In last week’s column, I briefly discussed why democracy is inherently flawed, lacking efficiency, etc. So here is the alternative I promised. Before I continue, I must warn you: What I am about to say will look delusional to anyone unfamiliar with libertarianism. I ask you to give my ideas consideration, and then feel free to throw this in the trash.

I’m an anarchist. No, I’m not going suggest we burn down the school and pillage your neighbors. (Well, maybe just the assholes next door, but no more pillaging after that.) In fact, the reason why I’m an anarchist is because I believe it is the most moral and efficient environment for us.

Anarchism has long been given a bad rap because we think of anarchism as the absence of rule. However, many philosophers and economists have suggested government isn’t necessary to bring order and peace to a community. So, what takes the place of the government?

There is much debate on this due to the many roads to anarchism. I personally follow the ideas of economist Murray Rothbard and other libertarians in a political philosophy called “Anarcho-capitalism.” Anarcho-capitalists believe the unhindered free market allows for the elimination of the state and is the purest form of liberty. This idea stems from an objective moral realist approach of only limiting actions that compromise the rights of others. The system lets you do whatever you want, except screw with other people.

Consequently, this allows for massive economic growth, the removal of all deadweight loss and prevention of institutional victimization. How so? For one, businesses will no longer be able to use the government as a shield to create synthetic monopolies, and other businesses won’t have to jump through outdated government regulation hoops. This allows for a utilitarian amount of wealth to be produced, increasing our standard of living.

I’m sure many of you are concerned about the absence of public social welfare programs. We as a nation have agreed to create welfare programs, so the demand will still exist. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and economist David Friedman argue public charity will be outperformed by free market private charity because it responds to our desires. At a moral stance, how does enforced welfare stand up versus voluntary? Remember, we also have much more wealth to share now.

So how are crimes punished? Voluntary for profit courts, prison systems and protection agencies will be able to compete against each other and enforce private property rights. So yes, Anarcho-capitalism is actually optional government. This topic needs its own column, but I’m short on space.

Who says these agencies won’t create a mafia and eventually replace the state? Won’t we just revert back to monarchy? I don’t think so, but I suggest you Wikipedia the criticisms of Anarcho-capitalism to get a fair viewpoint on the subject (also, look up criticisms of democracy.)

At the very least, we should examine the effectiveness and quality of life available to all people under our options. With this basic cost-benefit mentality, we will opt for what simply sucks the least. Under thorough analysis, democracy seems primitive compared to Anarcho-capitalism and other forms of restricted government. It’s not perfect, but Anarcho-capitalism is something to work on. We need to stop tediously plugging leaks in our democratic system every time we have conflicts and use what intrinsically allows for changing conditions. Democracy was built upon temporary sentiments, but Anarcho-capitalism works within human nature.

I know I won’t see this happen in my lifetime, but I have already seen the first steps. As technology approaches infinity, the human race will require more freedom, as we have demanded historically. It’s only a matter of time.

Thanks for reading. Oh yeah, we killed Osama. Shame we didn’t get him alive.