Care to elaborate ? Are you saying that the unification of Germany was in line with some sort of underlying ‘cultural’ nation ?
It’s funny. If you read the whole article, Robin Hood was probably a blood thirsty villain, but time and soft minds have turned him into a Che Guevara T-Shirt, not the cunning, blood and power hungry murderer Che.
What came before, the nation or the state? The goose or the egg?
I am personally fervently anti-nationalist, but one of the good things about libertarianism is freedom of association.
Lets suppose the land of America were a libertarian nation (anarchy can also mean eras of intense civil war, generally that is actually what the word is used for). Im assuming it would generally be divided into autonomous units focused around certain cities, or combinations of cities. (The area from Cleveland south to Akron is entirely developed to the point where you really dont know if you’re in cleveland or not) What would happen if say the Cleveland area were to conspire with Pittsburgh to dominate the Ohio River? Or to break it down even further, what if a large private security country were to join with boat manufacturers and various shipping companies to dominate the Ohio River?
What would happen if you were to put some thought into your questions?
Who are Cleveland area and Pittsburgh?
Maybe I missed that term in Human Action, but what is a ‘large private security country’?
Robin Hood wasn’t the government and he was leading a honorable revolt against a government that was starving its’ people via taxation and murder. Robin Hood was a good libertarian then I would say. A man and woman have the right to defend their property against aggressors.
I guess there’s different stories of Robin Hood. I was giving my sense of Robin Hood within the context I provided. Just to clarify on this since I just posted about this same topic of Robin Hood.
They would loose profit.
I meant to say a large private security company. Apologies.
And how do you assume they would lose profit? They would have absolute control of the trade routes.
Another assumption. How would that scenario obtain?
If private shipping companies in Pittsburgh were to team up with Cleveland Security firms and Cincinatti shippers to dominate the Ohio river, who would stop them in a free market? Consumers would be delighted to have the cheap products provided by this arrangement. But eventually this would lead to private funded wars to try and stop it.
People will continue to do what they do, whether or not their government is a state. The greek city-states warred all the time. Even tribal peoples war with each other.
Why would people start a war against a company they were delighted about?