So what would it be like if McDonald’s owned a McCity? Many are terrified at the idea of swapping government authority for corporate authority. That is a very valid concern, but is there any way that this can be effective and fair for residents? I think so. That is what we’ll be discussing. There will be pros and cons. Overall this is less about McDonalds and more about private towns in general. Keep in mind that I’m no expert and this is purely hypothetical. Also, the best way to find the correct answer on the internet is to post the wrong one. Maybe this is the wrong one and we’ll learn something from a response.
I feel it could address the concerns of people who worry about the lack of a governing body in a minarchist or anarchist society. The developing company who would then sell or rent the property to people would set standards of association. I’d imagine you would sign a contract that you would do things like vaccinate your children, maintain grass height, and subscribe to whatever security company McDonald’s has contracted. Maybe you’d even agree to send your kids to the school it has provided. I would hope you would be able to still homeschool your children if desired. An international company like McDonald’s also has a reputation of kindness and charity to uphold, so there would not be any discrimination based on race, gender identity, or religion. I’d imagine it would be very peaceful. Taco Bell Villa would have all the weed you could ever want, too. They would sell so many tacos.
Roads would be privately owned by McDonald’s and open to the public, funded by rent and sales of food bought by visitors, as residents could qualify for discounts. Certain high-end subdivisions such as Golden Arches would have Playplaces(parks) and common areas for residents to enjoy, similar to existing gated communities. We have to remember limited government and anarchy are not always appealing to everyone. As crazy as it sounds, there would be a market for “government.” Private cities operating as large homeowners associations would be appealing. Some people would want a guaranteed safe place with security and order. They may not find that “in the wild.”
So what could the cons of a safe, affordable living situation like this be? Well, for one, it would be trading one master for another. What is the point of working to end control of people’s lives, only to have them give up freedom for security all over again? I understand liberty isn’t for everyone, but C’mon. There would literally be McPolice, but they’d be enforcing the rules of private property upon the voluntary residents, so technically no one is violated. It still doesn’t feel right no matter how many times you approach the issue. Literal private governments. I think what bothers me the most is that so many would be supportive and be flocking to them. You see evidence of that every time someone is an apologist for police or government surveillance. Many people will never be ready to be free.
The house on McNugget Lane isn’t for me. Even if I can actually get more than 2 Sweet & Sour Sauces now. But it may be perfect for someone else, so I suppose they should have that option if that’s what they desire. Supply and demand. Luckily the land development companies that exist now would still continue to operate. So there would still be less corporate neighborhoods for people to buy into or rent from. Simple HOAs setting simple standards and a couple private guards at the entrances. Or, what about the crazy idea that people will all respect each other’s desire to be free and left alone? I think a lot of people forget that one. I just want turrets that shoot mini-nukes at trespassers. That sounds pretty dope.