I have discussed the ruling on Obamacare, the hope we have with technology, and the taxes associated with Obamacare. In this post, I will discuss the subject of panarchy and its relation to Obamacare.
I have written about panarchy before. I believe people should be free to choose their own government and it should not be borders that necessarily determine the jurisdiction of governments. I believe that one mistake that free market anarchists make is that they are trying to push their agenda down other’s throats just as much as statists try to push their agenda. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Obamacare is a perfect example. There are just over 300 million people living in the U.S. When there is a poll done on Obamacare, it is a virtual split. I can tell this from my own informal polling or just looking on Facebook. I am friends with a lot of people who are in favor of Obamacare (or at least think they are). It is amazing that people can disagree so vehemently with friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, and even spouses. Americans do business with each other on a daily basis, yet there is this huge divide.
My solution isn’t to repeal Obamacare. My solution is that people should be allowed to opt out of Obamacare. They should be able to opt out of the U.S. federal government if that is their choice.
If someone is trying to tell you that Obamacare is a good thing and you strongly disagree, you don’t have to start arguing about all of the details. You can just say: “I understand that you like the new healthcare law. I just happen to respectfully disagree. But am I allowed to disagree with you without having violence enacted upon me?”
The person will probably answer “no” or they won’t answer at all because they will have no idea what you are talking about. This is your opportunity to explain that if you don’t follow Obamacare and the taxes associated with it, then armed men will eventually show up at your door and threaten you with violence.
You can ask the person again if you should be able to disagree with Obamacare without having someone threaten to shoot you. They probably won’t want to answer the question at that point. They will start going into their theories of government and how we all have to contribute, blah, blah, blah.
But it may turn on a lightbulb for some people. If two people disagree so vehemently on an issue, or more likely several issues, why should they subject each other to their own desires? Why can’t they go their separate ways on the things they disagree? Likewise, I have friends that I can talk to about politics, but I would almost never talk to them about sports, or music, or the television shows I watch. But these other things don’t matter because we are not forcing the other person to participate in any way. If you don’t like a particular sport or a particular type of music, you can choose not to watch it or listen to it. You are not forced to participate and you are not forced to pay for it (unless the government is involved).
Panarchy offers us a solution. We shouldn’t all have to live under the same government if we expect our government to do very different things. As long as we respect each other’s lives and properties, then I don’t care what kind of government my friends and neighbors choose, so long as I am not threatened with force to participate.
Panarchy actually makes it quite simple to defend your position on any point. You don’t really need to know much history or economics or any details about a particular piece of legislation. You can just say that you respectfully disagree and that you hope nobody will threaten you with violence if you want to disagree and not participate. It puts other people in a moral bind. It shows the immorality of any government that goes beyond simply protecting lives and property and enforcing contracts.
Panarchy will give you the moral high ground. Take it. Everyone who wants their Obamacare should be free to have it, as long as they are not forcing others to participate.