I’m rather puzzled at the status of the City of within the . From the article it would seem as if it is a sovereign chartered business entity, and its voting system indeed appears to be closer to voting by shareholders than by residents. I even hear that the Queen herself is not allowed to enter unless the Lord Mayor walks her in.
So, is the City a true firm, a small State or a local authority?
If it’s not a State, why there’s no article on it on athousandnations? [:)]
It’s just a corporation. It has no no right to dispense justice upon crimes committed within its jurisdiction. The most it can do is keep the streets lit up.
It’s essentially like a council which is local government.Most people in Britain think local government is extremely incompetent(well at least in my experience)
The term City, firm, state or local is not really important. What is important is how does the City of London acquire the economic resources it needs to function? There are only two ways to get resources: 1. Trade for them voluntarily, and 2. Steal/Tax/Take them by force. Clearly the City of London does get resources by providing consumers with products and getting paid for those products in return. It in fact like any other violent entity takes money using force or the threat of force. And even if it gets resources through trade, does it use force to prevent competition?
The City of London has been the rightful owner of the City since before the Middle Ages. What differentiates it from other councils is that it has never been expropriated by force. It can charge residents whatever it wants.
That was my idea too. The only odd thing there is that it is not owned by anyone but rather by “residents”. Of course, if you condition resindence with buying shares, a normal firm could also do that, just like a (socialistic) homeowner association. If more such charters where extended in the UK (why not Canary Wharf?), I belive the City with its gross missmanagement would go bankrupt.
But hey, next time they ask us “anarchy is utopia? Where has anarchy worked?” we say "the richest square mile of land on earth, and teh very heart of one of the major cities on earth, is living from centuries under anarchy. "
Well no, that is incorrect. For matters of law they are still subject to the English parliament. They could not re-charter themselves as a shareholder-owned city, for example, as the parliament would never allow it.
Isn’t it just a local government that works in an unusual way? I could be wrong but it seems that way.
Where did you get the idea that they trade and are supported by customers? can I see the source?
A government is an arbitrator in disputes including disputes involving itself.
The City of London is not an arbitrator in anything. It maintains roads and parks and rents land. It’s just a real estate enterprise.
It also has a police force.
It would be great if they weren’t a state but they are.
I just don’t see why it’s not a form of local government albeit a strange one.
even their website describe them as such :-
"The City of London provides local government services for the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’ "
The City of London Police is a state agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police
They enforce and are funded by a Council Tax
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Advice_and_benefits/Council_tax
Isn’t it just a local government? even their website call them that.
"The City of London provides local government services for the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’ "
They even impose and enforce a council tax
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Advice_and_benefits/Council_tax
Not to mention that the City of London Police are a state agency
Well, you wouldn’t expect them to say “we provide the living example of how the State is fruitless, but only for rich people, you scumbags”.
As for dispute adjudication, I remember the City has its own Judges, or is that incorrect?
Shopping malls have a police force too.
If they legally own the land, than that’s is no tax, but lawful rent. And judges aren’t forcing decisions, they’re enforcing the will of the property holder. As a side note, does anyone besides the Corp. owns any piece of real estate in the City. If not, I believe it’s an entirely legit thing.
You can own real estate within someone else’s real estate. There is no necessary conflict.
O rly? Is there no difference between a police force and a security force?
If someone besides the Corporation owns any piece of real estate within the Square Mile, than the Lord mayor cannot lawfully enforce his will (tax, police, judges) on them. That would qualify the City as a microstate, nor a firm.
This is the flaw with this interpretation of anarcho-capitalism. You’ve basically redefined a state as not a state on the simple condition of legitimate ownership of land - and yet the same kind of powers remain. All that’s really been changed are the ground rules for aquiring state power.