A new study by Duke University scholars Troy Campbell and Aaron Kay suggests that politics is the root of all social ills.
The research finds that people evaluate issues based on the desirability of policy implications.
If said implications are undesirable, people tend to deny a problem exists.
This is interesting fodder for the libertarian.
This study holds large implications for the entire state.
The scholarly definition of state is: “A human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given ?territory.”
State officials, ideology intact, make sweeping policy decisions for entire nations.
After each election, parties gain or lose majority influence, but the problem of centralized governance always remains. Successful governance and state are forever at odds.
This cannot be more evident today.
The U.S. Congress enjoys a miserable 14 percent approval rating and after recent mid-term elections the same miserable party affiliates are crafting policy to govern each and ?every one of us.
It is time for polycentric, common governance.
Common governance awards all members of a given community equal rights — power is equally distributed.
There is no coercive body delegating policy.
Common governance is rooted in liberty, not enclosed by a monopoly of force and violence.
For the libertarian, this approach to governance is ideal.
We do not view freedom in the abstract — we believe it is critical to unleash the creative, innovative potential of human society.
Consistent libertarians seek a ?stateless society.
Beltway political circles dismiss the proposal as utopian and incompatible with modern civilization.
However, these objections are easily refuted.
We are inclined to decentralize.
The emergence of democracy, for example, exhibits this societal trait.
Systems of power and domination contribute to apathy and quiescence.
This hinders the populace and denies us the ability to craft our own unique existence.
We are too busy denying problems exist to fully engage and participate in democratic decision making.
The beauty of common governance is its decentralized nature.
A society operating under the principles of liberty rejects the concentration of authority and coercive claims to power.
Such an order thus champions individual labor, place connections and civic participation in the political ?economy.
Individual achievement exists, not inspite of, but due to liberty.
Decentralization is a requirement of successful governance.
Concentrated power is unnatural. It holds a monopoly over decision-making. Concentrated power lacks competition, innovation and progress — it is static.
Common governance, on the other hand, is dynamic.
The commons allow all stakeholders to craft and emulate policy, creating desirable options for all participants.
Thus, the commons can overcome barriers to meaningful social change as discussed in the Duke study.
Let us end the state monopoly on governance and reclaim the public.
Grant Mincy
Center for a Stateless Society
