What happens to a privatized government

When Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1850, during the age of expansionist Germany, he incited a political fire in the minds of the working class. Marx brought forth the idea “from each ability to each need” as the basis for totalitarian governments to come, both in the Soviet Union and in Asia. The basic idea of communism is a shared wealth, with all business owned by the government, to equally distribute the wealth. In theory, each civilian works for the government in their respective jobs and receives a salary, not based on their quality of work, but upon their need. If all were well in the world, such a system would work beautifully, but unfortunately, greed, deceit, and sin exist. What if instead of “from each ability to each need,” it changed, to “from each dollar, to each need,” if that were the case we would have a drastically different system.

“From each dollar” means the money which comes from an individual’s wallet, while “to each need” means to the need of the person. Insurance follows such a model. If a car owner purchases insurance, they only pay for the insurance they desire based upon their need for such a plan. For example, if I drive in the highlands of Montana, where few other cars occupy the road, I do not need expensive insurance because the chance I get into an accident is highly unlikely.

If such a mentality is applied to our government, it would drastically shift both the culture of America and our economy. With such policies in place, why should a civilian who lives in the woods pay the same tax rate as someone who lives in a city, when the woodland person apparently uses fewer government resources. Why should a senior who lives in a gated community and dials 9-11 much less frequently pay the same tax rate, as someone who lives in a rough neighborhood? Similarly, why should a student who goes to private schools pay equal taxes as much as another student who attends public schools? They should not.

Instead, a tax rate based upon the government services used more frequently would be implemented and based upon income, leaving those who do not frequent government establishments, with more money in their pocket and those who often use government services with the same tax rate as before. Hypothetically, all citizens would pay a base rate to have access to all services in time of need, but such a membership can be upgraded based upon usage. Most people do not place new found money in a box underneath their bed, but back into the economy. By lowering the tax rate based upon used services, then more Americans could have more money in their pockets. Likewise, the economy would skyrocket.

Such a system could not work in American or Europe, due to the collectivism and previously implemented policies, but such a tax rate brings up important questions about our economy and our government offices.