Radical Privatization and other Libertarian conundrums, the international journal of politics and ethics, vol 2, pp. 165-175, Walter Block 2002.
III. Unanimity’*
For libertarians, the illegitimacy of the state rests squarely on the fact that “the consent of the governed” is no more than a myth (Spooner, 1867). Well, what if, just suppose, that the scenario depicted in civics classes were correct. That is, that there were a time, during the formation of the country, when the entire populace, all of them, every last person, did sign the constitutional contract. It was a unanimous agreement, binding all to all. And not only that. Let us also presume that this was true of every nation on earth, the totalitarian ones, the democracies, all of them. Further, while we are supposing, let us concede the fact that all of these countries, unified into a completely voluntary World Government, had homesteaded every square inch of the earth’s surface. (Look, if we can posit Martians, we can certainly give credence to this scenario, if only for argument’s sake.)
Now this world need not be a libertarian one. Indeed, we posit that it is not. All we need do in order to attack libertarian premises is to assume that the World Government was formed, initially, under premises required by the libertarian philosophy. Namely, that it was the voluntary formation of a state. Once in effect, it could take any measures supported by a majority. After all, if libertarianism can support (the legalization of!) voluntary sado-masochism, or “murder parks” (where people may shoot one another, provided only that all of them had agreed to take part in this game, and there are thick walls so that no outsiders are shot), then certainly they may unanimously and voluntarily set up a government which is less than libertarian. As long as it was set up in a manner totally consistent with libertarianism, no adherent of this philosophy can logically object to the results.
Under these circumstances does it not follow that freedom will be reduced by libertarianism? For consider the position of a new world citizen, or, rather, a person of, say, age 21, who is now being considered for citizenship. This person is offered a stark choice indeed: Join us in our mixed economy world (similar, by the way, to what obtains today in reality), or die. Since we, all together, legitimately own the entire world (this ownership was established through the libertarian process of homesteading), he has no right to exist on it without OUT permission. To do so is to engage in trespass, which is legitimately a crime even under libertarianism.
If newcomers must either embrace the mixed economy (or Marxism, or feminism, or whatever the majority wants), or die, this, to say the very least, doesn’t bode too well for libertarianism claim to be compatible with freedom. An unfree society brought about solely in conformity with libertarianism” is surely a major flaw in this philosophy.
There are several ways to reply to this challenge.
- It is rather unrealistic. When as few as five friends get together for dinner and a movie (leaving 5x5=25 different combinations for those two events, if everyone has his choice and each has different preference for both), it is rare that all will be fully satisfied. To think that all people in the world at any one time would unanimously agree to be bound by the majority vote of all of them on anything beggars the imagination. of the
This, it must be confessed, is not much of a response, since this particular critic of libertarianism is certainly prepared to admit as much. His is more of a theoretical than a practical critique of this philosophy.
- This scenario is incompatible with the nature of physical reality.
A weakness of the critical scenario is that it requires that all land be owned by the political collective. If there are significant, not to say large tracts of space still available, the choice for the man coming of age is not to join or die. He now has the option of moving to an unowned area.
At the time of this writing (1998), there are vast parts of the earth’s surface that have not been homesteaded. The high mountains in many countries, the Sahara, and deserts in Australia and other continents, the tundra in Canada, Russia, the Antarctic. And this is to say nothing of the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers of the world, both on the surface and underwater. As well, our homesteading on the land (apart from mineral exploration and mining) has barely even begun to scratch the surface.
It cannot be denied that these lands are now claimed by various countries. However, mere claim is insufficient under the libertarian legal code. For legitimate ownership – whether of land or water – the would be owner must mix his labor with it. The point is, with modem technology, it would be impossible at this time for the political collective to legitimately own the entire globe, surface and subsurface. Therefore, this scenario would fail to overturn libertarianism even had there once been a unanimous agreement for a world government.
Suppose, however, that another few centuries pass; that the economic system adopted by the world government is not so interventionistic so that no progress can occur; that in the year 2525 there will truly be no space on the earth or in it that has not been already (legitimately) homesteaded. Would this critical scenario then suffice to embarrass libertarianism?
Not a bit of it. For then there will be the moon, Mars, Venus, the asteroids, and other heavenly bodies. Those who turn 21 years of age and are asked to join the world government would still have an option other than death. They could migrate to these other places. (Presumably, interplanetary travel will then be so cheap as to be able to accommodate youngsters whose only savings is based on the type of part time work that many reaching their years of majority will have undertaken.)
The reason the critique fails is that in any even slightly realistic scenario the very technology which will allow for more and more thorough homesteading (thus precluding new adults from setting up shop for themselves) will also enable them to move to further and further away to far off destinations. There is no reason that this process would not continue indefinitely. So that at no epoch would it be true that unanimous agreement to a constitutional contract, a phenomenon consistent with libertarianism, lead to people being forced to join the resultant collective against their will, something inconsistent with this philosophy.