The world currently revolves around taxes, and revenue generation as a whole won’t be going away in any near future. There’s a few different models for acquiring funding for various projects, some more efficient than others, and some more voluntary than others. It seems to be that the more efficient a project is, the more voluntary it is. That’s because, if there’s a demand for it, it’s not difficult to sell, and what’s the best way to gauge demand than to have voluntary sales dictate the future of a brand or product? If all methods of involuntary funding are exhausted due to enough people simply refusing to participate in these systems, what will humanity be left with? If taxation is theft, without taxation, what will fund state-sponsored projects? Who would build the roads? These are the questions that come up when funding a libertarian future.

What is your preferred method of purchasing services or products? Is it preferable to have those choices individually selectable, or to have them all come at once, in some unreasonably expensive behemoth of a package? What if there are aspects that are disagreed with — wholly? What if some points of the package you’re subscribed to, fund something you consider to be heinous? In today’s realities, the state’s mandates on what must be purchased by law forces individuals to purchase services that they could find to be morally objectible. There could always be alternative funding methods, in which individuals could choose which services they like and don’t like. Services that are liked by hardly anyone would be unfeasible to fund, and would cease existence — an example of this is war. If a large majority doesn’t want to fund a battle, how would it happen if all routes to fund it were based in voluntary methods? It’s possible that Vietnam and the Iraq war would not have happened if funding was optional for such services. How could people make such a world possible?

Currently, and obviously, voluntary methods of funding do exist. Advertisers provide a simple solution to funding things that would otherwise not generate any revenue. If there’s viewers, but no product, revenue can still be generated from the number of viewers. Many have struck at gold through their Youtube ventures, with more hits, making even more in ad revenue. They sell no product other than solid placement, where viewers will see at their product or service. This works for Hulu, which is able to provide a free service to many of its users. It wouldn’t be too far fetched for such a kind of service to work for roads, as well. Advertisers could place their advertisements periodically throughout the road, and drivers driving on their road(s) would generate revenue for the advertisers. The more traffic the road saw, the better the revenue generating would become for the advertisers, and the road owner could charge a higher fee for advertisements. Through this, it incentivizes the road owner to repair any road damage. After all, the owner wants to have their road full of cars, and subsequently high in demand for advertisers. Anyone who would dismiss this idea without a thought into it clearly ignores the main source of revenue for many internet outlets. If it works on online highways, why wouldn’t it work on ones made out of asphalt? Yes, while the cost to produce a road would be generally higher than a website, the traffic is guaranteed to last without having to generate new content, only maintenance would be the long-term cost.


Ever hear of Kickstarter? What about Indiegogo — have you heard of that? People are willing to propose large sums of money to projects that… aren’t always that essential. Remember when there was a request made for ten dollars to make a potato salad, but the project ended up gaining over fifty thousand dollars? Crowdfunding has proven to be an excellent way to fund projects that people want to see come to light. It would not be too far fetched to assume that these same channels could be used when building a new library, getting volunteer fire fighters more gear, or arming the local militia. People are willing to put money to projects that are getting funded every day, currently, and there’s no reason to suspect that this trend would die out in any immediate future. If anything, crowdfunding is a growing trend! The future would likely hold many more sites than just Kickstarter or Indiegogo, and all sorts of things, including those that would not otherwise generate revenue, could find their funding through these channels.

A sign of a failing business is when it turns to the state to pass laws in order to funnel more resources its way. A sign of a failing business is when it tries to use the state to help it dodge revision via the market’s loss mechanism. The poor businesses go out of business, while the successful ones succeed. The better ones end up prospering because the market tells them that they’re better. They tell them by purchasing their goods, by supporting them, and by continuing the business-consumer relationship. When that relationship is burned, businesses hurt, and they can either revise or die. The state would be a business if it didn’t survive off of funding methods that are nothing short of theft, but since it does, it far closer mirrors a gang. It offers services like a business does, but it threatens to jail, to enslave, or to even kill anyone who refuses their services. Through this, it dodges its loss mechanism, and can get away with any horrible act. In a libertarian future, these services would all be provided, still, but through voluntary avenues. Trade would be far more honest, and people could actually choose which services they like and don’t like.

With efficiency at its core, a libertarian future is not only possible, but nonviolent. It sets up a world with voluntary interactions between consenting individuals. A libertarian future places emphasis on market interactions, and positive ventures would succeed, while negative ones would fail, as determined by the market’s desires. It’s honest, and it doesn’t mandate monopolies, nor does it engage in barring competing organizations. “Who would build the roads?” can be simply answered by the following: Probably not the same groups and individuals who build them now, since the current market atmosphere is rigged with wires. It’s all submerged in an array of smoke and mirrors to attempt to convey honesty and efficiency, when really, the individuals that are behind today’s legislation that has lead to these massive inefficiencies, care little for what services they provide. In a future where unshakable monopolies are impossible, those who have become fat and lazy over the government’s act of feeding them full of tax dollars, pandering and permitting their inefficiencies, will soon find themselves among the starving and dying. Only those who are willing to spit out the state’s hook from their mouths and switch to a more sustainable form of sustenance will survive in such a future.

from Libertarian Gaming. If you liked this post, please