Clayton wrote the following post at 11-03-2010 1:11 AM:
Yeah, I have some pretty serious problems with it, right from the outset.
So do I, which is why I’m posting here. To put it more succintly my problem statement is:
Given Terra Nullius, how may one secure it for AnarchoCapitalism. (As Terra Nullius it’s up for grabs by any state, hence status of Terra Nullius must be cancelled by a claim to it). Further:
-
How to avoid getting immediately clobbered by the neighboring States that are all militarily more powerful?
-
How does one achieve the establisment of free circulation of people, capital, goods and services between Rothbardia and the traditional States? (It is becoming increasingly difficult to travel the world with a passport that is not recognized by any State.)
-
How does one avoid or put a break on any tendency evolving within Rothbardia to becoming a “normal” State?
The implication of calling this a “law” is that it is law - but it’s not law. The problem with government is the idea that governments are the source of law.
Wikipedia: “Law[4] is a system of rules”. I could alway exchange the word for “Rule”, but that makes it sound like we’re on the Soccer pitch, code or decree are other synonyms but with their specific problems.
With respect to the “government” the Covenant makes it clear that it is simply a very limited diplomatic service, and that laws are made by direct democracy way. In fact, the Covenant provides (on paper) for more democracy and better protection of minority rights than any Constituion I’ve ever seen.
I have a problem with the word “sovereign.” What makes sovereigns sovereign is that they are judges in their own cases, that is, they have the ability to enforce a double legal standard with their overwhelming power. I don’t think democratizing this immorality, historically reserved to royalty and a select few other tyrants, solves anything.
OK, changed
I also have problems with natural law - what is natural law? Who decides what laws count as natural laws and which do not? Reason? Reason is only a tool, a method to aid discussion among people who already share presuppositions, not an accurate description of individuals entangled in conflict (the place where law really matters most).
You have a point, and I am lacking a solution. Weakness conceeded and suggestions requested.
Again, this is content-less. Without a customary-law context in which to fill out the details of what actually constitutes ‘initiation’, ‘physical violence’, ‘credible threat’, ‘any reason’, ‘forfeits’ and so on, even if you had 100% unanimous agreement to this law, it wouldn’t be of any use.
Terra Nullius will by definition not have a common-law context, although context may be imported be the individuals these are unlikely to share the same background. Solution: Prepare a accompaying text with definitions, clarifications etc (Best I can come up with).
The implication of words like ‘Territory’ ‘Citizens’ ‘Rothbardia’ and ‘protection’ is dangerous.
I agree those are “red flags”, especially with respect to #1 above, however #2 above requires something that be recognized as a polity by other States. To put it another way I am trying to hit two targets with one bullet:
A. Murray N. Rothbard (Society Without A State http://www.therothbardians.com/murrayrothbardsocietywithoutastate.html)
Let me say from the beginning that I define the State as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. Any institution, not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a “State”. On the other hand, I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual.
B. Montevideo Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention)
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.
I understand you’re trying to put this in language that people can understand but I don’t think it’s thorough-going enough.
It must necessarily be in plain language to be legitimately adopted by the residents of Terra Nullius (I could write it in Old Norse, but some judge might invalidate the contract as the parties apparently didn’t quite understand what they signed).
I agree that it is not thorough-going enough, which is why it’s posted here for all to modify and improve upon it. Lowering the ink:information ratio is an excellent improvement as it should be as short as possible as well.
BTW Really appreciate the coherent criticism.