Oh, OK. Sorry for the confusion.
Could I maybe have an expansion on this statement? I don’t understand how this doesn’t describe the world as it stands. There is no (official) global monopoly on power, just many types of societal organization co-existing on our single planet. Would this be considered a panarchic world?
Jackson:
As I interpret Max’s article, he his showing a conceivable path, not an end-state. It is a suggestion for how things could begin.
What Max is saying is that we can rank various goods according to their suitability for non-territorial provision, and we can begin to construct a libertarian society with those goods, not the ones that are difficult to exchange nonterritorially.
Why begin with roads, military, etc. ?
Why not begin with things that can be done on a nonterritorial basis in the near future ?
Once that is done, even with a single issue, then a panarchist community exists. Then with respect to that single issue, there are at least two communities. Then things develop from there.
Things can begin with those issues that:
Are nonterritorial, do not require that any laws be changed, do not require that anyone’s convictions be changed, do not require any hostile or aggressive actions towards non-members, etc..
Also, if done online, it is inexpensive for libertarians, and due to the nature of the Internet, hard to prevent through traditional coercive means.
Adam,
Sounds good, I’m all for that.
Sure:
I’ll just re-state an example I’ve been using.
Let’s say a group of libertarians decide to attach an invoice to the e-mails they send one another, and bill one another for “intellectual services” at a rate of a penny an hour (Or maybe, in terms of some commodity. These are details that would have to be considered…).
Thus, they have now established their own “wage and trade” agreement, that satisfies the panarchist requirements of nonterritoriality, voluntarism, etc…
They have also established a “community” or association that satisfies the general libertarian ethical code of non-coercion.
This wage and trade agreement does not replace, alter, or abolish currently existing laws. It “co-exists” with them.
It is a voluntary community that coexists with the already existing State and its instiutions.
If such a thing were done, libertarian society would begin. It would be the real thing, not just arguments and books.
But it doesn’t. Territorial monopoly remains as far as it is considered necessary by the people of the territory. This is where cooperation comes into play. If all agree that they need a single authority or owner for all roads in a territory (which, by the way, isn’t even true now – we have town, county, state, and US highways throughout my town), they can cooperate to accomplish this. It is all about who makes these decisions. Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd.
But it doesn’t. Territorial monopoly remains as far as it is considered necessary by the people of the territory. This is where cooperation comes into play. If all agree that they need a single authority or owner for all roads in a territory (which, by the way, isn’t even true now – we have town, county, state, and US highways throughout my town), they can cooperate to accomplish this. It is all about who makes these decisions. Why, in any circumstance, should someone be allowed to force their opinion on others? That is absurd.
I never thought I’d be doing this, but as Hoppe says, you are exhibiting a territorial monopoly every moment you exist, simply by your physical body exclusively occupying the space you currently dwelling in.
As I demonstrated, it is my belief that some ideologies are fundamentally opposed. I don’t see how a communist and a rugged individualist could cooperate effectively.
I understand cooperation, and I’m also a firm believer in its effectiveness, but I think there is a limit to its abilities for plurality, and a limit to its ability to eliminate territorial monopolies.
What happens when you cross an authoritarian? Would you force your opinion upon them when they tried to become your overlord?
Hoppe is talking about the rights of ownership, the rights of life, liberty, and property. But it begs the question, who owns the right to control what happens in a territory. Panarchy asserts that ownership within a territory (beyond oneself and one’s personal property) is joint, and that whatever governance exists be answerable to each person. Our current system makes elections the limit to which government answers to the governed. Panarchy allows that a finer level of accountablity is attainable.
The Axiom of Non-Agression allows the individual to defend himself, does it not?
This seems like a contradiction. You hold the opinion that the NAP is valid, and as such, it allows you to force your opinion onto those that threaten you by defending yourself. Yet formerly, you seem to hold the notion that wrong under any circumstance to force your opinion on someone. You might have to put a few caveats in your first statement to not be self-contradicting.
There is no contradiction here. Defending oneself against against an aggressor is not forcing your opinion on them.
It is your opinion that you should defend yourself.
That’s OK, it’s not meant to address panarchism.
Someone more acquainted with panarchism may have an answer, but I will just say that I don’t necessarily see the coexisting governments conception of panarchism so much as a destination but as a possible strategy (among many).
AJ, Jackson:
Right now, as we debate and discuss, there are probably an unlimited number of possible voluntary communities that could be formed online. We know they would be real, because none of us believe they would be “allowed.” Thus, they would be real coexisting communities. Not hypothetical ones in books and arguments.
If that ever happens, if libertarians were to decide to take the first steps towards such coexisting communities, none of us will have to worry about the abstract structure of some imaginary society arrived at by social theorists separate from the choices of the individuals in such a society.
We will have more important things to focus on. Libertarianism will be upon us, here and now, with it it’s challenges, and we won’t be worrying about where to place imaginary toll booths on imaginary private roads leading to imaginary libertarian courthouses.
If a coexisting community in any meaningful sense materializes, it won’t be a strategy, it will be libertarian society unfolding before our eyes.
It will be libertarian society; just not the one we’ve been taught to expect.
What’s preventing libertarian society from emerging is that people are trying to reach consensus on the legal structure of a society that will probably never exist, rather than striving for consensus on the first steps towards actualizing a libertarian community in nascent form.
Most likely, what is preventing us from doing this is fear of the unknown.
Some Prevalent Unchallenged Assumptions about the Conceiving of Human
For liberty to exist, libertarians may agree that some person or group will have to attain some kind of exemption from some number of compulsory welfare state obligations, at some time and in some country or region. But beyond this very general vision, no one knows how, when, or in what form this original liberty will emerge. may possibly begin when some small group of people is able to liberate themselves from a number of welfare state laws at the same time that others are not able to. This would imply a change in the existing legal structure, and would result in the existence of people one could call “libertarians”. They would be living a political existence of greater freedom than those subject to all the laws of the existing welfare state.
If this were to happen, then of how much use would existing libertarian social theory be? If liberty actually emerges in some modest form not yet completely understood, the main theoretical-legal problem to be solved might be how a limited number of people can relate legally to the welfare state which claims jurisdiction of the geographic area. The majority of libertarian private property theorizing is not designed to solve this problem. Rather the libertarian private property ethic conceives of the entire system of libertarian laws separate from the emergence of individual liberty, and thus without reference to what the actual concrete problems are. The libertarian private property ethic is concerned mostly with the legal relations between hypothetical libertarian property owners, such owners not conceived as organically emerging from welfare state legal structures, but rather conceived as already fully emergent from them. However, there is no certainty whatsoever that emerging liberty will create the conditions assumed by private property theorists.
If some people succeed in obtaining some degree of individual liberty, there is no certain way of knowing what the desires or needs of those people will be. There is no way of knowing what shifts may occur in larger society (legal, intellectual, physical, etc.) upon the realization of this new reality. No one knows what creative agreements could possibly be reached between some conceivable group of people we would call libertarians, and the larger society from which they were attaining some degree of freedom. It is possible that libertarianism could emerge “organically” with different people in different circumstances forming different agreements. Libertarianism may appear differently in different places. It is possible that people we would call libertarians may be able to achieve a degree of liberty that is not total, yet is enough to satisfy them partially or substantially. What we now conceive of as abstract “liberty” may not look anything like we expect when it finally emerges. If this were to be the case, it could also happen that during this societal transformation, contemporary libertarian social theory would be of little use. The entire structure of laws and legal relations conceived under the banner of the private property ethic may have little practical application, because the assumptions upon which these proposed laws are based may never materialize, even when human liberty itself does materialize.
In the books, papers and debates on libertarian social theory, one rarely encounters this realization. If liberty begins to emerge such that the first libertarians still live in a welfare state environment, this will constitute a real and exciting development in the history of liberty. The challenges faced by such a conceivable group of people would likely present real theoretical problems; problems of legal relations, jurisdiction agreements, etc. The primary political problem of such people might be, not the (future) legal relations between themselves, but the (present) legal relations between themselves and the larger society.
This is one example of the way in which actual human liberty could conceivably emerge, rendering marginal the practical value of most contemporary libertarian social theory.
Considerations such as these remind us to keep our focus on individual liberty itself, and less so on the design of a grand libertarian legal structure.
Solving Libertarianism’s Theoretical Problems
A self-defeating notion held by many libertarians is the notion that all or most of the theoretical problems of a future libertarian society should be solved before libertarian society can or should emerge.
Those who believe that whether or not a libertarian society is possible, or should be attempted, depends on the success or failure to theoretically solve the abstract problems of some hypothetical libertarian society, make several mistakes in thinking. First, there is no certainty about the eventual structure of a society which would be formed under conditions of greater liberty. Thus, there is no certainty about what actual problems will need solving in such a society. Second, even if one could arrive at a general notion of a future libertarian society, the fact that some of its difficult theoretical problems eluded satisfactory resolution would be of little importance. The reason is, once liberty begins to emerge and the easier to solve problems and easier to build structures begin to emerge, then the societies—both libertarian and larger society—undergo a shift. From the point of view of this now changed complex of societies, problems which appeared difficult and unsolvable before may appear differently. The imagined problem of the past may be less of a problem now or its solution may become clear.
Trying to solve or conceive of future legal structural problems separately from their emergence in real human circumstances seems to have the effect of focussing all libertarian effort on speculating and hypothesizing, and taking a corresponding amount of effort away from real efforts to establish some kind of emergent human liberty. This separation of thought from action, of scholarship from results, is a defining characteristic of contemporary libertarianism, forestalling indefinitely the time when real human liberty will emerge.
This past weekend BookTV had the authors of “China’s Megatrends” talking about their book. I was distracted while listening, but thought I heard him say that in some localities the Chinese government is allowing considerable experimentation in government to occur. Has anyone read this book, or have any insight into this? Such a thing would certainly be a very good opportunity to attempt to bring about non-territorial government.
I heartily agree here. That this lesson has yet to be absorbed is in evidence in perhaps half the daily threads on this forum.
How much better would my life be if I achieved total political liberty? That is, if I knew no state would aggress* against me ever again. Well, my income would increase by about 12% (residence and income taxes where I live), and my expenses would fall about about 2.5% (half of the sales tax). I would also never be unjustly treated by the police (so far this has never happened), and border crossing would be less of a hassle.
In this most ideal case, I would be a bit happier and a bit more secure. But in my hopes for a libertarian society, this isn’t really what I’m looking for. It would certainly be nice, but this is the ideal case where I get total freedom right away, unconditionally with no risk or friction with the state. Rather, I think the big benefits of society becoming freer (that accrue to me) would be from falling prices, happier people, faster advancement of technology, and all the other benefits of the unhampered free market and other spontaneous social orders.
With that in mind, is the idea that a large group of people might form a such an association and then maybe start a business with employees all in the association and compete with big advantages because of the lack of taxes and regulations? Maybe providing services and goods only to those in the association (if goods were sold to non-members living under the State, the State would surely want to check the goods for safety, etc.). By doing this, is the idea that maybe the State would leave us alone because we limited our interactions to each other? Say, we agree in advance that any disputes among members will be resolved by a particular arbitration agency, and in exchange we make a deal with the State that none of us have the right to take another to a State court or to call the State police on one another. If we had a dispute with a non-member it would perhaps fall in the State’s jurisdiction (at first). This is getting interesting. And I hear you about starting small, but these are ideas off the top of my head. It’s clear that it would have to be incremental, because - for instance - the State now has no mechanisms in place for excluding people from police coverage, etc. The one thing is I don’t see what the State gets out of the deal.
*by my definition of “aggression”, or yours, or Rothbard’s, etc.
Sounds like a great intentional community.Perhaps take the form of a condo association and a business co-op combined. Although, I don’t understand how this wouldn’t be just a tiny minarchist republic. Of course, I don’t think I would have any problem with that, as the concept of a state that small and laissez-faire doesn’t really bother me all that much.
It wouldn’t be minarchist for two reasons.
AJ:
Let’s assume that no one will change their mind on matters of political conscience in the foreseeable future. This means that all the people who will not agree in principle to the idea of voluntary association will continue to hold these convictions.
Then, either one can continue arguing with them, or find another path.
People are free to continue arguing with convicted statists of all persuasions. I’m trying to address the situation where a person believes that this kind of arguing isn’t going to bring about a voluntary community. My example and reasoning assumes that by and large, people will stick to their current political convictions.
Assuming this, what are the possibilities ?
Then, assuming that a libertarian society or community can’t be installed in one stroke, apparently, any libertarian society that does come about will have to come about over time. But given this, why would one have to begin with the most difficult or even impossible issues?
If there are 10,000 things that it is illegal to do voluntarily, why not choose one issue, issue #10,000. Why not choose the most trifling, minute, even laughable issue to begin with? And why not choose it in such a way, that thousands of people could participate easily, cheaply, voluntarily, nonterritorially and across borders, while preventing such a voluntary community would be extremely difficult and expensive ?
The idea is that once this is done, this IS a libertarian or panarchist community, since it fulfills the definition of a libertarian or panarchist community (mainly, voluntary, non-coercive, non-monopolistic, nonterritorial).
Now, you list various issues and problems that may arise if something like this were to happen.
My reply: Now we will have something positive to work on. A libertarian community would then be established, and we could focus our thought and energy on its maintenance, growth, and preservation.
This, as opposed to the current focus which is altering or abolishing the state (altering or abolishing political forms that reflect the social and political development of others).
I suggest this is not necessary, and in fact, is contrary to our purpose.
If you look at some of your concerns, you can see that you’re jumping ahead to problems that aren’t really related to taking issue # 10,000, and beginning with it.
You are talking about disputes with nonmembers, exemption from police coverage, etc… You are habitually leaping ahead to the abstract hypothetical construction of an entire imaginary libertarian society. My example hasn’t gotten anywhere near that far.
Why is there a dispute with my neighbor when I invoice you for a penny an hour? Why do I need an exemption from local police protection for that?
Do I need an arbitration agency for that? If so, I’ll find one.
You are discussing arbitration agencies, police protection, disputes with neighbors. Then, why not also discuss the military, health care, roads, zoning laws, state capitals, and on and on… You are way up there at issue # 52, 31, 18, and 7. I’m talking about issue #10,000
If a community is constructed around #10,000, it will be a libertarian community.
Why can’t I be both a member of a voluntarily chosen community at the same time I’m a member of a coercively imposed community?
I’m not a member of the coercively imposed community by choice, but essentially because for practical reasons, I am unable to avoid it. So I still can and will utilize the services that are provided by that community (police protection, arbitration, etc…) Those imposed services are still in place, and I’m still a citizen of that community. I can and will continue to utilize the services that for the time being I am unable to opt out of.
I’m a member of two coexisting societies: one I have chosen, and one that I am unable at this time to avoid.
That is panarchism.
The reason we don’t have panarchism now, is not because we haven’t yet abolished or altered the state. The reason we don’t have panarchism is because we haven’t constructed any community coexisting with it.
Libertarian society doesn’t exist because we haven’t taken any steps (outside of scholarship) to establish it.
I’m suggesting it is possible to establish it peacefully, voluntarily, nonterritorially.
I’m suggesting we could focus our energies in this direction, and spend less time trying to change the current system, or trying to convince nonlibertarians to become libertarians.
I got that part, but it still has to occupy some space, no?
Ah, so it only occupies cyberspace… interesting, although I’m having a hard time conceptualizing that. Wouldn’t it still have to occupy server space? The server still has to occupy some space itself.