Introduce a voluntary bill that will phase out payment

[Schifference]

Maybe the way to take back government is for legislature to institute a law that would phase out all salaries and benefits for elected officials over time. Make it a long time like 50 years or whatever. Then the only people in government would be there because they wanted to be there. Government projects would require funding by people that support particular idea's.

[pcosmar]

http://sxswxplorer.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/calvinhobbes1.jpg

http://createavity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ho-ho-ha-ha-ha-spiral-orange2.jpg

[Mini-Me]

This sounds good on the surface, but there are two problems:
Politicians don't really get that rich from their salaries. They do well, but when you look at the net worth of the average Senator for instance, you'll see it's wayyyyyy beyond their salary income. They get rich from everything else connected with the job, including insider trading and revolving door policies with major corporations (which are impossible to end without banning future employment of anyone who ever held public office). Cutting off their salaries would probably just make it even more certain that they're going to rely on using their office to rack up favors from someone who will reward them handsomely in the future.
It assumes our preexisting ability to pass any laws at all. ;) This is extremely difficult for us, which means we need to carefully prioritize.

[Cabal]

Setting aside the many retorts that could be made against this idea, the main problem is that this misses the point. So long as the centralized monopoly on the legal use of force remains, the State remains; and so long as the State remains, we remain it's tax livestock and cannon fodder.

[Mini-Me]

Setting the many retorts that could be made against this idea, the main problem is that this misses the point. So long as the centralized monopoly on the legal use of force remains, the State remains; and so long as the State remains, we remain it's tax livestock and cannon fodder.

To be fair though, we're not going to replace the leviathan government with voluntaryism overnight. The masses would never accept it, because we're too far away for them to even comprehend how it would work. Heck, even a lot of people sympathetic to voluntaryism can't visualize it enough to defend it (see a recent thread by FreedomFanatic). There are only a few scenarios available to us:
Plan A: We succeed in scaling down the US government to the point where it becomes a minarchy, and we create more explicit rigidly and viciously enforced checks and balances that will eviscerate any politician or government official who tries to increase its power in the slightest, so that incremental transgressions will be reversed before they can accumulate, and politicians fear to even attempt them lest they face life in prison without parole (or permanent bans from any form of public employment for less obvious offenses, depending on the jury's confidence of willful infringement).* Then, as this supposedly "radical libertarianism" becomes normalized and people realize the sky isn't falling, we gradually increase the pressure to decentralize the remaining government more and more and break off piece by piece to be handled in a voluntaryist manner, until it's finally dissolved altogether.
Plan B: The US government collapses, and we pursue Plan A with the remaining state governments.
The US government collapses, and the masses demand a new union too much for us to stop them, so we insert ourselves as deeply into the process as possible to pursue plan A.
The US government and state governments collapse, and the masses demand new states governments too much for us to stop them, so we insert ourselves as deeply into the process as possible to pursue plan B.
The US government collapses, and maybe the state governments too, and the masses demand a new union or new states too much for us to stop them, but we insist on voluntaryism or nothing...and so we're ignored and excluded from the process, and we get another leviathan government that WILL use violence against us no matter how much we want to "ignore it." This time though, we won't even be able to point to a written Constitution with strict limits as a cultural norm and rallying point. Instead, it will be pure utilitarianism equivocation like every other Constitution in the world. There's a reason we're fighting for liberty here in the US and not over in Europe...it's because the US is the only place on Earth with a mainstream culture even within throwing distance of understanding it. Without every cultural weapon and shield on our side as we can get, we are up a creek without a paddle.
Plan A/B is very unlikely to happen on its own, but it's our best shot in the wake of a collapse. Voluntaryism is hopefully the future of mankind, but it simply cannot be achieved by radical upheaval in the middle of a culture that doesn't understand it. If it's going to be achieved, it's going to have to be achieved as the next stop on the road after a stable minarchy that people have grown comfortable with and culturally accustomed to. The gap between here and there is just too far to bridge in one step without it turning into something horribly different from what we intend, like the feudal system that detractors insist would happen. There is no scenario in which the Boobus Americanus of today with all his preconceived statist notions will accept voluntaryism in our expected non-medically-extended lifetimes, at least not without getting it VERY, VERY topsy-turvy due to people not comprehending it enough to defend the balance of the system.

*To elaborate:
Politicians and other "public servants" should have to expose themselves to unusual vulnerability and prejudice by accepting the positions rather than privileges and immunities. The most important thing is preventing arbitrary legislation/regulation and control of currency, but this would have to be backed by enforcement mechanisms with a lot of failsafes. For instance, start with 90% supermajority requirements on laws, 20% minority requirements on appeals and impeachments, the option for voter-initiated repeals, impeachments, grand juries and prosecutions, etc., and provision after provision concerned with making it trivial for small minorities to clean house entirely. There would also have to be a codified part of the Constitution explicitly affirming that government officials formally accused by even small minorities of violating Constitutional limits must be prosecuted and given a jury trial within a given period, or they along with e.g. the Attorney General will become outlaws that can be killed with impunity, Wild West style (being outside the protection of the law and all)...something that juries must be regularly reminded of, along with jury nullification powers, etc.

I could go on, but...that's a start. In short, keeping government limited requires easy rollback of expansions and severe punishment against those who dare attempt them. The point is, checks and balances can be devised which would actually work long enough to wait until generations of people educated under statism simply grow old and die, and the culture changes enough to become more fertile ground for voluntaryism.

People who make moral arguments against all government are correct, but they often make the mistake of also believing that because the US Constitution failed, and because the government's natural inclination is to grow and break its tethers, that limited government is impossible to practically achieve, and gradual paths to voluntaryism must therefore also be literally impossible. However, the real reason the Constitution didn't work is because it was unbelievably weak and had absolutely no teeth or means of enforcement, let alone the multiple explicitly codified backup plans and alternative enforcement mechanisms necessary. It was only the first real experiment in limited government, and it was so full of holes that it was bound to fail. Even a carefully crafted battery of checks and balances could eventually start to slip away if the people willing and able to protect it are fewer than the proportion it requires...but for the purpose of gradually achieving voluntaryism, that's not relevant. What's relevant is being able to achieve a stable enough minarchy that grows slowly enough that several generations of people become accustomed to it without viewing everything through the lens of extreme statism, so they will then finally be within a stone's throw of understanding how voluntaryism would work too.

[Acala]

As long as the legislature has the power to take things of value from one person and give it to another, members of that legislature will be able to sell their exercise of that power for big bucks. The campaigns for most Federal House and Senate positions cost more than the salary for the position. That is an indicator that something is at stake other than salary.

On the other hand, you WOULD get rid of most of the underlings. But, for example, do you only want cops who are cops because they really like being cops? Gives me shivers just thinking about it.

[Cabal]

To be fair though, we're not going to replace the leviathan government with voluntaryism overnight.

Correct, it can't and won't be overnight. In order to make statism a thing of the past, the culture must reject it. Rejection of statism will thus, IMO, be a generational endeavor. Not by way of collapse, not by way of shrinking, but by way of rejection.

States do not shrink in any substantial, sustained, or meaningful way. This is in part due to how smaller government is the perfect habitat for the growth of the State; and in part because war is the health of the State, and war leads to the ratchet effect. Moreover, minarchy doesn't strike the root, it reinforces faith in statism and inconsistent logic. If your goal is the rejection of statism (and for many minarchists, this is not their goal, I might add), how is participating in and legitimizing statism not a contradiction of this goal?

It is often claimed that statelessness is a utopian pipedream. I submit that it is arbitrarily defined ideas of minarchy that are the utopian pipedream. These are just the more concise, finer points, but I've discussed this topic at greater length in previous threads--one of my blogs also concerns this topic.

[pcosmar]

But, for example, do you only want cops who are cops because they really like being cops? Gives me shivers just thinking about it.

NO,, I would like NO Cops. An elected Sheriff..and the people enforcing the laws. Bad laws simply would not be enforced.


But my reason for laughing is because the people that would have to make this happen simply wouldn't.
Despite Budget deficits, they still vote themselves raises. They are not going to vote for a pay cut,, especially a substantial cut.

not gonna happen.

[Mini-Me]

Correct, it can't and won't be overnight. In order to make statism a thing of the past, the culture must reject it. Rejection of statism will thus, IMO, be a generational endeavor. Not by way of collapse, not by way of shrinking, but by way of rejection.
Rejection doesn't happen in a vacuum though: Why do you think libertarians are more prevalent in the US than other countries? It's because our system of government, and more importantly its founding documents, provide a better backdrop for cultural reinforcement. On a mental level, baby steps are important, and you were already "primed." You were also easy to convert, because you're actually intelligent enough to think critically...but thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, intelligent people often overestimate the average person's ability, and it's important to remember that a critical mass of people will never arrive at libertarianism in the contemplative manner you did.

Changing existing practice in order to influence culture is especially important when it comes to Boobus, who cannot reason about abstract concepts, only what he concretely experiences and maybe slightly beyond it. Don't make the mistake the Communists did by thinking we can change the underlying nature of humanity or distribution of intelligence or curiosity. The bell curve is not going away anytime soon, and barring technologically or biologically engineered improvements, most people will always be incredibly shallow thinkers...forever.

Morever, the number of people with the personality to ever give a rat's ass about moral absolutes of any kind for their own sake will always be even smaller than the number of people who can think critically. Most people have flexible utilitarian morals that are easily overridden or distorted by emotion and opportunism, and it's been this way since the "dawn of man." You can get people to think more deontologically, and you can expand the horizons of morally-inclined people who just weren't ready before, but you will never transform the average person into someone who cares more about an abstract moral principle than "what works." To be totally frank, being "principled" in even the slightest degree is a personality trait that will always be rare; at best we'll only be able to get Boobus to superficially mimic it. Arguing on absolute moral grounds only gets you so far before you get to the point of diminishing returns.

We have three options: Live in denial of the human condition, live in despair of it, or work around it. The vast majority of people will always form their views based on social cues and memorize rationalizations later, and existing practice and feeling "strong" by personally identifying with a "winning team" is a huge social cue. It's how the neocons got their chest-thumping followers. We can either take steps to use that in our favor, or we can keep allowing it to be used against us.

In other words: If we want to move enough people toward total rejection, we have to restrain the government in practice first.


States do not shrink in any substantial, sustained, or meaningful way. This is in part due to how smaller government is the perfect habitat for the growth of the State; and in part because war is the health of the State, and war leads to the ratchet effect. Moreover, minarchy doesn't strike the root, it reinforces faith in statism and inconsistent logic. If your goal is the rejection of statism (and for many minarchists, this is not their goal, I might add), how is participating in and legitimizing statism not a contradiction of this goal?

It is often claimed that statelessness is a utopian pipedream. I submit that it is arbitrarily defined ideas of minarchy that are the utopian pipedream. These are just the more concise, finer points, but I've discussed this topic at greater length in previous threads--one of my blogs also concerns this topic.

I don't think either are utopian pipe dreams. It's a false dichotomy. I think that most anarchists are just too morally prejudiced against the state (for very good reason) and its inherently voracious nature to objectively separate morality from practicality and objectively consider what potential checks and balances could actually work. (When you reject any possibility of minarchism for moral reasons, a natural consequence is you don't end up spending much time thinking about checks and balances. ;)) Surely the checks and balances I listed in my earlier post are less nebulous than the more abstract and distant competitive checks and balances of an an-cap system. If you can readily accept the practical viability of the latter and imagine resilient reasons why competition and cultural enforcement would be strong enough to prevent feudalism and a new state, only bias would cause you to reject the former (or a revised version thereof), because they're more grounded in what we know and leave less room for "unknown unknowns" (as Rumsfeld would call them ;)).

Anyway, hardcore voluntaryists view the NAP as an absolute that must never ever under any circumstances be violated. Minarchists view it as a value and an asymptotic moral goal to strive toward in the process of maximizing individual liberty in practice, and they're willing to condone coercion only in the name of otherwise enforcing it. It doesn't sound logically consistent from a deontological moral perspective, but it's perfectly logically consistent for someone who wants to maximize individual liberty in practice and fears that taking the NAP the whole way will lead to it becoming impossible to enforce and utterly irrelevant. It's not insane and unworkable, like arbitrary utilitarian statism or half-assed Swiss cheese limited government (the Constitution), and I maintain it's possible to craft working checks and balances.

Minarchists currently stop at minarchy, because it's the furthest horizon their imaginations can see with any clarity, but understand that they do value the NAP, and the closer we get, the more will decide the NAP can be taken the whole way without everything reverting to feudalism and a leviathan state. Minarchist views do marginally reinforce the supposed legitimacy of the state, but only in a limited context. Anarchists as a whole grossly overestimate the danger of this, because it matters only to people already close enough to consider the merits of voluntaryism vs. minarchism...i.e. it only matters in our own little echo chamber. Meanwhile, Boobus is twenty thousand leagues under the sea, and he will never even consider entirely rejecting the state on principle until it's right in front of his face. That will only happen if he's already accidentally made it most of the way by being raised in a culture that values individual liberty as a rule.

Look at it this way: By your own arguments, you implicitly understand yourself that once you make it to minarchist viewpoints and thinking about the NAP, it's not too long before you start to wonder, "Wait, is it logically consistent to value the NAP without rejecting the state entirely?" EVERY minarchist of our generation asks themselves that question. Most just reject it, because we're too far away for them to understand the practicality in a deep way, let alone defend it. Once we're closer, that will change.

[Cabal]

That's quite a bit to digest and respond to, so I'll keep my response rather general for the moment, rather than rehash things point by point. You make some good points, and I can certainly empathize with the perspective you're offering up here, especially since I used to be of a similar mind. I understand that the apparent available options are seemingly quite limited, and that some iteration of minarchy is preferable (at least in the short term) to a larger, more expansive State. But I still can't get over what history has rather consistently demonstrated when it comes to statism. It's difficult to determine all of the factors that play into a culture's disposition to this size or type of statism, or the next. And it's even more difficult to predict how a new factor (such as the internet, to name one of the more relatively new and significant ones) will affect a given culture when it comes to ideology. I, personally, also have issues with participating in statism (e.g. the political process) where I have the choice not to. Extending from this, I have no reason to trust politicians--no sooner would I trust some random guy on the street who I've never exchanged a word with; and I certainly wouldn't trust such a person to wield the power of the State. I supported RP even if he wasn't perfect, but RP was the exception, not the rule.

Many people over the decades--centuries even--have tried to reduce the size and scope of the State (here and abroad) to no avail. Despite their efforts, it has consistently grown with no evidence to suggest it will ever cease to grow. The State is such that it is always growing, so in order to reduce the State's size and scope, you have to first stagnate the rate of growth, and this hasn't even been achieved yet. To even begin to stagnate the rate of growth, you'd have to effectively maintain consistent, multi-term control of both the WH and Congress; this hasn't ever happened as far as I know. There's too many interests and too much opportunity for corruption, and as you've pointed out, not enough people inclined to see the State, and statism, for the ethically bankrupt monstrosity it is. Politicians are legislators--their sole purpose is to write laws, and thus empower the State to wield more force. So the idea that politicians will be our way out just does not follow for me. Frankly, I'd expect some sort of catastrophic economic collapse to take place before any sort of political form shows consistent traction. But then, I'm rather jaded.

[Zippyjuan]

They already spend millions to get a job which pays a couple hundred thousand a year ($174k for Senators) - some with their own money. Salary is NOT the big reason most are politians.

(ignoring that they would have to approve eliminating their own salaries).

[Mini-Me]

That's quite a bit to digest and respond to, so I'll keep my response rather general for the moment, rather than rehash things point by point. You make some good points, and I can certainly empathize with the perspective you're offering up here, especially since I used to be of a similar mind. I understand that the apparent available options are seemingly quite limited, and that some iteration of minarchy is preferable (at least in the short term) to a larger, more expansive State. But I still can't get over what history has rather consistently demonstrated when it comes to statism. It's difficult to determine all of the factors that play into a culture's disposition to this size or type of statism, or the next. And it's even more difficult to predict how a new factor (such as the internet, to name one of the more relatively new and significant ones) will affect a given culture when it comes to ideology. I, personally, also have issues with participating in statism (e.g. the political process) where I have the choice not to. Extending from this, I have no reason to trust politicians--no sooner would I trust some random guy on the street who I've never exchanged a word with; and I certainly wouldn't trust such a person to wield the power of the State. I supported RP even if he wasn't perfect, but RP was the exception, not the rule.

Many people over the decades--centuries even--have tried to reduce the size and scope of the State (here and abroad) to no avail. Despite their efforts, it has consistently grown with no evidence to suggest it will ever cease to grow. The State is such that it is always growing, so in order to reduce the State's size and scope, you have to first stagnate the rate of growth, and this hasn't even been achieved yet. To even begin to stagnate the rate of growth, you'd have to effectively maintain consistent, multi-term control of both the WH and Congress; this hasn't ever happened as far as I know. There's too many interests and too much opportunity for corruption, and as you've pointed out, not enough people inclined to see the State, and statism, for the ethically bankrupt monstrosity it is. Politicians are legislators--their sole purpose is to write laws, and thus empower the State to wield more force. So the idea that politicians will be our way out just does not follow for me. Frankly, I'd expect some sort of catastrophic economic collapse to take place before any sort of political form shows consistent traction. But then, I'm rather jaded.

As far as culture goes, the Internet is definitely a wildcard, and I hope it gives us an edge, but on the whole I just can't imagine it changing the advantage that deeply entrenched tradition and propaganda have over reason and morality for shaping attitudes. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm definitely not banking on it. ;)

Statism definitely has a sordid history like you say, and every state ever created has consistently wound up the same way every time. That's a pretty damning indictment, but it's also very easy to conflate "failed experiments in arbitrary government" with "failed experiments in limited government." In truth almost all of our data points are superfluous to the question of whether limited government can work, because they started out as arbitrarily powerful utilitarian (to be charitable) states from the beginning in cultures that recognized no alternative. Limited government was only even seriously tried once with any degree of discipline (ancient Rome and Greece don't count), though I guess you could say twice if you count the Articles. In retrospect there are very specific vulnerabilities that were repeatedly exploited so the US government could gradually accumulate in size without anyone being able to stop it. For that matter the issue of slavery doomed it from the start all by itself, although the failure would have happened regardless. At the very latest the Constitution's failure should have become obvious the moment the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed and then repealed without John Adams and everyone else involved being hanged or imprisoned. When there are no consequences or accountability for obvious tyrants, that's just the kiss of death for a country, because it begs for repeats.

On your last point, your viewpoint about the trajectory of the current government isn't really any more jaded than mine: This current government is so out of control now that we're unlikely to stagnate it in time, so we're probably going to see a collapse. If we're lucky, we're left with the state governments, and if we're unlucky, there's going to be a new union or several. Whether it's possible to stagnate what follows really depends on how we play our cards, and in the case of a new government, on how much influence we have on its powers and limitations at its inception. Restraining the government really isn't possible at all given the Swiss cheese checks and balances in the current Constitution, and the best bet at getting fundamentally stronger checks and eliminating arbitrary legislation would be starting with a clean slate and completely stacking the Constitutional conventions with the most ornery Patrick Henry types alive. ;)

Sadly, starting with a clean slate is also a great way to "spin the wheel of horror" (as idiom called it in another post), because we never know whether we'll end up with feudal chaos or some kind of Communist or Nazi dystopia right out of the gate. For that same reason I get frustrated when people fear corruption or despise politics too much to consider ever getting involved and sullying themselves (and for the record, I've almost never seen any particular individual within our sphere of influence become *less* libertarian over time, no matter their political involvement): An-caps are some of the smartest people in this movement, and if/when some Constitutional conventions come around, we desperately need the radicals as involved as possible not only as extra hands and articulate voices but also to make minarchists look moderate by comparison. If too many people abstain, we'll just be overwhelmed by the statists as usual. (I know that voluntaryists tend to consider anyone who condones a state at all to be a "statist," but here I'm using the term to refer to people who believe in the absolute arbitrary authority of the state.)

[Cabal]

I agree with you about the constitution and its failure--this supposed 'failure of the people' idea that many constitutionalists like to tout is ridiculous to me. Unfortunately, many minarchists also happen to be die-hard constitutionalists, despite the likes of Spooner tearing that particular ideology inside out and drop kicking it to the moon so long ago. And perhaps this is at least a part of my disinterest and pessimism when it comes to notions of minarchism, on top of the other general objections I've brought up.

I also agree that any kind of backtracking or resetting or clean slate, as it were, is certainly something of a gamble, and this is yet another contributing factor to my aversion to minarchism. Let's say, for the sake of argument, we manage to get the small government ball rolling somehow. In all likelihood, given the state of things as they are, no matter what, many people are going to feel the hurt from the small-govt-policies that result. Trying to correct such a mess as it is is bound to cause some pain and discomfort. Most of us here understand that this is just the way of things--as in ABCT, when the bubble bursts, market corrections are no more pleasurable. What's to say this doesn't hurt the idea of less government more than it helps, in the long term? What's to say people won't become more entrenched and sure of statism than ever before, because they won't be willing to endure through the pain to get to the light at the end of the tunnel? And for how long will the arguments become, "look, we tried it your way, and it totally failed"? And these are all quite probably scenarios in my mind.

Checks and balances are all fine and good, but to me the core issue is with monopolized power--so long as this remains the case, checks and balances will ultimately prove impotent, no matter how well constructed. Once you put the gun in the room, as the constitution did, justice is lost.

[oyarde]

They already spend millions to get a job which pays a couple hundred thousand a year ($174k for Senators) - some with their own money. Salary is NOT the big reason most are politians.

(ignoring that they would have to approve eliminating their own salaries). Yeah , but they would be slashing salaries for future people , we all know they never seem to mind this , LOL

[Mini-Me]

I agree with you about the constitution and its failure--this supposed 'failure of the people' idea that many constitutionalists like to tout is ridiculous to me. Unfortunately, many minarchists also happen to be die-hard constitutionalists, despite the likes of Spooner tearing that particular ideology inside out and drop kicking it to the moon so long ago. And perhaps this is at least a part of my disinterest and pessimism when it comes to notions of minarchism, on top of the other general objections I've brought up.

I also agree that any kind of backtracking or resetting or clean slate, as it were, is certainly something of a gamble, and this is yet another contributing factor to my aversion to minarchism. Let's say, for the sake of argument, we manage to get the small government ball rolling somehow. In all likelihood, given the state of things as they are, no matter what, many people are going to feel the hurt from the small-govt-policies that result. Trying to correct such a mess as it is is bound to cause some pain and discomfort. Most of us here understand that this is just the way of things--as in ABCT, when the bubble bursts, market corrections are no more pleasurable. What's to say this doesn't hurt the idea of less government more than it helps, in the long term? What's to say people won't become more entrenched and sure of statism than ever before, because they won't be willing to endure through the pain to get to the light at the end of the tunnel? And for how long will the arguments become, "look, we tried it your way, and it totally failed"? And these are all quite probably scenarios in my mind.
This kind of scenario is quite likely, especially if we succeed in reining in the existing government for a time. However, you're talking about a culture that reacts badly to minarchy because it isn't ready...so the same culture would react at least as bad to voluntaryism, if not worse. I suppose your real objection would be too much change too quickly to sustain, something I also fear. Our best realistic hope to minimize this particular risk is for decentralization to occur following a collapse so the nanny statists will focus on instituting new tyrannies in places that don't include "absolutely everywhere," but that relies on getting a good hand in the gamble too. Either way, I ultimately don't foresee ever getting a critical mass to permanently reject the state entirely without enough people first having concrete experience in voluntaryism's next-door neighbor, minarchy. Too few can think abstractly enough, and even fewer deeply care for the elegance/simplicity/purity/resilience of consistent moral principles or ever will.


Checks and balances are all fine and good, but to me the core issue is with monopolized power--so long as this remains the case, checks and balances will ultimately prove impotent, no matter how well constructed. Once you put the gun in the room, as the constitution did, justice is lost.

Even under voluntaryism there are still guns in the room though. They're just holstered, because everybody knows they aren't the only gun in town. Given strong enough checks and balances like above putting the "fear of God" into government officials, you'd end up with similar situations under minarchy and voluntaryism: Real power is decentralized enough that no potential tyrant dares to risk it after a while, seeing what happened to those who did. The two situations would be different in terms of minarchy's still-extant extortion, but not so much on the "malignant cancer growth" prognosis. Never forget that voluntaryism relies on checks and balances too. :p