Political Questions

When examining various political systems, including the ones into which we were born and which we are told we must uphold, there are several key questions that tend to go unasked as people dive into partisan debates. Every election cycle magnifies my impression of how few people dare to examine their core beliefs in their quest for political domination. Note that there is only slight order to the way these questions are presented, and I invite serious discussion in the comment section below.

---

What is the legitimate sphere of individual authority?

How does one individual gain legitimate authority over another individual?

What is the legitimate sphere for initiating coercive force? Why do those who wish to initiate coercive force so often accuse those who resist their coercion of being the violent party who threatens civilization?

If government is just formalized cooperation, why is submission to government edicts mandatory, and why are penalties imposed for non-compliance?

How can one individual (A) legitimately confer to another (B) some authority over a third party (C) without the consent of that third party? Further, how does a formal election process allow Set A to grant Set B authority over Set C, whether there was explicit dissent, negligent non-participation, or principled non-participation?

Why do people set aside the golden rule in favor of an extreme double standard once politics and nationalism are introduced to the discussion? For example, if A robs B and gives some of the proceeds to C, we rightly blame A as the thief; but when the government (A) robs the populace (B) and gives the dregs to various minority groups and special interests (C), the government is absolved of all blame.

How are monopolies invariably abusive and corrupt, but government monopolies administered by bureaucrats imbued with a presumption of virtue?

If corporations are examples of free market failure, why are the largest corporations the most reliant upon subsidies, bailouts, regulatory capture, and protectionist trade policy at taxpayer expense in direct opposition to free market principles?

Electoral politics necessarily operates as a zero-sum game, meaning that for one party to win, the other must lose. Politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises. There is no guarantee that any partisan solution to any given issue is correct, rendering political debates virtually guaranteed to be a false choice fallacy. How is this process supposed to solve any problem?

If government is a bad solution to problems, why do minarchists insist that it is still the best way to handle the most important issues like security and defense?

How is it justice to lock away wrongdoers at taxpayer expense, and declare victimless actions to be "criminal" by legislative fiat, instead of pursuing restitution as a baseline?

---

Asking these questions and others like them forced me to relinquish my faith in government. They led me away from the idea that politics offers any real solutions despite the storm of rhetoric. It made me an anarchist by default. It also required examining proposals for alternative solutions to various problems and alternative ways of providing certain services the government currently claims to address, so please do me a favor and come up with something slightly more imaginative than, "But who would build the roads?"