All Episodes
Previous Next
April 30, 2019 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
11:26
#Gloucester Debates： A Libertarian Subscription Model of Government
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What's your name, Chap?
Ewan.
Ewan, that's me, Ewan.
How's it going?
Good stuff.
All good.
All good.
I don't know if you're going to disagree with me on this or not, but it's on the subject of libertarianism.
And I'm a libertarian, and I think you've described yourself as a classic English liberal.
So you believe that the system we have of representative democracy is that it basically works, but we're just going through a bad patch now.
Broadly speaking, I think it's the best we've come across.
The problem that we have at the moment is social rather than political.
I disagree with this premise.
I think the problem is I call it the corporation of government.
And I believe this is the most despicable draconian corporation that's ever existed.
Ten times worse than Amazon, Coca-Cola, Nycare, Monsanto put together.
And I think it uses the mainstream media as basically as a means of shaping its policies and telling the public what opinions they're allowed to have and what opinions they're not allowed to have.
And I see that at the base of this corporation, I think it's the fact that they use the tax system.
And so, you know, as libertarians, we say tax is theft.
And that's the this corporation of government, they steal a whole chunk of everyone's income once every month.
And they also, I think, every time you put in like a pound twenty, you know, for a litre of petrol, the government take about 90p from that money.
And so it's just a never-ending supply of money that they take in.
Just getting to the base of it then.
Yeah, I assume that what you want to do is abolish the state.
What I'd like to do, what I propose is a subscription libertarian system.
So you subscribe to your government of choice.
And I mean, as far as I'm concerned, the main thing they do is they create the laws of the land.
So all of the laws that apply to every person and every company within a particular country.
And that's their region.
It keeps me from subscribing to a government that says kill libertarians on site.
Well, you could, but I think a country that went down that path wouldn't be a country for very long.
Why?
Because basically it would, the whole system would collapse quite quickly.
And well, because your government would, if their policy was kill all of these people on site.
I think that would go take all their property and enrich yourself right I think that whole mindset would create a very violent state in a very quick space of time.
And from what I've seen going through history, such states, they don't do well in the long term.
I think only for the people outside of it.
Because what I'm basically describing is communism.
Yes.
But the Soviet Union lasted for what, 80 years, something like that?
So, you know.
I mean, it's not a vast amount of time compared to some states and some, you know, I suppose I call it probably aristocracies and empires that have.
Could you give me an example of a libertarian state that's lasted for longer?
I mean, I'd say initially before we had the rise of the first major complex human civilizations, that essentially was the libertarian period then.
Since that point in time, we've always had this promotion of this corporation called the government.
And I think people just buy into it too quickly and too easily.
And I think people give up a lot of the freedom that otherwise they could have.
How do you preserve your private property if there's no government enforcement?
Okay, so I mean, as I stated, if you subscribe to a certain government provider and they create the laws of the land, and in terms of enforcing those laws, you'd want a police force.
And so I'd suggest that you subscribe to your chosen police provider and they provide policing to the people.
So you'll end up with radically different government types that don't agree on certain fundamental principles.
Like, for example, there'll be a...
We have that now, just to say.
No, no, we have one government for the entire geographic area.
But we do have, you know, say, within the House of Commons, we have people with radically different visions.
Yeah, but they're not part of different governments.
These are ideas and competing factions within a single government that governs a certain area.
And so the laws of the land are the laws of the land.
Everyone has to follow them.
Yes.
But if you had, like, I don't know, some sort of subscription-based government, I mean, what's the compulsion to follow any of the law?
Okay, so I'm saying that basically, say, if 60% of the working population subscribed to one government and then, say, 20% to another, 20% to a third.
In that situation, the corporation who was given the remit, you know, who have 60% of the subscribers, they would be responsible for around 60% of the laws that the government implements.
And the other two companies, one would be responsible for around 20%, the other for 20%.
And the three companies between them, they would have to decide which areas they each specialize in.
And that would be based on how many subscribers they each have.
Yeah, but would these be sovereign?
Well, they would, I mean, basically, people would subscribe to whoever they want.
And if that company didn't do a good job, then they would go to someone else.
So, I mean, I'm saying their remit would be creating the laws of the land and it would be whichever company you want, whoever you think does the job best.
Yeah, but how is any of this enforced?
Because, I mean, like, the way we have it now is a representative democracy.
So we vote for representatives who are going to present a particular ideological position.
Yeah.
And then they're going to act within parliament against their opposition.
Sure, sure.
And eventually, they'll pass certain laws, but they'll apply universally.
The law has to be universal across the land, right?
But, I mean, it just sounds like you're saying I'll be able to opt into certain laws and opt out of others.
No, no, basically, I'm saying that it would be the, for instance, the government and also a lot of the other industries that we now see that are monopolised by government.
So police, healthcare.
And I'm saying there should be a compulsory subscription service to each of these industries that not quite the same because the only difference is with our current representative democracy system, you get one choice once every five years.
And in exchange for that, the government steal all of this money from you.
And also, because it's not enough.
I don't agree with that.
They also steal all of this central banking money as well.
You can't say that taxation is theft and then say, I want a compulsory subscription.
I think it's a different idea.
Because the idea is that, okay, so we do need a police service.
We do need an education system.
We do need a health service.
And I think an argument can be made that these services should be free at the point of use.
Because, say, let's take a police service.
What are they going to charge criminals when they catch them?
Because, you know, to me, I don't think this will work.
They charge the criminals to arrest them.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
Because, you know, they'll probably say, no, I'd rather not be arrested if that's the case.
So I think there is a need to actually have these industries.
But if you turn it into a compulsory subscription service, but the people have choice over which provider they choose, then I think in that situation, you actually bring all of these industries into the free market in an altruistic way.
I think that's wildly optimistic, but it doesn't sound very different to what we have.
I mean, if I don't want to be policed by the Gloucester Police Service, I can move somewhere else, can't I?
That is true, but I think it's more than just the area you live in.
I think it's about the service that you subscribe to, that you want.
I think it's about actually bringing all of these industries into the free market.
Because if we're able to do that, then we bring customer choice into the equation.
And we have a system where the customer is king.
And so all of the benefits that we get when we go to the shop, when we book a flight, when we use any free market company in the world today, all of the benefits we get as a result of customer choice, they will be brought into all of these industries that are at the moment run by the government.
And I just think we just get an absolutely terrible deal from the government.
I don't think you can fairly characterize the police as an industry.
They don't produce something.
They're a service.
And they're a service run by the government because the government is an accountable hegemonic organization.
For example, you've got, like, there's card factory.
I think that's a contradiction.
No, not at all.
There's card factory over there.
They have no obligation to me in what I think, right?
And the way that I deal with them is by not shopping at them, shopping with them if I think they're doing something wrong.
But then they have no influence over me.
I have no obligation to them.
But that's not true about the government.
The whole point of the government is to apply the laws of the land and protect your rights.
So we can't run that in the way you're suggesting because it's going to lead to all sorts of contradictions further down the line.
And frankly, I just don't think that's going to work, to be honest.
Right, right.
I think it will because I just believe it brings the customer into the equation.
And I don't think we're customers at the moment of any of these industries that the government runs.
You've got to stop characterizing them as industries.
I believe they are.
What do they produce?
Well, I believe they are given money and they provide a service to the public.
So on that basis, I think they are industries.
Well, no, no, they don't produce anything.
I mean, the police don't provide a service that you take anything from.
They're there specifically to enforce the law and protect your rights.
Yeah, I believe that's a service.
I don't agree.
But anyway.
Okay, fair enough.
Thank you very much.
▲
Export Selection