“[Under Democracy], a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.” -Lysander Spooner
Democracy and various “representative” electoral forms of government have had centuries to achieve what they claim they offer: self-governance to their citizens. But they have never succeeded in doing so. Over centuries of representative governance and elections, nowhere in the modern West has self-governance been attained.
Not a single person gets the governance and society they desire; Republicans never get to control everything as they like, and nor do Democrats, or third-party nonvoters. Even if your “side” has power, they cannot fully implement their agenda, and in all likelihood, you would, if you could, do things differently.
In a self-governing system, all people are treated politically equally, share the same rights to live as they wish, and lack the power and authority to force others into a system of governance they disagree with.
If self-governance is to be achieved, consent rather than compulsion must be at the heart of the system and available to all. The government is made to benefit man, not man to benefit the government. So if a group of people wished to secede and become autonomous at any future time, they would be unhindered in doing so. The land and the law are the people’s; they own them, with the government as their steward—the protector and enforcer for those people. The law and government only exist to serve the people.
I would not wish to force anyone into a system they disagreed with, so secession must always be legal and open to all, down to each individual. No one would be forced under this system, as that would violate the principle of self-governance.
Many modern social ills and examples of mistreatment of people are due to the lack of self-governance. Would minorities impose harsh laws of discrimination on themselves? No majority or governmental power could oppress them if they were allowed to split off independently to govern themselves, as under my system they would be. Further, the only way to achieve self-governance within a country of diverse opinions is via decentralization, to which we will now turn.
One drastic way to achieve self-governance would be to abolish the state and all current centralized authority. Each county or town would become completely autonomous, able to create its own laws and make its own diplomatic arrangements with other counties and countries.
And if a section of a town wishes to form a new village, they are free to do so. People can seek self-governance no matter how small a minority they are; no majority can dictate to them, or steal their right to self-governance. Even a single family can create an area with their laws and customs to live by if they wish to be isolated. However, the laws of each territory decide how people operate within that territory. So, when traveling to a different region, the local laws reign.
This would result in thousands of diverse governmental systems people could choose from and move to. It would enable everyone to have the government of their choosing. In one town, we could have a libertarian society, the next might be communist, but neither could outvote or impose their ways on the other. One area might be purely democratic, where the majority decides all matters, and may have elections and politics. The next area could be monarchical and conservative, with no legislature, elections, politicians, or manipulation of the law—devoid of all political strife and action.
In this system, the totalitarian community is just as free to live as they desire as a libertarian society. Everyone has perfect equality to control their own destiny. Between the realms, there would be no need for strife, hatred, anger, discord, etc., since each section is powerless to impose its ways on another. A society built upon the Democratic Party would never have to fear Donald Trump. A Republican society would be free of another Joe Biden. No one would have to get angry with or outspend the other over politics. No one would have to donate money, spend time fighting, arguing, or savagely discrediting opponents; and everyone would get self-governance.
It would be comparable to each brand of every political party winning each election. You could join a “Republican area,” a “Democratic area,” a “conservative” area, a “liberal” area, and so forth. There would be thousands of areas to choose from. One section wanting legal abortion would never have to worry about Christians taking away their “rights,” while a Christian village can follow its view of God’s commands and outlaw the procedure. One area might have government-funded public education, the next might only offer homeschooling, and the next might allow you to choose from any form you desire.
We would have Catholic Republican areas, Catholic Democrat and libertarian areas, Mormon areas, Baptist areas, secular areas, Methodist areas, and on and on. One town might allow immigration, another might allow visitors, traders, and temporary workers but not permanent settlement, and a third might outlaw all entry by outsiders.
Libertarians who never have a chance at election success could have numerous areas with their own policies. Libertarians differ on subjects like drugs, abortion, and police, yet under this system they could have many areas with various policies on these issues. Diversity would be embraced and protected under the law.
Another, less abrupt way to implement this would be for every state in America to install the change slowly. A list is drawn up comprising numerous different possible governmental systems, created by professors, judges, think tanks, political party leaders, news hosts, and other influencers and laypeople (this list can always be added to by anyone). Then, every adult who would like to move to these new societies votes on the preferred system. Land is then purchased by the state or federal authorities, or provided by philanthropists, and given to the people who agree to the form of government.
This would start implementing tiny little self-governing societies across the land. Each state would have “liberal,” “conservative,” and “libertarian” and so on counties; those that applied could move there, and they would become autonomous upon completion.
Each state could also take its highest few conservative counties and allow them full rein of governance. Their own constitution and laws would be implemented unhindered by Democrats, and no Democrats would be allowed to participate in or affect governance, likewise with the most liberal counties in reverse. Liberals in conservative counties could move to the newly formed liberal counties, and conservatives would leave those liberal areas for the conservative ones.
United groups of like-minded individuals would begin to emerge, and self-government would be achieved. This process would allow local economies and societies to integrate into the surrounding areas that have remained unchanged.
A negative aspect of this option is the difficulty of moving people across the country; some might not be able to afford to move, some might not wish to. But if a liberal in a conservative county wants to move to the new liberal one, the conservative in the liberal country equally wants out! And if millions of people can cross the world to enter America illegally, legal movement within the country or state can be accomplished relatively easily. Thousands of libertarians associated with the free state project are already moving to New Hampshire, though they’re receiving far less benefit from it than my idea would offer.
The states would also use state-owned land (often undeveloped) and create various third-party districts that would become autonomous, similar to Native American reservations. This could be repeated as needed. To help facilitate this lottery, the largest landowner in the country, who owns 27% of the land area—that is, the federal government—would also initiate their own program providing land to settlers based on voting results. The federal government could also sell off military bases and all foreign property, and end foreign aid. That money will go into a pool to help people move to the desired areas.
Lastly, individuals, towns, or sections of towns could also split off from the state they are a part of and create their little autonomous districts without moving at all, either adopting one of the proposed governmental systems or simply taking their governance into their own local town hands, no longer connected to the state or federal government. They could then make their own diplomatic and political agreements with their former state if they so wish.
It seems likely that the majority of Americans, perhaps three quarters, would not desire to relocate or change their political system (they likely deem it imperfect but would not desire to leave family, friends, jobs, etc.). In which case this land owned by the state, mixed with philanthropy and the few heaviest leaning (left or right) counties, towns, or cities in each state becoming all one way and autonomous, could very well be all that is needed to give everyone who wishes to “escape” our two-party system a chance to do so—leaving most of the country largely unaffected by the change.
So long as all those who desire their own society have an area to join. allow every state and even the federal government to operate as usual; only the newly-created autonomous realms would change, or those sections that broke off from existing ones. They would operate on their own, allied (if they chose) with America but without local, state, or federal interference. They would be wholly independent, having as much or as little interaction with the rest of America as they desire. Some federal and state-owned land would be reserved for future districts to be created.
After centuries of failed strivings, genuine self-governance for all would at last be a reality.
