At what point is government a voluntary association?Reader comment on: Solar Permits Submitted by ben (United States), Jan 20, 2011 12:48 Not everyone has a mortgage - so should those people not have to buy homeowner's insurance even if their action may damage someone else and they can't pay? So joining a community that privately regulates itself is ok, but having a local public entity do it is not? At some point we are really splitting hairs. My local government growing up was composed of neighbors deciding issues with other neighbors - not some far away bureaucrat. Essentially, our municipal government was a neighborhood association. Those on the right act like government is some sort of foreign being, when in fact it is citizens and neighbors making the decisions. If we don't like them, we vote the person out or move away. How is this any less effective than a neighborhood association? When we move into a neighborhood, we voluntarily consent to its rules - be they government rules or private rules. What's the difference? Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing. The Future of Capitalism replies: At the federal level, it's very hard to move out. There's an expatriation tax. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html I agree that government ideally is based on consent of the governed. But in reality the operations are remote and obscure to a lot of citizens — Albany, or Sacramento — and unless you have a lobbyist there looking out for you or keeping track of it full time it's hard to find out what is happening, let alone consent to it. Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item |
Follow Us On:
ADVERTISEMENT |
