A brief comparison of Businesses and "Government"

If you have shares in a large statist corporation (an "Incorporated" Business, or a bureaucratic business), you will occasionally receive an opportunity to vote on who are to be the directors, and you may also be able to vote on other issues which affect the operations of the business. Let's consider an analogy of the two issues of enrolment and voting here - firstly that of enrolment:

The act of purchasing shares in a business, is a completely voluntary one of the shareholder. Therefore, we can consider that this is the equivalent of the shareholder being voluntarily enrolled to vote. Obviously a business can not legitimately force people to buy shares - i.e. there would not be any compulsory buying of shares ("compulsory enrolment").

(The "compulsory taxes" that "government" bureaucrats "enforce" on their "citizens", could be the equivalent of if a business did have compulsory buying of shares. However, you can't sell your "tax"-shares, you can only potentially obtain "dividends" from them - in the form of things like "Social Security benefits". But even if you haven't purchased any "tax"-shares yet, you can still claim the "tax"-dividends of other people's "tax"-shares!

Note in the case of a business, that you must buy shares to be able to vote - it's a privilege. Much is said about how "voting" in political "elections" is a "right" - however, if that were the case, then everyone around the world should be able to "vote" in every "election" ever held! Obviously this isn't the case, in fact, "voting" in any particular "election" is usually restricted to "citizens" of that "country". Therefore, you are effectively "buying into the system" with your "citizenship" - and technically speaking - it is a privilege, not a "right", to be able to "vote". It's only within the context of having already "bought into the system" through "citizenship" - that it seems to be a "right". Much more is described about "citizenship" later, and in other reports and articles available elsewhere - such as the many undesired, and usually unrealised consequences of being a "citizen". One thing you may want to consider for now though is: How, or what exactly did you "buy into the system" with, to become a "citizen"? Your "taxes"? Or perhaps your body? Or maybe your mind? Or maybe all three?)

Now to voting: Many of the same answers that are replied to the question of: "why should people vote in political elections?" -- such as "they should take an interest in it", "it affects them", etc. -- could be used to answer the question here of: "why should shareholders vote?"

There has never been a business in which the members (directors, managers, etc.) declared it "compulsory" that all of their shareholders vote! Never have they threatened that those shareholders who do not vote, will be fined, jailed, or both. Nor have they ever threatened that if anyone advocates a method of voting, other than what is advocated by the directors/managers, then they will be fined, jailed, or both! (A real-life example of how some "government" bureaucrats do this - the Albert Langer cases - is shown in a later section.) Indeed, the mere suggestion that such practices should be implemented into any business, is utterly absurd! What would people think if the managers/directors of a business threatened them with "penalties", etc. if they didn't do as they were told!? Perhaps they'd think the directors/managers had gone mad!

No, I doubt any such appalling and ludicrous behaviour would ever occur in a business - they wouldn't want to treat their shareholders - often also their customers - like their little slaves that they can order around. And even in the highly unlikely event that the managers of a business were foolish enough to try it - I doubt it could go on for long before their phone-lines are jammed with complainers, their share-price crashes, and maybe they'd find their business defunct.

So, how and why is it, for some reason, "acceptable", "justified", and "good", to have "compulsory voting/enrolment" for a "government"?

On a similar and related issue: What if the personnel of a business were to force their shareholders (or everyone - shareholders or not) to purchase their products and services? (Even if they're not wanted, useless, not needed, and/or bad.) Indeed - It just wouldn't happen! All legitimate businesses rely on voluntary purchases from their customers.

So, how and why is it, for some reason, "acceptable", "justified", and "good", for "government" bureaucrats to force everyone to pay "taxes"? ("Taxes" are effectively "compulsory purchases" of the "government" bureaucrats' "products" and "services" - even if they're not wanted, useless, not needed, and/or bad - and even if the "products" and "services" are never delivered or provided! (So-called "police", "national defense", post-offices, roads, coercive organisational models in the form of "regulations" and "laws", etc. are all effectively "products" and "services".))

Note that there is a simple and immediate free-market mechanism inherent in a business, to protect against injustice and oppression: At any time, any or all of the shareholders (and everyone else involved in the business) have the choice to withdraw from corruption, inefficiency, or anything else that is undesirable, and put their money (and time, resources, etc.) elsewhere - without being coerced. The same applies even more so to customers of any legitimate business - they can simply buy elsewhere. At no time do they have to wait until the next "election", hoping that "next time this won't happen", or "the other party wouldn't have done that", etc., or fiddle around with any bureaucracy.

The main difference between a legitimate business, and that of the pretended "governments" around the world, is that "government" bureaucrats refuse to give their "citizens" (the equivalent of customers and shareholders of a business) the option to choose, in simple, but extremely important areas such as this. "Government" bureaucrats rely on coercion, rather than legitimate voluntary transactions.

Some people will still reply that: "governments do provide a choice - the vote!" My answer to this, in summary, is that in practice, I find this "choice" to be useless and totally unacceptable - and I reject it, as do many others. This issue is analysed in detail later in this booklet, and in other material available elsewhere.

"A political party has never accomplished anything for humanity. Individuals and geniuses have been the pioneers of every reform and every progress." - Leo Tolstoy

Contents -- Next Section

Common Law Copyright David T. Freeman, 1997. All Rights Reserved.
Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/