Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
cells

Multiple Governments Within A Country?

Recommended Posts

We all know monopolies are bad for everyone but the monopoly itself, and the biggest monopoly of all is the government.

Does any nation have multiple governments? I suppose the closest thing I can think of is the USA with its various states. If you don’t like one states laws/tax you move to another state. But the act of moving is such a big disincentive that it puts a lot of people off.

I would say multiple governments could bring about competition, which would benefit us all.

So one government could offer say, very low taxes but no free NHS or schools or diversity non-jobs.

Another one can be Gordon brown with a 50% tax rate and how things currently are.

A third could offer pure communism with 100% taxes and the state provides you everything.

all sorts

People would be able to migrate from one government and its taxes/laws to another every say 5 years and not at fixed points so there will always be people migrating from one government to another every day.

The good efficient governments would slowly see people migrating to them and the crap ones would die off.

Had this happened anywhere?

Is it possible?

Is it a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We all know monopolies are bad for everyone but the monopoly itself, and the biggest monopoly of all is the government.

Does any nation have multiple governments? I suppose the closest thing I can think of is the USA with its various states. If you don’t like one states laws/tax you move to another state. But the act of moving is such a big disincentive that it puts a lot of people off.

I would say multiple governments could bring about competition, which would benefit us all.

So one government could offer say, very low taxes but no free NHS or schools or diversity non-jobs.

Another one can be Gordon brown with a 50% tax rate and how things currently are.

A third could offer pure communism with 100% taxes and the state provides you everything.

all sorts

People would be able to migrate from one government and its taxes/laws to another every say 5 years and not at fixed points so there will always be people migrating from one government to another every day.

The good efficient governments would slowly see people migrating to them and the crap ones would die off.

Had this happened anywhere?

Is it possible?

Is it a good idea?

How do you pay for the police, military, roads, fire service etc etc etc?

The closest thing to that is having sharia courts in operation in Britain, but that does seems to rather annoy most of us. How exactly will these 'governments' pass laws that apply to one neighbour and not the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not, erm, just go to another country?

Because most countries restrict immigration.

Even if they don't, you will find yourself at a disadvantage if they all speak a different language from you or if your qualifications aren't recognised there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DRO model.

Free markets for all services, no exceptions and basically no centralised government (perhaps for courts) would work great, people aren't ready for it. Not by a long chalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scotland, Wales, northern Ireland? (Isle of Man, Channel Islands?)

All have a big disincentive in that you need to move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you pay for the police, military, roads, fire service etc etc etc?

That could be through general taxation.

So if one government system has 30% of the population they would pay 30% of the bills for that.

The only things that would require general taxation would be police, fire, military and perhaps A&E (although military would be somewhat flexible. So you could pay for certain parts only).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DRO model.

Free markets for all services, no exceptions and basically no centralised government (perhaps for courts) would work great, people aren't ready for it. Not by a long chalk.

what’s the DRO model.

and we would still probably want a government of sorts to provide the basics. Simply because the technology isn’t quite there for all of us to have private contracts with police/schools/nhs/ etc without adding huge costs to the process. (ie think of all the people/overheads you would need to sort out problems, payment, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondered about a different "government" for each service provided:

One government that looks after the country, police, military, law, foreign policy etc; One government that lokos after roads and transportation; One for education, one for health, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So one government could offer say, very low taxes but no free NHS or schools or diversity non-jobs.

Another one can be Gordon brown with a 50% tax rate and how things currently are.

A third could offer pure communism with 100% taxes and the state provides you everything.

all sorts

People would be able to migrate from one government and its taxes/laws to another every say 5 years and not at fixed points so there will always be people migrating from one government to another every day.

The good efficient governments would slowly see people migrating to them and the crap ones would die off.

Had this happened anywhere?

Is it possible?

Is it a good idea?

It's not a good idea if you want a free NHS and schools. These systems are dependent on taking a disproportionate amount of taxation from people who opt out of public services and into private healthcare and education. These people would opt for the low taxation government, leaving the public services in other systems unfunded. Your first option would then 'win' the competition, which is fine if you want a market-based system of government, but not if you want a democratic (of sorts) based system of government. IMO, markets make better servants than masters.

Take it to its conclusion and it is probably more 'efficient' to deregulate to allow child labour, higher injury and death at work rates without compensation, imprisonment of trade union activists. It might even be more 'efficient' to restrict voting to the 10% of the population with the most wealth. The jobs would all be under this system of government because the business owners would have moved them there. So workers, stuck in bad conditions, without any democaratic means of improving their lot, would move towards revolutionary routes to change society. I believe it was a Tory, Lord Hailsham, who said something like 'Let us give them their social reform or they will give us their social revolution'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what’s the DRO model.

and we would still probably want a government of sorts to provide the basics. Simply because the technology isn’t quite there for all of us to have private contracts with police/schools/nhs/ etc without adding huge costs to the process. (ie think of all the people/overheads you would need to sort out problems, payment, etc)

Is that realyl true.

I can't help but notice that different areas have different private stuff. All you are really saying is why not have one area that has as much private as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wondered about a different "government" for each service provided:

One government that looks after the country, police, military, law, foreign policy etc; One government that lokos after roads and transportation; One for education, one for health, etc.

To an extent, this is true in Federal systems such as the USA, also in the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and NI, and in the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To an extent, this is true in Federal systems such as the USA, also in the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and NI, and in the crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man.

Government is an absolutely mental idea.

If we didn't have them by historical accident, no one would ever advocate them. There is no social or economic situation where anyone woudl opt to make a government. There just isn't. It's just a mad relic from the days when people believed some men were the sons of gods and all that crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Government is an absolutely mental idea.

If we didn't have them by historical accident, no one would ever advocate them. There is no social or economic situation where anyone woudl opt to make a government. There just isn't. It's just a mad relic from the days when people believed some men were the sons of gods and all that crap.

I don't think I will ever agree with this.

Government was never designed - it happened as a nature consequence of increasing populations - and the life and death of its many bit actors.

It is a phenomenen. Noone knows how it got there. It just did. So much so - not many people even ask the question - not even those within its hallowed walls.

Edit: Yes just realised - I do agree somewhat with the sentiment.

Edited by Alan B'Stard MP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a good idea if you want a free NHS and schools. These systems are dependent on taking a disproportionate amount of taxation from people who opt out of public services and into private healthcare and education. These people would opt for the low taxation government, leaving the public services in other systems unfunded. Your first option would then 'win' the competition, which is fine if you want a market-based system of government, but not if you want a democratic (of sorts) based system of government. IMO, markets make better servants than masters.

Take it to its conclusion and it is probably more 'efficient' to deregulate to allow child labour, higher injury and death at work rates without compensation, imprisonment of trade union activists. It might even be more 'efficient' to restrict voting to the 10% of the population with the most wealth. The jobs would all be under this system of government because the business owners would have moved them there. So workers, stuck in bad conditions, without any democaratic means of improving their lot, would move towards revolutionary routes to change society. I believe it was a Tory, Lord Hailsham, who said something like 'Let us give them their social reform or they will give us their social revolution'.

what is more democratic than letting people choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Government is an absolutely mental idea.

If we didn't have them by historical accident, no one would ever advocate them. There is no social or economic situation where anyone woudl opt to make a government. There just isn't. It's just a mad relic from the days when people believed some men were the sons of gods and all that crap.

You are simply incorrect. I am someone, and I would opt to make a government in a social and economic system where control of the means and fruits of production was vested in a numerically small capitalist class, who used their wealth to give a privileged lifestyle to well armed groups of thugs, who would keep their workers productive and receiving a minimum share of the value of what they produce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is more democratic than letting people choose?

So if I choose to murder you, that is presumably democratic? And anyone who stops me is preventing my democratic rights to self-determination. I am sure we can all see that is nonsense, so we accept limitations on personal freedom within a democracy. These limitations are set by democratic mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England, Scotland, Wales? - In Scotland, no tuition fees. In Wales, no prescription charges (also Scotland too soon, I think)...

but as one great poster said:

a slave who has a choice of masters is not a free man.

(internationalrockstar)

Edited by chris c-t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I will ever agree with this.

Government was never designed - it happened as a nature consequence of increasing populations.

It is a phenomenen. Noone knows how it got there. It just did. So much so - not many people even ask the question - not even those within its hallowed walls.

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if I choose to murder you, that is presumably democratic? And anyone who stops me is preventing my democratic rights to self-determination. I am sure we can all see that is nonsense, so we accept limitations on personal freedom within a democracy. These limitations are set by democratic mandate.

So you’re saying that no choice is democratic?

So dictators and fascists are the height of democracy in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are "hooked" on government because they have been brainwashed into believing that it is necessary. It is the worst kind of addiction and really needs to be broken. Just say "NO" to government.

It didn't come in to being by accicdent but is simply an expression of the elites wanting to control eveyone else so that they can do what they want. Government is the antithesis of freedom, it only came into being about 6000 years ago, we don't need it, we lived for millions of years without it, and we will again.

Multiple governments, we already have that thanks................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't work, government is the antithesis of competition within its own borders. If we could choose amongst rulers one party would cater to the poor and the rich would join another one making wealth redistribution collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you’re saying that no choice is democratic?

So dictators and fascists are the height of democracy in your mind?

Your post bears no relation to mine. What the hell are you talking about? How can you get from:

...so we accept limitations on personal freedom within a democracy. These limitations are set by democratic mandate.

to:

So you’re saying that no choice is democratic?

So dictators and fascists are the height of democracy in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.