Demanding world government

Economics Political Theory
41

“But there is huge difference between “anarchy” between states and the type of anarchy advocated by anarcho-capitalists”

So how far down can you break up these territorial monopolies and still maintain “order”? Or in other words, what is the minimum size for a State before you declare Anarchy?

Monaco: Its area is just under 2 km² with an estimated population of almost 33,000.

It’s comprised of wards numbered above. Can I break those up and declare sovereignty also? Can I then go even smaller? Tell me when to stop before we cross over to Anarchy.

42

What a nonsensical question. There is no secession movement in Monaco, so it is moot.

43

Not necessarily. Two states can disagree and then go to war. If one of them wins, you might call them the ‘final decision maker’. This is no different from interpersonal anarchy where the buff guy wins every time.

Good point. Therefore, a minarchist must admit that if he could push a magic button, he would create a world minarchist state to eliminate these types of disputes. If I could magically create a worldwide protectorate, then I would. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening are zilch.

Isn’t it consistent for an individual to be a state?

Yes. That’s why the individual right to secession is so important.

The Monarchy of Snowflake: Population 1?

That has a nice ring to it. How’s life there?

44

Snowflake wrote the following post at Sun, May 30 2010 10:47 PM:

Minarchists have a problem with anarchy between people, so for consistency, they must also have a problem with anarchy between states. This is why the OP says minarchy implies world government.

Thanks for clarification :slight_smile:

45

overcrowded, gassy.

46

what is the minimum size for a State before you declare Anarchy?

Point taken. Individuals have the right to secede and form their own “state.” But this does not mean you have to declare anarchy.

I am defining the state differently, as “an orgainization authorized by people to use force on their behalf.” Most anarchists believe that this type of organization must exist to protect people and property, but they insist that defense must be private. I have argued above that private defense organizations would act like a state, so why not just set up a state to protect life, liberty, and property? In the context of the real world, an anarcho-capitalist territory would be vulnerable to invasion from a territory with a coercive government. The free territory would then fall under coercive rule. Under a protectorate, there would be a standing army to defend against such an invasion and preserve freedom.

47

And if this organization derives revenues non-aggressively, and only acts in self defense, this is what we call a PDA, or private defense agency.

Your definition of government makes the kinds of aggressive institutions we see today not governments, because most of them are not authorized by their citizens. If you want to define government this way, fine. You’ll only be playing semantic tricks on your opponent.

48

"so why not just set up a state to protect life, liberty, and property? "

So why not just set up a territorial monopoly over healthcare? Or schools? or food, water, shoes, steel, don’t forget the banks, money, etc,…

Seriously, how does it follow that since anarchist think that defense agencies would be in demand, that a State is beneficial?

“I have argued above that private defense organizations would act like a state”

Either it’s State or it’s not. You can’t say it’s not a State but it will act like one. Either a private defense agency will be financed by the voluntary consent of the buying public, or by extortion and coercion in which case you are no longer talking about private defense agencies but about criminal organizations.

" In the context of the real world, an anarcho-capitalist territory would be vulnerable to invasion from a territory with a coercive government."

On the contrary! A totally decentralized system would be extremely difficult to defeat. Who do you attack? There is no King or a central authority that you must conquer and subdue. Since defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc.. are not under a central authority, those things cannot simply be taken over under the control of a single foreign invader. The invaders would literally have to subdue every individual in the free territory.

I would say that the incentive to attack such a free society would be extremely low in the first place. Not only because of the above, but also because there is no political machine with an army that can provoke its neighbors.

49

Also free trade makes everybody love you.

50

And if this organization derives revenues non-aggressively, and only acts in self defense, this is what we call a PDA, or private defense agency.

I am saying that it’s possible for a state to derive it’s revunue non-agressively and be limited to defense. I call this type of state a protectorate.

Your definition of government makes the kinds of aggressive institutions we see today not governments, because most of them are not authorized by their citizens. If you want to define government this way, fine. You’ll only be playing semantic tricks on your opponent.

I differentiate between “state” and “government.” A government governs, which implies positive action and the initiation of force. So all the governments today are still governments, or aggressive states. A protectorate, on the other hand, is not a government. It does not govern because it only uses force defensively. So, governments and protectorates are two different types of states, one using force positively and one using force negatively.

So far, humans have only ever had governments. The closest thing to a protectorate we’ve had was the United States republic. It had tons of flaws from the beginning, but worked pretty well for 100 years or so before being converted into a fully coercive government in the late 1800s. I don’t think there has ever been a system of anarchy that lasted this long or resulted in this much freedom.

Keep in mind that I’m thinking in terms of the nature of power in the real world. Throughout history, the masses have always been led by a tiny group of elites, about 3% of the population or so. This is not likely to change, since the vast majority of people just aren’t interested and follow the trend, even if that means being subservient to government. After the American Revolution, the elites decided for the first time to place limits on their own power, and the result was the Constitution of the United States. Right now, the elites in power are only interested in maintaining and expanding their control. The solution is to get a new group of elites in power who will go one step further than the Founding Fathers of America and successfully limit the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Unlike the governments of today, a protectorate would be authorized by every citizen wishing to participate.

51

“Therefore, a minarchist must admit that if he could push a magic button, he would create a world minarchist state to eliminate these types of disputes. If I could magically create a worldwide protectorate, then I would. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening are zilch.”

Oh great… and that world minarchist state - naturally results in a tyrannical one world government. Awesome.

Ya’ll need to read this What We Mean By Decentralization - Lew Rockwell

Furthermore, it’d be even worse - because one of the very last possibilities that hinder states, is the ability to leave / walk out, “vote with your feet”. States don’t like it when their slaves try leave - see; Soviet Union.. also see modern day United States, who have the IRS and exact same situation.

Thus, when there is no where else to leave to… (ahh hell no).

52

So if i started a business to protect people, like security companies do now, it would be a government? Despite the fact that you can have several of them overlapping in jurisdiction?

Oh so a state is…?

53

“I differentiate between “state” and “government.” A government governs, which implies positive action and the initiation of force. So all the governments today are still governments, or aggressive states. A protectorate, on the other hand, is not a government. It does not govern because it only uses force defensively. So, governments and protectorates are two different types of states, one using force positively and one using force negatively.”

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/03/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-libertarians-hate-it/

Libertarians, “Government,” and the State

"Now, given this understanding of the state, it is quite clear why libertarians hate the state. We libertarians are proponents of human liberty and freedom and individual rights. And we recognize that aggression is the only way to violate rights. We thus condemn aggression as criminal and unjust. We oppose not only private crime, but also institutionalized crime (see my What It Means to be an Anarcho-Capitalist and What Libertarianism Is). If there is an agency that commits institutionalized aggression then we oppose it because it commits aggression. The state just is “the agency that commits institutionalized aggression.” (Incidentally, the concept of the state in international law is this: The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.)

When the state is defined in this manner, then the various debates among minarchists and anarchists about whether “government” is libertarian or not become purely semantic (see, e.g. my post Machanarchy). If by “government” the minarchist means a (small) state, then it is criminal and unlibertarian. If by “government” they mean merely the non-state institutions of law and justice in a free society, then we are not opposed to it because such institutions are not inherently aggressive. In other words, when minarchists talk about government, the question is not how we classify it or what the best words are for state, government, etc., semantically: but rather: the question is: does the “government” that “minarchists” (?) favor engage in institutionalized aggression, or not? If not, it’s not a state, and it’s not unlibertarian. If it does, it’s merely a type of state."

“After the American Revolution, the elites decided for the first time to place limits on their own power, and the result was the Constitution of the United States.”

No they didn’t. They decided to increase their power via a coup d’etat. I mean it was literally called: The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

So much for that, huh? They went against the popular will off the day. They, were meant to meet and amend the AoC, delegates were sent to do just that. Instead - they completely through out the AoC. They centralized power and made themself rulers.

“successfully limit the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property.”

This is impossible and as such, utopian. Never in the history of the world - has a group, who have been given a monopoly on power and ultimate descision making, ever remain limited. I’d love for you to prove otherwise.

Ultimately, it’s time to put down G. Edward Griffin (who is great on the elites etc.) and to pick up someone who actually understands political philosophy in a greater depth.

54

So why not just set up a territorial monopoly over healthcare? Or schools? or food, water, shoes, steel, don’t forget the banks, money, etc,…

It would require the aggressive use of force of force to set up these monopolies. I don’t think it would require aggression to set up a protectorate. You would just have to make sure that participation was voluntary and that funds were acquired without coercive taxation.

Seriously, how does it follow that since anarchist think that defense agencies would be in demand, that a State is beneficial?

The only type of state I am advocating is a protectorate. Since it is a voluntary organization limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property, a protectorate is very similar to a PDA. Even if a police agency or fire deparment were private, it would still end up serving the public just like a state. The alternative would be that policemen and firemen would only help paying customers, leaving non-members to get mugged or burn to death, which doesn’t make sense.

Either it’s State or it’s not. You can’t say it’s not a State but it will act like one. Either a private defense agency will be financed by the voluntary consent of the buying public, or by extortion and coercion in which case you are no longer talking about private defense agencies but about criminal organizations.

A protectorate would be financed by the voluntary consent of the public, and it would also be a state. States don’t have to be coercive governments, even though they always have been in the past.

On the contrary! A totally decentralized system would be extremely difficult to defeat.

It would be difficult to capture a territory with no organized military force?

Who do you attack?

All the unorganized people with handguns and the separate PDAs.

There is no King or a central authority that you must conquer and subdue.

All the better. He would probably have lots of organized defense around him.

Since defense, infrastructure, utilities, etc.. are not under a central authority, those things cannot simply be taken over under the control of a single foreign invader.

This is true, but it would be easy to take them over one by one and then merge them all under a central authority.

The invaders would literally have to subdue every individual in the free territory.

Nope, just enough people so that the rest give up and submit to the guy with the huge army.

I would say that the incentive to attack such a free society would be extremely low in the first place. Not only because of the above, but also because there is no political machine with an army that can provoke its neighbors.

Coercive governments are always looking to expand their territory, whether they are provoked or not. In fact, they often manufacture a fake “provokation” to justify going to war. It would be easy to demonize the members of the free society as violent anarchists, stage a false-flag attack, and then invade with the public’s support.

55

"I am saying that it’s possible for a state to derive it’s revunue non-agressively and be limited to defense. "

How would it secure its territorial monopoly without aggression?

What about somebody who withdraws his “voluntary” support from this government and wishes to buy defense services from somebody else?

You see, there is no way that you can have a non-aggressive State.

56

How would it secure its territorial monopoly without aggression?

What about somebody who withdraws his “voluntary” support from this government and wishes to buy defense services from somebody else?

A protectorate would not have a territorial monopoly. People could withdraw their support and seek defense from a private agency, although most would be convinced of the benefit of joining the newly established state. It’s not like people aren’t already used to the idea of having an army, police, and firemen to protect them.

57

“All the unorganized people with handguns and the separate PDAs”

It’s really not as easy as you think to conquer a given amount of territory and occupy it. It practically impossible when you don’t have a central command that you can just wipe out or have them surrender so that the coercive apparatus of the previous government can just be taken over by the conquerers. That’s how it’s always been done. You can’t just go house to house and disarm the citizens. A free society would be armed to its teeth. Trust me, no military, no matter how large and sophisticated could conquer that.

Besides, who’s to say that the free society could not arm itself in self -defense if such a threat was real? Property owners have every incentive to protect their property. I don’t know why you just assume that a free society is tantamount to a bunch of sitting ducks.

58

“A protectorate would not have a territorial monopoly. People could withdraw their support and seek defense from a private agency, although most would be convinced of the benefit of joining the newly established state.”

Listen, then I don’t know what we’re arguing about here. Your “protectorate” is a private defense agency. I don’t know why you think it is not. If it is funded by voluntary contributions and it holds no legal territorial monopoly, then it is a private defense agency.

59

Oh so a state is…?

An organization using force on the behalf of its citizens.

Obviously, every state that now exists also uses this force aggressively at the expense of its citizens, but this need not always be the case. The America state had many problems, but it allowed human freedom to flourish more than in any other society throughout history.

Whenever people delegate the use of force, there is a risk involved. A private defense agency could attract predators and become coercive. Then it is a criminal organization, just like a coercive government.

60

"A private defense agency could attract predators and become coercive. Then it is a criminal organization, just like a coercive government.

No, not every criminal organization automatically qualifies as a government. A private defense agency that turned criminal doesn’t become a State unless it managed to gain popular support for its statist agenda. Otherwise, it’s just another criminal gang which has to be dealt with as in any other society, except that I would expect that PDFs would offer a much greater defense against precisely such threats.