Competing, voluntary governments could be better choice
In a comment a couple of days ago, MamaLiberty spoke of the Constitution establishing a non-voluntary government. That is true. People seem to accept, on the whole, that government is necessarily non-voluntary. At least if you get rid of the nonsense about voting making government "of the people". Government, as it now exists, is a coercive monopoly.
But why should government be non-voluntary? Why not let people choose among competing governments? If it is good enough for us where cell phone companies or insurance providers are concerned, why not governments too? Some people would scream about those who refuse to sign on with ANY government, if given a choice. Well, what about those people who refuse a government? If government is so wonderful, why would anyone refuse? If, as is so often claimed, governments benefit those who live under them, people would be clamoring to sign on with some government, right? Especially if you could choose the features you want. Or, if governments really give no benefits, or if the liabilities outweigh the benefits, maybe it is time for governments to change or go out of business.
If a government can arise that can compete, and prosper, others would adopt the good parts of that one while trying to improve upon the model. Want your government to provide welfare? Fine, but you will bear the cost, as your government can't "tax" anyone not on their client list. Want to keep all your money all your working life, but collect some equivalent of Social Security in your old age instead of planning ahead? Too late to switch when you retire, unless the welfare-doling government's clients will let you join and live off of them now.
I still prefer good old self-government. The only kind that has ever worked, or ever will.
********************
