The federal government is in many ways ineffective. Federal laws shouldn't be about drugs, healthcare, or anything of that matter really. Federal government needs to be involved in protecting the country as a whole from foreign countries. I feel like government in general should be about what people in a certain area feel about something. Local government is really what is more important, and should have more power. What I mean by this is, if people in certain cities don't want to allow something, then its their business and simply don't live there if you disagree. With local government it is possible to have much less bureaucracy, people in that area will feel passionate about where they live and don't have to worry about laws that are being passed all the way in DC. Also, with local government being more powerful, everyone will have a variety of places to choose where to live. Don't like alcohol? Don't move here. Don't like going to church? Don't move here. I honestly don't know if this makes any sense to anybody else. Maybe my examples were just terrible. I just feel like people shouldn't really care ( to a certain extent ) what goes on in other states, or even other towns if the people just had more power. I didn't know where to post this, but i went with politics since i was talking about local government.
The smaller the government, the better. The more decentralized the government, the better. If these statements are true and one is logically consistent, the best possible scenario is no government at all, or better said, sovereignty residing in each individual.
I've always wondered this about anarchists/libertarians. You are in favor of decentralized government (as am I). That means that government could be very different from one location to another. Does that mean that large government (large in the sense of its influence on the lives of those living under it) could be acceptable in some cases? For instance if one town has a population that leans heavily towards communism/socialism and the town next to it leans heavily towards anarchism/libertarianism, would it be acceptable if one town has a communist/socialist government and the other has little to no government?
In an anarcho-capitalist society people would be free to do anything they wished, as long as all people involved are doing it voluntarily and no force was involved. I don't think there would ever be enough dedicated socialists to actually create an entire city, but it would be allowed if people wanted to do it.
Then they better offer enough money to the 1% remaining to move out of the town. If not they would have to work around the 1%'s private property, they would have no legal ability to force that 1% to go along with anything.
I see. I personally think the anarchist/libertarian approach sounds reasonable and ideal but in today's society it would cause many problems. I think to implement such a system it would require a very long transitional period in which people's attitudes towards their own lives and those of others change dramatically.
Agreed. It's not utopian, but it does require a mass change in thinking. That change is likely impossible over a short period of time, it would probably take many generations to produce a population so committed to liberty that anarchy became realistic. People now scream in horror at reduced rates of government growth, so we're not even close yet.
Yeah, but it is pretty easy to underestimate the time it takes for changes to take place. If you look at 100 years ago, things have changed in magnitudes and ways that people back then could never have imagined. Also, these changes seem to happen exponentially. A lot can happen within our lifetimes. Still probably not enough for complete anarchism to be feasable on a large scale though.