Who will hand out IDs?

Since it’s none of the state’s business who I am, or where I go to/have been to, the state has nothing to do with handing out proof-of-Identification. To be able to enter my own home, unless I built a lock into my door, that worked that way.
Basically, every lock does, but carrying a mechanical or electrical key is enough evidence of identity for the vast majority of people, or typing a code into a key pad is.
So why would I not be allowed anywhere near my own home without a piece of paper or plastic with my photo+name on it? And why are those passports designed so dumbly? Because the old design for a passport, did not have a rigid plastic card built into them, so they were too easy to forge.
So nowadays, the owner (assuming that’s the person who’s picture+name is on it, not the government) can not reliably travel to another country with a passport.
Because the brittle plastic card in it (used to display your photo, name, date of birth, etc.) has a tendency to break when you sit on it, or whatever, making it harder for you to leave or get home, and since that is supposed to be the purpose of a passport, that is something the government fails at again, and this time, it isn’t even one of their permissable roles; it’s just an annoyance/hindrance, that serves no real purpose.

“But if you let just anybody into the country,”

Then what? Would you get upset if you lived in, say, Amsterdam, and the house next to yours got bought & inhabited by someone from the city of Deventer? Different city, different province, even! But because its the same country you suddenly don’t mind. But if those people moved out of the city of Bottrop, Germany, suddenly it is an issue worth getting upset about. Germany is a country immediately next to the Netherlands, they actually share a border. How is moving out of Germany different from moving out of Overijssel (the province where the city of Deventer is located)? Of course, people get really upset if it’s people from, say, Arabia or Africa, those are even worse than Germany (or Belgium, France, the UK – they Brexited the EU, proof they don’t even want to be our friends anymore!)

“They would use all sorts of government (taxpayer funded) services.”

So? Just abolish government / remove those services from the claws of government, where they don’t belong, anyway.

“Well, people from Overijssel pay the same taxes as we do.”
So, shared #victimhood is your criterion for acceptance? So Stockholm of you, dude!
I would get upset, if they started paying taxes here: more loot for the evil institution, that is against my interests.

What is the only legitimate purpose of an ID? Proof of identity when signing a contract, you don’t need a government registration for that!

Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

An arising strand of philosophy

I’m disconcerted by/about the arising of a strand of philosophy that claims that lacking a (fictional) social contract, coercion of the population is acceptable.
Such activists clearly that neither the French in 1792, nor the Russians in the early 1990s, had a right to overthrow their oppresive, exploitative governments.
Such people clearly lack both perspective and a functioning moral compass. The solution/refutation is so simple: all governments are capable of, is:

  • Lying
  • Deceiving
  • Destroying
  • Killing
  • And to finance all that: Stealing.

(Fits nicely on the digits of one hand!)

The people are the only ones actually capable of producing.
So: are people better off with or without a government?
And what would be the implied order of priority Seems to me that people outrank government. So the only acceptable coercion is of politicians., by civillians. Since that’s never gonna happen, because politicians have to volunteer for the job and they only volunteer for jobs when they can have some fun in them, thesloution is staring us in the face, government is entirely unworkable/unacceptable/ even downright impossible.
So: time for an overthrowing (of academia & of government).

Het Aha-moment

#Asielzoekers hebben het Aha- (#Asielhomo-) moment ontdekt. Als het een niet werkt, dan het andere wel, zal de gedachte zijn. Dit is te voorkomen door te begrijpen dat asiel-opvang geen #overheidstaak is. Laat dat door individuën doen! Mocht het iemand te heet onder de voeten worden in eigen land, gaan ze lekker op #vakantie naar een ander land! Waar slaat het concept van #asiel eigenlijk op?
Als linkse #politici zo graag roepen dat #asielzoekers zo zielig zijn, laten ze hen dan zelf in eigen huis nemen. Op eigen kosten. Als ze niet meer #AZC’s (voor 1000 asielzoekers) kunnen opdringen aan keine gemeenten van 800 inwoners, maar zèlf de gevolgen van hun schoonpraterij moeten voelen, gaan ze wel anders piepen. O, stel je toch eens voor, als de overheid het goede voorbeeld zou gaan geven; wat zou de samenleving opknappen! Zo’n aha-moment zal vast niet in Den Haag plaatsvinden.
Dan maar dit: Als de overheid zich met minder zou bemoeien, ipv zo totalitair te zijn als nu, dan zouden minder mensen stijgeren over #instroom van asielzoekers, die gaan meeprofiteren van alle #duurbetaalde (#onbetaalbare) voorzieningen. De samenleving zou veel #humaner worden.

The roles of government, ep. 3: education

It would befuddle the time-traveller from the middle-ages to find that the modern state feels obliged to interfere with education. Surely, that is a matter for the parents and the children?
“But if the state would not manage education, how could it ensure that enough of certain classes of workers came about?”
Ah, good question. If only because it exposes a political fallacy: the country (the population thereof) only serves their own / eachother’s purposes. The abstract, fantastical entity called the country (identifiable on maps, by flags & army-uniforms, and Olympic team-jerseys) has no interests in certain types of workers, that learn to be obedient little factory-workers, just like herr Bismarck envisioned it. The modern education system was merely designed for the factories supporting his warfaring nation.
It’s the same question, asked long ago by someone on social media who felylt that the nation needed centrallized control. Proposing anarchism to them, and that was refuted your argument by asking: “When there’s no government, who would run the country?”
Replying that in statelesness (anarchism) there is no country to run, and why bother with running a place where people live, breathe, eat, drink, work and entertain themselves, are born and eventually die: it’s not a corporation run for profit like a business. What if it were: for who’s profit would it be run? The people? (When do we, as share-holders get a share of the profits?) If we’re not the share-holders, who would that be, then?
Results in stupefied silence.

The role of government, ep. 2: titles to land/protection of property

To expand upon episode 1: (which was also about ownership rights) registering/protecting/enforcing ownership rights/titles is a fairly legitimate role of government, one it fails at. But it would be considered (by anarchists/minarchists) to be a task, that it would be OK for government to perform.

Sadly for statists, this task can also easily be performed by market institutions. Because assigning the role of protecting title (ownership) to government, requires that all ownership of land falls into the hands of government (either by default primordial declaration “This region is our region, so all the land here, is ours”, or bybway of asset forfeiture, which is a super crooked way for government to steal stuff from legal owners), and then government sells (or leases) the land to a party, keeping a copy of the sales agreement, so that, in case of dispute, the government remembers which party is the registered owner, and can thus levy taxes for the land ownership. (!)

So long as the owner can define which land they own (eg by stating coordinates, or by referring to “all the land between these landmarks (like mountains, or lakes)”, a respected company can perform this duty of registrar. d

 would of course pose the risk of this registrar being bought up, and then ruling in favor of its parent company, when it would try to by up land owned by another.

This qualm can be partly waylayed by pointing to the high price of purchasing the company, bring a deterrent for any such scheme. The registrar (R) would serve no further purpose anymore, after this scam has been pulled of. So the malicious company (M) would want to sell it off but if the reputation had gotten smeared by these practices, it woufld prove hard to sell, so M would be stuck with R.

Of course, it is still possible that proceeds from the sale/exploitation of the land is worth the price M paid for R, so M would only have to implode R to rid themselves of that deadweight, if some companylies were to do this with all the land, and registrars, and they wouod merge making one single big company that owns all the land, firning a deacto new government. Perhaps instead of via a company (which is fallible), this could be arranged via block chain, or by having a chain of trusted registrars register the title of land/businesses, perhaps each registrar guards only one part of the title.

It seems silly to keep a government, for fear of the risk of a (new) government. We now have 100% certainty of a government, and in this future scenario, there is a significamtly smaller chance if that.

The roles of government, ep. 1

One of the (very few) acceptable roles of government is, to defend property rights. These include:

  • The defense against bodily harm, caused by an attacker (because you and you alone own your body)
  • The defense of house and hearth from a foreign invading country
  • The defense of material posessions (like your TV or your bank balance) from robbers/thieves.

The latter makes government an impossibility, because: government funds itself via theft: extracted (involuntarily paid) taxes.

So government is inherently incapable of fulfilling it’s roles, due to how it funds itself.