This will definitely not be my best researched and well thought out post. This one is for fun and creativity but I think a point will be made somewhere within it. This is actually the most hairbrained idea I've ever had and would be completely destructive and probably end up causing mass death, poverty and civil war. So please, don't try this at home.
So here's what I've been thinking about: In the politics of healthcare (Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D and ObamaCare) I kept hearing people say we need "choices." They make it sound simple, there is competition so there are many plan designs and we get to choose the one we want and that we think best suits us. Sounds good, we get to choose our healthcare options just like the Senators and Congressman do, right?
Well, maybe in another post I'll talk more about the pitfalls of Progressive Republicans and Democrats and government healthcare scams. Today I want to ask a question about "Choices."
What if we were given "Choices" about what government we want? It would be a true democracy but way better than the "majority rule" law that forces up to 49.9999999999999999% of people to live with what they don't want. In this system, we could set up several government systems within one country... and the best part is that you get to opt into the one that you want and feel best suits you.
We could choose to be under the governance of Communism, Democratic Socialism, Republicanism, Facism, a Dictatorship or a Libertarian government... whatever we want. And for good measure we could even reserve an island (pick one) for all the anarchists to destroy each other on.
So what would happen? There could be many choices, but for discussion I'll limit it to three governments that you could choose from: Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian. The only catch is that once you make a decision, you are stuck with it... you can never change your mind.
So here's my theory of what would happen.
A recent study showed that, when asked a series of questions about what they believe and then having the answers classify them into one of these three categories, close to 70% of Americans actually showed their beliefs were most in line with Libertarian principles. However, most of them could not tell you what a Libertarian is... so only a small percentage of people (approximately 10%) would join the Libertarian form of government.
They would pay very little taxes, less than 7% of their total income, have free property rights and have very little government services or safety nets. But they would THRIVE in business because of the free markets would solve just about every problem they had without intrusive legislation and political corruption taking its cut. The problems that the free markets didn't take care of would be solved by love, human charity and equal justice under the law.
Of course, a few bad things would happen, as always happen in life, but they would work together to fix them and not let hyperbole scare them into selling their freedoms and giving over control and money to bureaucrats. They would have private retirement account and buy private insurance for their entire life, but it would not be such a burden since the private retirement accounts yield them 6 times more money than the current Social Security System. They would be a small percentage of the population, but would quickly become the most successful of all three systems with a GDP larger than groups much bigger than them.
The Second Group would be Republicans. This pro-business, pro-freedom yet big spending system would start off with a bang. A wealthy 45% of Americans would join this group representing about 80% of the income in America. Business would of course thrive but soon the greed of the government eventually takes over as always happens with those in power. Regulations would increase in the form of big government programs that actually are created by lobbists trying to get a competitive advantage over the other. Nobody says they like the big government programs but nobody has the nerve to get rid of or reform because they are always busy writing new laws, new regulations and looking for more ways to funnel taxpayer dollars to their special interests and corrupt ambitions. Before long the people who opted for a Republican government would be divided into the haves (who have lobbyists) and the have nots (who don't) and power would end up resting with just a few.
The democrats would have about 45% of the public and would thrive on mottos such as "social justice" and celebrate that they can now, in this new form of government, finally get what they are "entitled to." The problem will be that nobody is creating the things that they are entitled to because all of the entrepreneurs opted into the other two systems. Those who do work give 90% of their money in taxes to pay for those who don't and they have the promise of unlimited safety nets for all, inlcuding a Denmark quality unemployment system that guarantees you 90% of your income for up to 4 years if you lose your job. The system starts falling apart because very few ever work and those who work have very little incentive to be creative or productive or even stay employed. Most of them complain daily that the Libertarians and Republicans aren't giving them money, housing, clothing, food or "security" in their old age and they have daily protests that often turn into riots. They claim that the other people in the "working" systems oppress each other with capitalism.
Yet this democratic government soon spends itself into oblivion and the economy, which never took off, has no capability of repaying the debt. The Democratic dollar loses all value and the Democratic Americans lose their credit ratings and can no longer borrow money. China calls in the debt and makes all the people who chose this form of government work for them as slaves.
Like I said, it's not my best post... My point is, what would the people who feel "entitled" do if they only had each other? Who would create the things they are "entitled" to? Why do they feel they own the fruits of another persons labor for nothing? Isn't that slavery? Slavery of the worker to the poor? What if I told a construction worker that I had a right to a new house and that he should have to build it for me and buy all the materials? Isn't that the same as telling a doctor that he must treat you for free and buy all the supplies and medicine?
What are your thoughts?