The Limits of Freedom of Religion in a World of Monopoly Governments

We in the US take for granted the right of freedom of religion, that is, the right of each person to choose their religion. How strange it is for us to think that there was a time when a person's religion was chosen for them, for the most part, based on where they lived. There was even an expression in Latin for this concept: cujus regio, ejus religio: whoever is king, his religion. There are still many places in the world where it is a capital crime to change one's religion. Recognition of the human right to choose one's religion is not yet universal.

Yet we don't for a minute think it odd that our government is chosen for us based on a majority vote of the minority of those eligible to vote and who actually make the choice and effort to do so. Think about this: in the last 25 years of presidential elections, the percentage of the eligible voters who actually cast votes was below 50%. So, in nearly every case, who the president has been these last 25 years was determined by a majority, often a slim one, of the minority of eligible voters who voted. This comes out to about 25% of eligible voters choosing who the other 75% will call Mr President. Is this any way to run a nation?

And why is this number of voters so low? I would say it reflects how the typical voter values the right to vote. It says to me that generally more than half those eligible to vote don't think much of what "everyone" says is the great honor of voting. Some would say that these people are dishonoring the greatest gift of democracy. But it seems to me that they are really saying that what is said about the right to vote does not really correspond with what that right provides them in the real world. They are voting, if you will, on the value of voting, and they are rejecting it by a landslide.

Panarchy says that the right to vote is the wrong right. The right to vote is merely the right to choose who has power in a territorial monopoly of coercion. The monopoly always remains a monopoly, and as a monopoly, it is always to the advantage of those who hold power in the monopoly, and a disadvantage to those who depend on that monopoly for the services it is meant to provide. The monopoly crushes real diversity, real innovation, the possibility of any genuine change. It exists to serve itself and its temporary caretakers. At best these caretakers provide minimum services using other peoples money (though they are always happy to take all the credit), but with the least efficiency, and the greatest likelihood of corruption. At worst they kill the society and the people they profess to serve.

So which right does provide real power to the governed? It is the right of each person to choose a government for oneself from among a number of non-territorial choices. It is the right to vote with one's taxes, to determine on a regular basis, whether, within the township (territory) of Cherry Hill (for example), one will give one's taxes to Government A or Government B (or C, D, etc.).

The status quo puts all the power in the hands of whoever wins elections. Panarchy puts the power in the hands of each person, which, as with the right of freedom of religion, is where it rightly belongs.

Yes, here in the US we have freedom of religion. We are free to choose whether we go to this house of worship or that one, or none at all. And having that right, everything is as it should be. But if one is able to make this choice, is that really freedom of religion? What if the government recognizes this right and does not interfere with this choice? And what if, in addition, it makes choices about how your taxes are spent on your behalf that are at odds with your religious beliefs? Do you still have true religious freedom? If you are a truly free person, a person of integrity, how can you abide the fact that the government, in your name and with the resources you provide it, does things that you find reprehensible and repugnant? If a government can do this to you, do you really have freedom of religion?

Or what if the government merely takes charge of certain activities that go beyond what a government must do within society? What if the government decides to take upon itself functions that diminish your rights as a parent to educate your children? What if it takes upon itself to perform what can only be called works of charity, the personal acts to which people of all religions are called? What if it oversteps its bounds, determining moral issues to be observed by everyone, judgments that properly belong to each person to make for themselves? Most people would agree that governments could provide useful services to a community of people if they were provided without the disadvantages that come with monopoly. Those governments might even provide services that would facilitate the activities properly engaged in by religious groups. But governments that exist as monopolies can too easily usurp the rights of the individual,  unjustly interfering with activities that religious people practice as part of their religion, beyond their right to choose their religion.

Panarchy, by providing a real choice of government, a true end of monopoly government, provides the best environment for the most free and full practice of religion as well, whatever that religion may be. By having freedom of choice in both government and religion, people will be able to discern correctly where each fits in their lives (if it fits at all), and assure for themselves that the proper boundaries of each are known and respected. The proper balance of government and religion within human society cannot be found when one is free to choose one's religion but not one's government.