Possible example of a non-coercive State?

Economics Political Theory
1

If your neighbor is murdering his girlfriend in his living room, even though you don’t have his okay to be on his property, it’s justified to barge in and save his girlfriend, right?

If no, why not? If yes, continue…

In this situation, you do not own your neighbor’s living room. It is your neighbor that is the rightful owner of his livingroom. Provided you don’t hurt any innocent people, you can stop the act of aggression he is committing on his property.

Suppose the government of Ruritania, instead of funding itself with taxation, raised revenue with a loser-pays court system, voluntary donations, a lottery, and seeking restitution from criminals (those who have aggressed against others) both for their victims and for the cost of sending the police to stop it/pursue/incarcerate the criminal.

In Ruritania, the NAP is the law. The government of Ruritania will allow for private defense and even private courts, provided these private institutions follow the government’s laws, which adhere to the NAP. The only competition they will not tolerate is a private defense company that does not adhere to the NAP. They will eliminate any institution that does not adhere to the NAP. You have no choice but to adhere to the NAP.

Ruritania has a totally open immigration policy. If private property owners want foreigners on their land, peaceful foreigners will not be prevented by the government of Ruritania. They will only prevent someone from immigrating to Ruritania when the immigrant has demonstrated he or she has not abided by the NAP in their homeland and are not likely to in Ruritania. In other words, if the immigrant would be arrested in Ruritania for what he or she did in their homeland, the immigrant would not be allowed to live in Ruritania.

The government doesn’t conscript, tax, force testimony of, etc., anyone.

To my knowledge, there has never been a government like this in the history of the world. Also, if such a government were to be established, it would not be likely that it would stay like this forever. And this is assuming the government translates the NAP perfectly into law. I’m not arguing that living under the government of Ruritania would be more desirable than living in an an-cap society. The question is whether or not this State would be “a gang of thieves writ large”.

Remember: the monopoly of law is the NAP, and the state is not funded through coercive measures. Even though the government of Ruritania is not the rightful owner of any property, it seems legitimate to me for it to exist only to enforce the NAP, just as I may enforce the NAP in my neighbor’s livingroom, even if I don’t own his livingroom.

2

Hang on - what definition of “state” are you using here?

3

Why? What’s the advantage to the citizens? Also, how does this state enforce uniform interpretation of NAP throughout the realm? Seems to me it would have to become a coercive force in implementation. Who’s the decision making body, ultimately? What’s it using its money for? Who decides how it’s spent?

4

@Autolykos

a territorial monopoly on the law.

@Lady Saiga:

To forcibly subdue any agent not adhering to the NAP as you understand it. Imagine the perfect libertarian legal code – that’s the monopolistic law of the land in Ruritania.

Right. With force. Just like I would use force to stop my neighbor from abusing his girlfriend.

People who adhere to the NAP as you understand it.

To enforce the NAP as you understand it using the force of the law.

Those who are perfectly enforcing the NAP, as you believe it would be perfectly enforced.

I know it’s not a likely scenario, but I’m trying to figure out if this would constitute a coercive State if it were to be established.

5

I’m afraid I’m not sure what you mean by “monopoly on the law”. Could you please elaborate on that? Do you mean a monopoly on settling disputes?

6

Yes, but probably not for the reasons you think.

What you’re refuting is what I would call the “sovereign theory of property in land” - basically, a landowner has a mini-tyranny within the confines of his property lines. Just like the King can do anything he wants within his territory, so the landowner can do anything he likes within his territory.

Not only is this a long-dead legal theory, it was never a libertarian theory to begin with and I am dismayed whenever I see libertarians espousing it.

In the end, all concepts of legality reduce to one word: justifiability. If a man is attacking his girlfriend on his property, the legal question is “was that justifiable?” If you enter his property to rescue his girlfriend, the legal question is, “was that justifiable?”

Which specific actions are justifiable and under what circumstances is a separate matter; it’s the meta-legal framework that has to be addressed first. Your rights consist of all and only the actions that you can justify. Your power consists of all the actions that you can legally justify and whatever other actions that need no justification. People frequently confuse these two.

Then it would be contradictory (hypocritical) to maintain a law monopoly, lottery monopoly, bounty monopoly and security monopoly, all of which you’ve included in your definition of Ruritania.

This is still a law et. al. monopoly and contradicts NAP.

“NAP” really isn’t a legal basis.

It would be. In fact, it would be the height of hypocrisy by making such a pretense of liberty/freedom while blatantly violating those very principles.

But intervening on your neighbor’s property isn’t “enforcing the NAP”, at least, not on any sensible view of law. Rather, it is an action that you believe you can justify in court. If your neighbor tries to sue you for trespassing, you believe you can mount a legal defense and defeat his suit. Or, perhaps, you know that he could win but you have deemed that the costs associated with that legal risk are worth it and you chose accordingly.

But “enforcing the NAP” is a bizarre way of thinking about libertarian law.

Clayton -

7

I mean it as in you may not have a competing legal code within Ruritania’s jurisdiction. No citizen may say that on their property, violating the NAP is legal. They don’t have a monopoly on settling disputes, as they will be happy to allow a private arbitrator settle it, provided the private arbitrator doesn’t use a legal code that differs from Ruritania’s – which, again, is the NAP in this scenario.

8

Thanks for the clarification. However, I guess I don’t understand how the non-aggression principle itself would be monopolized. I don’t think what you’re describing is a government/state at all - it’s just an organization for settling disputes. It allows other such organizations to operate as well, provided they follow the non-aggression principle. I don’t see how that puts one organization over all the others, so I don’t see any reason why you single out one of them as the government/state. They’re all private arbitrators that let other private arbitrators operate so long as they follow the non-aggression principle. Does that make sense?

9

EDIT:

@Clayton

Sorry, I forgot to address this to you. My definition of the monopoly of law was supposed to be directed at @Autolykos. Could you respond to this?

END EDIT:

(Sorry about that.)

10

@Autolykos:

Yes, but by virtue of having an enforced monopoly – as in you will be ultimately killed or incarcerated if you try to live by another legal code – doesn’t that distinguish it from other organizations?

11

Are you now saying that other organizations wouldn’t be allowed to retaliate against aggression? Or what? I’m sorry but I’m a bit confused again.

12

@Clayton

also, Ruritania doesn’t have a lottery monopoly, a security monopoly, or a bounty monopoly. It allows private competition in those areas. The only area where competition is forbidden is the area of law, which, again, I can’t see as being coercive if the law monopoly enforces non-aggression at the moment.

13

I understood your definition and will repeat that it’s contradictory.

Clayton -

14

@Autolykos

No, they would be able to! They would have to be retaliating against actual aggression, though, and in the scenario, the State of Ruritania perfectly defined it (which I understand is unlikely). If a private organization retaliated against someone for being a redhead, for example, the State would not allow it.

15

What do you mean by “they would have to be retaliating against actual aggression, though”? I mean, as opposed to what?

And if the state retaliated against someone for being a redhead?

16

I know, I know. The State is capable of doing that. Suppose the State of Ruritania never does. By the private organization retaliating against an “actual aggressor” I meant they can’t have their own definition of what aggression is (for example, they can’t claim that being a redhead is aggression). I know it’s hard to conceptualize the government doing anything perfectly, but in this scenario, it gets the NAP exactly right.

17

… So you’re now inviting us to suppose that some men are angels?

18

Precisely. I’m not saying this is a likely State, but do you think it would be a coercive one?

actually, I think it’s a good argument against the state – if this is the only non-coercive State, look how hard it is to achieve it…it’s near impossible.

But that’s if think the State of Ruritania would not be coercive. What say you?

19

How is it possible at all? My point in characterizing your scenario as inviting us to suppose that some men are angels was to point out that it’s an impossible scenario.

20

Say it were to occur, though. For example, it’s impossible for one man to strangle every citizen of the Earth against their will. However, if it were to occur, it would be coercive. What of the State of Ruritania?