14A020 Responsibility by Jim Davies, 6/23/2014    

Michael Bloomberg made his $33 billion honestly as far as one can tell, before becoming involved in politics, by being smart on Wall Street; he's netted more even than Roger Ver, on whom his journal reported last week. However, Ver did spot an investment opportunity Bloomberg missed; he bought a bunch of Bitcoins soon after launch, watched their value multiply, and so became a multimillionaire by age 35.

After an unrelated venture into the sale of pest-control explosives which enabled the Feds to cage him for nearly a year, Ver understandably renounced his US citizenship and is now promoting that of the nation of St Kitts and Nevis, in the Caribbean; which can be bought for a mere $400,000 - using Bitcoin. When arranging to lose his ties to the US, the Feds tried to persuade him to remain a member of their tax farm, and among the arguments was this gem: "Did you know if you renounce citizenship, you won’t be able to serve in the armed forces?" As Ver reported, "It was like, darn."

However the dissuasion attempted does raise the question of responsibility. Will there be any, in the coming zero government society (ZGS)? If so, what will be its source?

Certainly there will, and the source will be the same self ownership axiom that underlies its every other aspect; for that means nobody may rule (control) anyone other than himself. Therefore, if an agreement is freely made between two persons, each has a responsibility not to renege on that agreement, for to do so would compel the other party to do something without having delivered the agreed, corresponding quid for the specified quo. Similarly if an agreement does not exist between two people, each has the responsibility to avoid interference with the other's self-ownership. So the ZGS will have plenty of such obligations and responsibilities, but they will all derive from the self ownership axiom which everyone will understand and accept.

How do I know that everyone will understand and accept the SOA? - because the ZGS will not come into being at all until everyone has learned it and therefore quit all government work.

Exceptions? - no. No doubt disagreements will arise even though agreements are clear and written, but if those cannot be resolved by negotiation they will come to a free market court for resolution. Thus, eventually all responsibilities will be fulfilled.

Any other kind of responsibility? - how about those to one's country? - to parents? - to children?

The bureau-rat who tried to dissuade Roger Ver from emigrating presumed without evidence that the first of those exists; it does not now, and will not in the ZGS. There are none such now because neither parents nor any new-born baby made any agreement with the State, for all the "benefits" it showered on the growing child, regardless of any of their wishes and at the compelled expense of themselves and their neighbors. There will be none in the coming ZGS because "country" will be an obsolete concept.

The second may have some validity because the relationship between close family members like parents and children is not arms-length; there is a bond of love and loyalty that transcends ordinary contracts. Nonetheless, I believe a form of contract underlies it.

That contract isn't formal, but begins when the mother decides to give birth to her baby (instead of aborting, for example.) As I see it she forms at that moment the first half of a contract with the child-to-be; she makes a commitment to give birth and care for and bring up the baby until such time as he or she becomes able to make responsible decisions. At that point, the second half of the unwritten contract comes into play; the child reciprocates and confirms (s)he will support and honor the parent. Thus the gap between the moments each party commits to a contract (normally one or two minutes, or days if the mail must convey it) is extended to several years.

There is of course a risk that the child will not so reciprocate. It's a risk that every parent normally and routinely takes, though it's not normally thought about in those terms. Almost always, the risk is amply justified by the results.

So I think that there is normally a responsibility - both ways - between parent and child, though it's not absolute. If either party so wishes, a separation can be made. The parent, in a ZGS, will be free to put his or her child up for adoption, and the child too will be free to advertise him- or herself as a desirable adoptee, until mature enough to live on his own. This concept is further explored on the Children page of The Anarchist Alternative.

So the coming Zero Government Society will have no shortage of responsibilities. But every one of them will be undertaken willingly, without compulsion. That's freedom.