of this statement is pretty straight-forward. The second part alludes to government power. In our society, government has the ability to do things that individuals don't. But government is just a collection of individuals classified as having this ability. So if people are evil, then why would you want to give them power? Or why would you trust them to vote to put people in power?

This isn't to say that all government is bad, but rather that government reflects society. We can see this in many correlations, such as the federal government's $11 trillion debt that it will never be able to pay off, and the credit card debt incurred by many American families that they will be making payments on for the rest of their lives. The problems in government are a symptomatic effect, not the cause. The cause is in the understanding of human interactions that many people have.

For instance, most people interact with each other well on an individual basis. Very few would steal from or physically attack their neighbors or others on the street, and those that do are properly labeled criminals. We know that if we allowed this behavior to continue unchecked, society would decay.

But on a collective level, we don't seem to understand that the same principles apply. We know that individually we can't steal from our neighbor and expect to live in a prospering environment. However, we often think that if we join a group that steals from other groups, we can. We may want to build a new road, and may lobby our local government to tax our neighbors to build the new road, whether they want it or not. Our neighbors, possibly not wanting the new road, may feel justified in turning government against us when they want something. And so the cycle continues as we take turns looting each other through the force of government.

If we want to change government from an irresponsible tool of looters to a responsible steward of protecting our rights, then we must individually understand that aggression causes strife and poverty; whether it's one person against another, one interest group against another, or one nation against another; the effect is the same.

[IPSecure]

Tax-Free Society

Have you seen the latest from Walter Burien (http://cafr1.com/)? How to end ALL Taxation!

TaxRetirement.com (http://taxretirement.com/)

[Gosmokesome]

You're right. The state is not required. All our needs can be met by the market.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice piece Nick, but I still maintain that to the extent that government imposes itself on individuals in order to function, it is inherently destructive and should be abolished. (this effectively negates any need for government/the State as we know it, IMHO) ;):D

[nickcoons]

Have you seen the latest from Walter Burien (http://cafr1.com/)? How to end ALL Taxation!

TaxRetirement.com (http://taxretirement.com/)

I haven't seen it yet, but will take a look at it. I haven't talked to Walter for about a year and a half. He and I don't get along very well.. not because we fundamentally disagree on anything, but because he's just a difficult person to get along with.

[nickcoons]

Nice piece Nick, but I still maintain that to the extent that government imposes itself on individuals in order to function, it is inherently destructive and should be abolished. (this effectively negates any need for government/the State as we know it, IMHO) ;):D

I agree with you, which is why I only support a form of government that does not impose on individuals in order to function. Whether that means a voluntary government or (if the former is impossible) anarcho-capitalism, I don't really care, so long as there is no institution that is legally allowed to infringe on rights.

[nickcoons]

Thus far, I've made arguments for why government should not have the legal authority to steal (tax). Many call this a necessary evil. Though forceful acts committed amongst groups have the same results as when committed amongst individuals. Something we know to be "evil" has a way of doing that.

Most people upon reading this far might say, "I like the concept, but what does this mean in the real world?" If we rid ourselves of institutionalized theft, what is the alternative?

We realize that many goods and services are provided for properly by the market. Grocery stores sell us food, and plumbers fix our pipes. We don't need government to provide these for us. Some goods and services are provided by government and many understand that these can be provided better by the market, such as education and retirement planning. Turning these over to the market is generally rather simple.

But there are those things that we see as "public goods", things that government has generally always provided and understandably we have no concept of how the market could provide these goods and services. These include police, courts, prisons, fire protection, roads, environmental quality, and national defense. What would society look like if government didn't provide these services, and what alternatives would be available? As mentioned previously, a good or service provided for by the market cannot be predicted exactly, because the market is shaped by consumer demand. No doubt many options will be tried, but the one that works and provides what people want will be the one to stick around.

In the following parts, I'll describe ways that these services could be provided. However, I will not claim that my solutions are the best possible outcomes as other minds working to solve the same problems will undoubtedly produce different and possibly superior alternatives if the necessity arises. But I will demonstrate how they are better than what we have now.

[Zippyjuan]

Changing or eliminating taxation is an endgame objective. First you have to change what people expect of and even demand of government so that you can get spending down to a level which allows you to change or eliminate taxes and that is a massive undertaking.

[nickcoons]

The purpose of justice is not to punish criminals, but to restitute victims and make them whole again (if possible) while at the same time providing a deterrent to crime in the first place. Following this principle, victimless crimes no longer fall under the veil of the criminal justice system. To rightfully call something a crime requires a victim. This means that acts such as robbery, assault, and murder are crimes, but drug possession, prostitution, and gambling are not because no one's rights have been violated.

Even in cases where victims exist, our current system is inadequate. Individuals are victimized once by criminals, and then again by the state to pay for the incarceration of the criminal. In most cases, criminals are not required to pay restitution to their victims. Criminals continue to commit crimes because they find it profitable, even taking their short prison sentences into account. A truly just system is funded by those that necessitate its existence, the criminals themselves.

Imagine this scenario. A burglar breaks into your home damaging your front door, steals your laptop worth $1,200, and flees. You call the police, who will take your statement, but generally have no motivation for catching the criminal, even if they have identified him, though they'll issue a warrant and arrest him if they happen to encounter him elsewhere.

Now, imagine this same scenario under a criminal justice system funded by criminals. That is to say that criminals pick up all of the costs involved with their capture, conviction, and incarceration. Here's how it might work. You call the police and report to them that your $1,200 laptop was stolen and it's going to cost $200 to repair your front door. The police must capture the criminal in order to be paid, so they are highly motivated. Upon capture, the police force totals up their expenses for the pursuit, which comes to $2,000 in our example. The next process is for the suspect to be tried in a court. The court is also paid for by the criminal upon his conviction. But just as it is today, convictions are handed down by juries, not by judges. So while the court may favor a conviction, it won't have the ability to unfairly lean the verdict in that direction. The jury hands down a conviction, and the court proceedings cost $800.

The convicted criminal now owes a debt of $4,200 ($1,400 to the victim, $2,000 to the police, and $800 to the court). He is given the option to pay off the debt in full, or work it off in a work prison. It should be noted that those who steal generally don't have $4,200 lying around. However, the option is on the table, and having to pay $4,200 for a $1,200 gain (the laptop that he stole) is very unprofitable. In most cases, someone in this situation will need to work off the debt, so he'll be sentenced to a work prison where he'll be put to productive work earning his living. Instead of being sentenced to prison for an arbitrary length of time, he'll be released when he's worked off his debt. The harder he chooses to work, the earlier he is released.

But staying in a prison costs money (food, clothing, and shelter), so a portion of his daily earnings will go toward those costs. Let's estimate his cost of living at $20/day, and let's say that he works such that he's able to make $80/day. He has earned a net profit of $60/day, which will go toward paying off the $4,200. At that rate, he'll be released in 70 days. If he wants to work harder and earn more, he can leave sooner.

Without government intervention, one might think that such a system is prone to corruption. That is, how can the fair treatment of suspects and convicted criminals be guaranteed? There are quite a few natural checks in place in this market system. For instance, police will want to make certain that the person they arrest is guilty so as not to waste their resources on pursuing innocent people which will have no obligation to pay them back. This similar check exists for courts, where they'll want to not waste time hearing cases where they believe a conviction isn't possible, preventing people from being arrested and tried willy-nilly. And upon conviction, criminals may have the option of choosing the work prisons in which they will work off their debt. Those that mistreat inmates will not receive new "customers" as inmates will avoid them, and they'll go out of business. Like any other business in the market, they'll need to balance their costs with the quality of their service.

There are certain instances where such a system might not be ideal. Even in cases of assault a dollar amount can normally be calculated for proper restitution (hospital bills, time off work, pain and suffering, etc). What I'm referring to is murder. No amount of time spent in a work prison is going to bring someone back to life (it should be noted that our current system is no more adequate in this area). Those demanding restitution could be the victim's family members, and the restitution they seek may be the criminal's life.

Most crimes exist today for one reason; because they are profitable. When you remove the profit motive from any action, it tends to decrease significantly. Implementing a criminal justice system as described here will not only decrease the profitability of crime and therefore crime itself, but it will put the cost of prosecuting crime on criminals instead of their victims.

[nickcoons]

Changing or eliminating taxation is an endgame objective. First you have to change what people expect of and even demand of government so that you can get spending down to a level which allows you to change or eliminate taxes and that is a massive undertaking.

I agree with everything you said above.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for posting this, Nick. :D A lot of people on RPF don't seem to understand free market justice systems. :(

[gilliganscorner]

You folks are starting to sound suspiciously like agorists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=153542). :eek: :D



Changing or eliminating taxation is an endgame objective. First you have to change what people expect of and even demand of government so that you can get spending down to a level which allows you to change or eliminate taxes and that is a massive undertaking.

I find if you replace the word "government" with "you, your family, your kids, the yet unborn, your neighbors you know and don't know" in your statement above, that eases the acceptance of the idea.

[nickcoons]

You folks are starting to sound suspiciously like agorists (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=153542). :eek: :D

Starting to? You must not have been following our posts for very long :)

[gilliganscorner]

Starting to? You must not have been following our posts for very long :)

Well, when RP was active in his campaign, a large number of supporters didn't even consider agorism as they sought to limit the State by asking the State to help with the implementation. Any government - a monopoly on violence - will succumb to corruption. It is in its nature. It is unavoidable and will always pick away at any document - a Constitution for example - that is supposed to limit or curtail its power.

Good to see folks on board or in the process of getting on board. If I sound preachy, I really don't mean to be.

[nickcoons]

Fire departments are one of the few lines on the budget that is rarely underfunded. People love firefighters; they're heroes and they save lives. Don't mistake the desire to separate fire protection from government as a wish to see this service dwindle away. In fact, many municipalities currently utilize private fire departments, which provide better service, and save money while doing it.

When the city outsources their fire service to a company that must bid both in providing a competitive price as well as in fast response times, we end up with better results than a city-employed fire department as has been proven in many cities across the country. But I propose one step further, and that would be to completely separate fire services from government. The first thought that may come to mind is how this might logistically work, arriving quickly at the conclusion that it won't. Imagine your home on fire, you frantically pull out the phone book and search through to find which fire company has the prettiest ad. You call them on the phone and discuss rates, arriving at an agreement. The firefighters show up at your house, wait for you to sign on the dotted line, and proceed to put out the fire, presenting you with a bill at the completion of service. All this nasty paperwork and negotiation while your house is being burnt down; what a mess!

Luckily, this is not how it would work. Any company that tried to employ such tactics would find themselves without customers and quickly go out of business. Virtually every homeowner pays a mortgage (that is, very few people have their homes owned free and clear). Banks holding mortgages require that homeowners purchase insurance in order to give them a loan to purchase the home. Understandably, banks want to protect their investment.

The average insurance policy in Phoenix for a $200,000 house is about $600/year. Each insurance policy can include fire coverage such that if a call is placed to 911 in order to put out a fire, the call is directed as it normally would be, and the bill for services is paid for by the insurance company as part of the provided coverage. As banks currently require that homeowners with mortgages carry insurance, they would likely require them to carry fire coverage as well. The estimated cost for this coverage is about $10/year, keeping in mind that you'll save more than that in taxes as you're no longer paying to fund a city-run fire department.

But what about those that have their homes paid off and aren't required to have insurance? Most of them still have insurance as well, as the cost of insurance is far less than paying for the loss of their home in the event of a disaster. Anyone opting to not pay $10/year for their fire coverage would have to pay for the fire company's services out of pocket.

[rational thinker]

Luckily, this is not how it would work. Any company that tried to employ such tactics would find themselves without customers and quickly go out of business.


Isn't this kind of assuming the average Joe knows what's best for him?

A lot of my friends who disagree with me strongly always are skeptics when it comes to businesses going out of business because of the consumer choices. But they sort of liken their argument to why us libertarians oppose a true democracy and support a republic. We sort of know that if left to the general population, their intelligence would certainly not be fit to make laws for the land.

Doesn't the same concept apply to the market?

[constituent]

But they sort of liken their argument to why us libertarians oppose a true democracy and support a republic. We sort of know that if left to the general population, their intelligence would certainly not be fit to make laws for the land.

Doesn't the same concept apply to the market?

the market does not create laws, nor is "the market" a concrete entity like government. in "the market" you are your own representative, the importance of this fact cannot be overstated.

also, i've never met "average joe," have you?

[always enjoy the posts nickcoons, you're an asset to the forum community]

[Xenophage]

Nice piece Nick, but I still maintain that to the extent that government imposes itself on individuals in order to function, it is inherently destructive and should be abolished. (this effectively negates any need for government/the State as we know it, IMHO) ;):D

TO the extent that it does so, you are correct.

[Xenophage]

Thanks for posting this, Nick. :D A lot of people on RPF don't seem to understand free market justice systems. :(

Because its a contradiction. Justice systems ENABLE free markets to EXIST. You cannot put the cart before the horse. The goal: free markets. The means: a justice system that is rigid in its protection of individual rights.

You can't compete with the police. Its a nonsensical notion.

That's not to say there aren't certain types of dispute resolution that could be performed voluntarily by organizations and private courts to great effect. But when it comes to punishing and pursuing murderers? You need government. There has to be an objective standard within the society and a final arbiter of law. This is not about CONTROLLING people, its the opposite: its about living in a society where you are FREE from the coercion of your neighbors, and everyone else is free from you, because there is an *objective* third party that will provide retaliatory force against aggressors. Its important the third party be interested solely in one thing: ensuring the continuation of a free society through the use of retaliatory force. Not profit margins.

Taxes? No. There are just as many creative ways of funding a minarchist government that have been proposed as there are creative ways to provide dispute resolution in an anarchy.

[nickcoons]

Isn't this kind of assuming the average Joe knows what's best for him?

A lot of my friends who disagree with me strongly always are skeptics when it comes to businesses going out of business because of the consumer choices. But they sort of liken their argument to why us libertarians oppose a true democracy and support a republic. We sort of know that if left to the general population, their intelligence would certainly not be fit to make laws for the land.

Doesn't the same concept apply to the market?

There is a very important distinction. A democracy allows the voters to place the consequences of their actions on to others (generally the minority). A free society implicitly requires that individuals accept the consequences of their own actions. People don't have to inherently know what's best for them. When they need to accept their own consequences, they'll learn quickly enough.

It's not a matter of their intelligence being inadequate to make laws, but rather their laziness being too abundant to be trusted with making laws, to be dictated terms of other people's lives.

[nickcoons]

Because its a contradiction. Justice systems ENABLE free markets to EXIST.

The pursuit of one's self interest enables free markets to exist.


You can't compete with the police. Its a nonsensical notion.

Why?


That's not to say there aren't certain types of dispute resolution that could be performed voluntarily by organizations and private courts to great effect. But when it comes to punishing and pursuing murderers? You need government. There has to be an objective standard within the society and a final arbiter of law.

There must be a standard, and it should be objective. The standard is the general consent of the public. Even ruthless monarchs and dictators rule with the general consent of the public. Afterall, a dictator is only one person, and if he didn't have support he could be taken down by the public at any time.

If you want to achieve a standard of freedom, then it must be done by convincing the general public of the benefits and moral highground of such a position. The practical implementation, whether handled by minarchist government funded without taxes or competing private police forces is mostly irrelevant.


This is not about CONTROLLING people, its the opposite: its about living in a society where you are FREE from the coercion of your neighbors, and everyone else is free from you, because there is an *objective* third party that will provide retaliatory force against aggressors. Its important the third party be interested solely in one thing: ensuring the continuation of a free society through the use of retaliatory force. Not profit margins.

Everyone is motivated by their own self-interest. You'll find that it's far easier to motivate people with profit margins then a lasting feeling of warm fuzzies about maintaining a free society.

Profit margins are not evil.. in fact, money is the root of all good. I would recommend the following read:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826


Taxes? No. There are just as many creative ways of funding a minarchist government that have been proposed as there are creative ways to provide dispute resolution in an anarchy.

Fine with me. Just so long as government is no granted the authority to legally initiate force, I'm not too concerned with the practical implementation because the market will sending the strong soaring to the top. I'm merely proposing possibilities (with my series of articles) for those who argue that we libertarians must be able to define the details of a free society before they're willing to accept that it's possible.

[rational thinker]

There is a very important distinction. A democracy allows the voters to place the consequences of their actions on to others (generally the minority). A free society implicitly requires that individuals accept the consequences of their own actions. People don't have to inherently know what's best for them. When they need to accept their own consequences, they'll learn quickly enough.

It's not a matter of their intelligence being inadequate to make laws, but rather their laziness being too abundant to be trusted with making laws, to be dictated terms of other people's lives.

Right, but what I'm saying is that let's say that you live in an area that doesn't offer public firefighting service. So, naturally, you rely on private firefighters. What if the choices you want to make from the firefighting companies all suck because most consumers that live in your neighborhood use their services even though they're not really getting their money's worth?

I don't know... I guess it's harder for me to articulate what exactly I'm trying to say. Basically some companies which are terrible would probably still prosper because the average American would be too lazy to find a better one. I guess you could say it's their fault. Fine. But doesn't that affect me if I, say, move into that neighborhood? Their lazy choices have only left companies that are not really that great. And I have no other choices.

[gilliganscorner]

I don't know... I guess it's harder for me to articulate what exactly I'm trying to say. Basically some companies which are terrible would probably still prosper because the average American would be too lazy to find a better one. I guess you could say it's their fault. Fine. But doesn't that affect me if I, say, move into that neighborhood? Their lazy choices have only left companies that are not really that great. And I have no other choices.

You have described government perfectly.




I don't know... I guess it's harder for me to articulate what exactly I'm trying to say. Basically some governments which are terrible would probably still prosper because the average American would be too lazy to find a better one. I guess you could say it's their fault. Fine. But doesn't that affect me if I, say, move into that neighborhood? Their lazy choices have only left governments that are not really that great. And I have no other choices.

Have a look at this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html). If some think private police cannot replace a government monopoly on violence, same author, different scenario (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html).

Let me know what you think.

[nickcoons]

And I have no other choices.

Given that there are potentially competing fire companies, each geographical area has the potential to provide better services because of competition. However, let's say that that did not happen, as you described. How is that worse than what we have now?

[nickcoons]

As the world's largest polluter, it's interesting that government is seen as the only way to protect the environment. By what reasoning can we think that government, who by sovereign immunity is not subject to even its own laws, is going to hold a clean, safe, and healthy environment as some sort of objective standard?

The system that exists now is one of arbitrary regulations created by bureaucracies such as the EPA. Such a regulation might say that an organization must stay under a specific threshold of pollution or be subject to fines. In other words, certain levels of pollution are acceptable without the polluter paying any restitution to the owners of the property being damaged.

The answer to this is very simple -- We must uphold property rights. You cannot dump garbage on to your neighbor's property. If you do, you are responsible for the costs of cleaning it up, plus any costs (such as court fees) your neighbor incurs by enforcing his rights. While most forms of pollution are more complex than this, the same basic rules apply. If a company dumps waste into a river, they are responsible for the costs involved in clean up, including consequential damage such as seepage into nearby land. Under our current system, a company acting in this manner is not held responsible so long as they act in accordance with EPA regulations. And courts will uphold the polluters actions, negating rights to your property. But in a society where property rights were held to higher standards, companies would dispose of waste in a more responsible manner, not because they feel some sense of social justice -- we need not rely on the good intentions of others -- but because they'll find that it's far cheaper than dumping waste where it doesn't belong, and subsequently having to pay the costs of clean up.

But the most common problems are air pollution, whether by vehicle exhaust or industrial factories, or any number of other sources. And this implies far more complexity because it's difficult to ascertain exactly who's exhaust you're breathing, or who's soot is layering up on your property. Some "green" activists have proposed a tax system, such that certain polluting activities would require the payment of a tax as a method of internalizing costs and encouraging people to engage in environmentally cleaner activities. On the surface, this seems as though it would be a fairly ideal solution. There are two primary problems with this solution:

1) The amount charged to anyone engaging in polluting activities is arbitrary and determined by political interests instead of true market values.
2) The amount charged is given to the government instead of to those that are damaged and are the rightful recipients of such restitution.

If someone pollutes the air, they are likely causing a minute amount of damage to the property in their vicinity. Regardless of the amount of damage, this opens the polluter up to a class action lawsuit among property owners in the area. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants would much enjoy such frequent lawsuits. Plaintiffs, because their reward would be almost insignificant compared to how frequently they'd be suing; and defendants, because everyone driving a gasoline vehicle is a target. An entrepreneurial-minded individual would likely come along and create a sort clearing house where polluters can pay into a pool to be distributed out among property owners in their vicinity. Paying into the pool an amount to cover the cost of cleaning up one's pollution indemnifies them from a lawsuit, because a requirement of receiving regular and periodic restitution (perhaps as a monthly or annual check) from the pool as a property owner would be that you're not allowed to sue someone paying in. This way, those causing pollution pay into the pool voluntarily as a means of avoiding the hassles of lawsuits, yet the costs they pay may encourage them to engage in cleaner and less costly activities; and those damaged by pollution receive restitution, again without the hassles of filing lawsuits.

As the rules exist today, a market-based voluntary system described above would be impossible in the face of EPA regulations. The EPA, whose supposed existence is intended to protect the environment, prevents those damaged by pollution from collecting from those causing the damage, and it indemnifies polluters so long as they stay within the arbitrary regulations. The system described above is but one way the market could handle the problem of pollution better than government.

[nickcoons]

Switzerland is known around the world as the militarily neutral country. It's been nearly 200 years since their last war. Unfortunately, the United States and many other countries have been involved in numerous wars and military conflicts over that same period of time.

During WWII, the Swiss, wanting to remain outside the path of destruction, invited high-ranking German officers to examine their military infrastructure. Amazed at the defensive capabilities of the Swiss, Hitler decided that he would go around Switzerland instead of through it, calling it "the little porcupine."

What's their secret? How was Switzerland able to avoid an invasion by Germany during Hitler's quest to take over Europe, and remain at peace for the last 200 years? Most countries have a centralized military, maintained and operated by their federal government. The United States is no different in that regard. But we are different in one aspect. We spend more on our military than any other country in the world, but this has not kept us safe. Indeed, since WWII, the US has been the aggressor on multiple occasions, costing Americans in both lives and money.

Switzerland's military is mostly decentralized. Decentralized so much that it is made up primarily of every adult male citizen ages 20 to 34 in the country (women may serve by choice). There are aspects of the Swiss military that I believe are unnecessary (such as its compulsory nature), but the foundation is solid. Each household has military-grade weaponry, and is capable of being mobilized when needed. The very basic and important concept is the idea of a citizen military, and has many consequences.

First, if a foreign invader wanted to take over the entire country, it's no longer a matter of conquering the centralized military (which makes up only a small fraction of the population of a country), but would instead require subduing every household in the nation, a prospect Hitler wisely decided to avoid.

Second, any rational person will defend their own life and the lives of their friends and family, when there is a legitimate threat to their safety! Imagine a foreign invader deploying soldiers on your local street. You and your neighbors, carrying the appropriate armament in your own homes, would have no qualms defending your neighborhood. In fact, the very likelihood of this happening would cause a foreign invader to think twice.

And lastly, a legitimate military is intended for defensive purposes only. The United States has soldiers deployed in over two-thirds of all countries world wide, and this is not for the defense of Americans. These actions are extremely expensive, and can only occur when government has the legal ability to extract property from the general population (i.e. taxes) to fund these acts. A military consisting of the general population, who have no motives other than the defense of themselves and their loved ones, would not engage in offensive actions overseas. It is, in fact, these offensive actions over the last century that have motivated terrorist attacks against the United States, something the Swiss are not bothered with.

A voluntary citizen military would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year and make us far safer than we are now.