12. Decentralized Local Services
Replacing Parasitic Governments with Voluntary Local Services for True Freedom.
“Throughout history governments have been chronically short of revenue. The reason should be clear: unlike you and me, governments do not produce useful goods and services that they can sell on the market; governments, rather than producing and selling services, live parasitically off the market and off society.”—Murray Rothbard
This is one of a series of articles about ParaGov, what it stands for, and how it can create freedom for you, your family, and your community. ParaGov promotes a more evolved form of self-governance through decentralized communities that are based on voluntary transactions.
Previous articles
7. A Sovereign Individual's Point Form Constitution
8. The Sovereign Individual's Constitution
THE PROBLEM OF LAWS
Statutory law, created by legislatures and enforced by governments, often oversteps the boundaries of individual rights, leading to systemic issues in governance. Unlike common law, which is rooted in judicial precedent and community customs, or natural law, which is grounded in inherent human rights to life, liberty, and property, statutory law is problematic. Statutory law is frequently arbitrary, reflecting the agendas of those in power rather than universal principles. It imposes regulations that conflict with individual autonomy, such as taxation without the explicit consent of those governed.
…how can individuals grant politicians rights they don’t have?
A core issue is that citizens cannot delegate rights to politicians that they do not possess in the first place. Individuals have no inherent right to coerce others, seize property, or dictate behavior beyond mutual agreements. If individuals don’t have these rights, how can individuals grant politicians rights they don’t have?
…they act as criminal enterprises…
When governments enact statutory laws that infringe on the rights of some or all of its citizens, they act as criminal enterprises. This creates a disconnect between the governed and the governing, fostering distrust and inefficiency.
…they empower local councils to facilitate voluntary agreements…
Communities should instead adopt common and natural law frameworks. Common law, built on precedent and local customs, ensures justice aligns with community values. Natural law protects inalienable rights, preventing overreach. Together, they empower local councils to facilitate voluntary agreements, not enforce arbitrary rules. By grounding governance in these principles, communities uphold individual sovereignty, foster accountability, and prevent the criminalization inherent in statutory overreach, creating systems that truly reflect the will and rights of their members.
REPLACING “GOVERNMENT” WITH “LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDERS”
The term "government" carries a weight of authority and control that misaligns with the principles of individual liberty and voluntary cooperation.
…control societies through laws, taxes, and enforcement mechanisms…
In Latin, the word "gubernare" means "to direct," "to steer," or "to rule," and it evolved into the English word "govern." The "-mentum" suffix was added to create "government," signifying the state or condition of governing. Over time, governments have come to direct or control societies through laws, taxes, and enforcement mechanisms.
…a top-down structure where authority is imposed rather than consented…
The connotation of control embedded in "government" can feel at odds with ideals of personal freedom and voluntary association. The term implies a top-down structure where authority is imposed rather than consented to, often backed by coercive measures like taxation, monopolistic services, or even fines. This forms the basis for proposing a shift to "Local Service Providers," a term that emphasizes voluntary, market-driven interactions over mandated control.
WHY AVOID GOVERNMENT?
The term "government" often evokes a monolithic entity with a monopoly on services like justice, security, and infrastructure, funded by compulsory taxes. This structure can stifle innovation, limit choice, and create inefficiencies due to a lack of competition. By renaming governments as "Local Service Providers," the focus shifts to entities that compete to meet community needs, offering services on a fee-for-service basis rather than through mandatory taxation. This model aligns with principles of voluntary exchange, where individuals pay only for the services they use, fostering accountability and efficiency.
…privatized and subject to market competition, ensuring quality and responsiveness.
In this proposed system, communities would operate as decentralized networks of local entities, each governed by a "Local Council." These councils would not wield coercive power but would instead identify community needs, propose solutions, and let residents vote on their adoption. Services traditionally provided by governments—such as courts, security, and infrastructure—would be privatized and subject to market competition, ensuring quality and responsiveness.
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDERS & VOLUNTARY COMMUNITIES
In this reimagined system, all services currently managed by municipalities, city halls, or counties would be privatized and offered by independent and Local Service Providers. These entities would compete to deliver high-quality services at competitive prices, and residents would choose providers based on their needs and preferences. The absence of taxation would mean that all services are fee-based, ensuring that individuals only pay for what they use.
…authority would be limited to facilitation rather than enforcement.
The Local Council, composed of elected representatives, would serve as a coordinator, identifying community needs and managing contracts with Local Service Providers, but its authority would be limited to facilitation rather than enforcement.
Key features of this system include:
Voluntary Transactions: Residents pay directly for services, such as road maintenance or waste management, choosing providers based on quality and cost.
Competitive Markets: Multiple providers offer services like courts, security, or utilities, driving innovation and efficiency.
Local Council Role: Elected officials propose bills to address community needs, which are then voted on by residents. The council contracts with Local Service Providers to meet approved needs.
No Taxation: Funding comes from user fees, eliminating forced contributions and aligning costs with usage.
REPLACING TRADITIONAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS WITH LOCAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Municipalities, city halls, and counties currently handle a wide range of services. In the proposed system, these would be replaced by private Local Service Providers, each specializing in a specific function. Below is a comprehensive list of possible Local Service Providers that could replace traditional municipal services:
Security Services: Private security firms replace police, offering protection, patrols, and emergency response. Private investigators would be incentivized through rewards to solve crimes.
Judicial Services: Independent court providers offer jurists for criminal cases and adjudicators or arbitrators for civil disputes, competing on reputation and fairness.
Infrastructure Providers: Companies maintain roads, bridges, and public spaces, charging fees based on usage (e.g., tolls or subscriptions).
Waste Management: Private firms handle garbage collection, recycling, and disposal, with residents choosing providers based on cost and reliability.
Utility Providers: Water, electricity, and internet services are offered by competing companies, ensuring innovation and affordability.
Fire and Emergency Services: Private fire departments and ambulance services charge fees or operate on subscription models.
Public Health Services: Private clinics or health organizations provide inspections or sanitation services.
Education Services: Schools operate as private entities, with parents paying tuition or subscribing to educational programs.
Building and Zoning Services: Private firms would issue permits, conduct inspections, and ensure compliance with community standards.
Transportation Services: Private companies manage public transit or shared mobility solutions, such as buses or bike-sharing programs.
Parks and Recreation: Private organizations maintain parks, community centers, and recreational facilities, charging access fees.
Environmental Services: Companies provide conservation, pollution control, or green space management, paid for by residents or businesses.
Administrative Services: Private firms handle record-keeping, or voter registration, competing on efficiency.
EXAMPLE: Managing Building Permits in a Privatized System
Building permits, traditionally issued by municipal governments to ensure compliance with safety and zoning regulations, would be handled by private and Local Building and Zoning Service Providers in this system. Here’s how the process could work:
Multiple Providers: Several companies compete to offer permitting and inspection services. Each provider employs licensed engineers, architects, or inspectors who assess building plans for safety, environmental impact, and alignment with community standards.
Community Standards: The Local Council, in consultation with residents, establishes basic standards for construction (e.g., structural integrity, fire safety, or aesthetic guidelines). These standards are publicly available, and Local Service Providers use them as a baseline for evaluations.
Application Process: A property owner submits their building plans to a chosen Local Service Provider. The provider reviews the plans, conducts inspections, and issues a permit if the project meets standards. Fees are based on the complexity of the project.
Competition and Accountability: If a provider is slow, overly expensive, or overly strict, property owners can choose a competitor. Providers are incentivized to maintain high standards to preserve their reputation, as poor performance (e.g., approving unsafe buildings) could lead to liability or loss of business.
Dispute Resolution: If a property owner disputes a provider’s decision, they can appeal to an independent Judicial and Local Service Provider, which offers arbitrators to resolve conflicts fairly.
Transparency: Providers publish their approval rates, fees, and inspection timelines, allowing residents to make informed choices.
This approach ensures that building permits are issued efficiently, with market competition driving down costs and improving service quality. Residents benefit from flexibility and accountability, as they can choose providers that align with their needs.
BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF THE TRANSITION
Transitioning to a Local Service Provider model requires Community Ownership. All municipal and county assets—such as utilities, infrastructure, and public facilities—are transferred to collective ownership by community members. Every resident becomes an equal owner of these assets, and any new assets purchased by the Local Council are also collectively owned. When a new resident joins the community, they automatically become a co-owner of all community assets, ensuring everyone has a stake in the collective wealth. Corporations are prohibited from acquiring or controlling these assets, preserving local ownership and preventing external control.
Mechanics of the Transition
The Local Council, made up of volunteers, facilitates the shift to a Local Service Provider model, transferring operational responsibilities to private local service providers. Residents pay fees directly to these providers for services like utilities or waste management, eliminating traditional taxation. The Local Council ensures service providers meet community-established standards for quality and reliability during the transition and beyond.
Community Bank and Money Creation
The community establishes a Community Bank to support its economy. The bank creates money based on the community’s collective assets, resources, production capacity, or optionally a gold-backed currency for stability. No interest is charged on loans, enabling residents and service providers to borrow funds from the Community Bank to acquire assets like equipment or infrastructure without debt burdens. Money creation is tied to the community’s tangible and productive wealth, fostering a sustainable financial system.
Challenges and Solutions
Challenges include ensuring competitive markets and maintaining consistent service quality. To address these, the Local Council can:
Encourage multiple service providers to prevent monopolies and promote competition.
Establish community oversight to ensure providers adhere to quality and performance standards.
This model empowers residents as owners, supports local economic resilience through the interest-free Community Bank, and ensures services remain reliable and competitive.
In my next article, I’ll explain how National Services empower sovereign individuals, healthy families, and strong communities.
Next In Series To Be Completed
Please share your comments on this post, as a vision for a better world cannot be developed in isolation.
If you believe governments around the world need fixing, then do something about it. Get Informed. Get Organized. Subscribe to ParaGov: a more evolved form of self-governance through decentralized communities that are based on voluntary transactions.
Thanks for reading ParaGov’s Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it and spread the word about self-governance through decentralized communities that are based on voluntary transactions.