On Political Elections and Government

What so many seem to miss about political elections is that almost half of those that vote did not get what they wanted.  While it is possible to avoid bad elections results in the board of directors of a non-profit organization, one is not able to avoid the bad results of political elections.  That is, you cannot generally avoid the policies of government, whereas you can generally avoid the policies of private organizations.  The point of government is to socialize both costs and benefits; the point of private organization is to privatize both costs and benefits.

The point of modern political elections is to get a wide-range of people involved in deciding who will be put into each particular government office.  Occassionally, voters are given the option to vote on a few policies of government or even on changes to the document that describes the role/functions of the government.  However, at least half plus one of the voters must vote one way, with the rest getting the result that they do not want.  No matter the result of the election, all are required to pay taxes, whether you approve of the result or not.  When government places the burden of its operations on all through taxation, how is it that this democratic system is fair?  When just under half have consented to the opposite of what they get, how is it that they can be justifiably forced to pay for what they do not want?

In a private organization, if you dislike the policies that are being enacted, you are free to disassociate from that organized group of people.  If participating in that group required paying regular fees, then the cost of the operations of the organization likely fell on those who participated in the organization.  Thus, if you disassociate from and stop paying into the organization, then you are no longer bearing any of the costs of the operation of the organization.

With government, you cannot avoid the costs of its operation, because paying taxes and following its policies are compulsory; with private organizations, you can avoid the costs of its operation, because the fees/dues and following its policies are voluntary.  While elections might serve to lead a government to not enact ludicrously terrible policies, it is nevertheless the case that governments, by their very nature are organizations meant to compel people to do what they do not want to do.  With taxation, governments do not have to worry about providing good service; people will pay because not paying results in jail-time and other punishments.  With the all-must-do-as-government-commands quality, governments do not have to worry about whether or not some minority, 1% or 49%, do not approve of particular policies.  So long as a particular government maintains its veil of legitimacy as the coercive monopoly in the geographic area, the legislators, bureaucrats, government courts, police departments, and mayor/president have no institutional incentive to enact good policies.

Elections serve as a spiritually satisfying means of "making your voice heard".  What is ironic is that despite all the "get out and vote" messages, voting in political elections doesn't make things better.  Ignoring the problem of the rationally ignorant voter, governments continue to burden society with its taxes and various other forms of interventions; no matter for whom you voted, whether that be Obama, Romney, Johnson, or Virgil, the government has won.  Political elections are meant to make the government look legitimate.  How valuable is legitimacy when the organization can operate by taking money from all, whether or not any want to pay?

Obviously, the burden of describing a society without government is on me to demonstrate.  While there are numerous issues to address, I dedicate this blog to demonstrating that government is both unnecessary and ineffective for a free, peaceful, and prosperous society.