The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Economics Political Theory
1

NOTE: Originally posted in the New Forums a while back. I thought of bringing my couple of thoughts here too.

I’d like my first thread in the new community to be an iteration of my very first thread in the old community, quite some time ago.

I have my issues with the current use of anarchy and minarchy. The way both terms are interpreted today creates the illusion of an unbridgeable gap between the two positions, with both anarchists and minarchists accusing each other of sporting unrealizable utopias, or (a special treat reserved for the minarchist) of being just as immoral as your run-of-the-mill statist.

Well, I think that if we can provide some better definition of both terms, than most of that gap will begin to fill. Indeed, I think we can define both constructs in such a way as to let anarchy be an evolutionary offshoot of minarchy, both as an idea and as a practical future process, not a diametrically opposed system. And, perhaps, all this to the satisfaction of both sides.

ANARCHY: “Is Somalia anarchic?” There is a good reason why the public associates the anarchist will the troublesome ‘agents of chaos’ throwing molotovs and breaking bones in some European city. Anarchy does mean chaos, no matter what hyphen we attach to that word.

If we define the state as the monopolist of violence within a given territory, we have just defined any property-holder, regardless of the justness of his claim. Within my house, I am the monopolist of violence, else I am not the real owner of my house. “Anacho-capitalists” who find it impermissible that I may chose to do violence on people voluntarily entering my property, as long as I notify them beforehand and they choose not to leave the premises, are not really anarcho-capitalist by my book. If a property-holder cannot be sovereign within his property, he is no property holder at all.

But what is the state, than thing that emerged only in the west, and only in the XVII century, if not a sovereign institution, indeed the only sovereign institution that ever existed? Thus, what meaning could we attach to a term that calls for no such institutions, for no rulers, no sovereigns, no archos? What to call anarchy if not a system in which no one is sovereign anywhere?

No, anarchy does mean chaos, because with no sovereignty there can be no property, and with no property there can only be chaos and strife. What we really aim at, the way I see it, is not to do away with the state, but to let every property holder be a state, a sovereign of his own property! We do not really aim at anarchy, but panarchy. Everybody must be a sovereign, not nobody!

Thus all talk of seeing the state wither away is just antiethical to our goal: we should want states to multiply to their natural limit, the number of persons alive. Mises was, unwittingly, much truer an “anarchist“ than Rothbard.

So yes, Somalia is anarchic, but nor panarchic. No one is free to be a sovereign on his land, and there is no state. We should stop running to this poor country’s defense on account of its statelessness: that is no achievement, for we are not proper anarchists.

MINARCHY: “What degree of protection should the night watchmen state provide?” Minarchy is less well defined as a concept. Some (most?) take it to mean a state that simply protects a country from foreign aggression and enforces contracts within its borders. Mises and Nozick would seem to agree. Others take minarchy to be a government functioning according to the constitution of the US (funny concept indeed). Hayek considers a state that upholds the Rule of Law as the best arrangement possible.

All these ideas must be brushed aside. Defining a minarchic state is impossible. What kind of political structure should this night watchman have? Will there be elections? Who will vote? Will it be a parliamentary democracy, a presidential system, or some mix? Which Civil Code to adopt? Common law perhaps? How to define the Rule of Law? How much to devote to defense? What kind of taxes to impose?

We must recognize attempts to answer such questions as futile: only a market can guide any organization into making the optimal choices. Without the market, even a simple hot dog stand would be irrationally run, let alone a state! Thus, I propose it would be much more fitting if we just define minarchic a state that operates in a market of states, whatever the arrangement of that state itself may be. Of course, a market of sorts for states can only be created by having many such states, by lowering “entry barriers” into the ‘business’ of state-formation.

Thus, I think we can only call minarchic a state that acknowledges an inalienable right to its communities to freely secede (even if otherwise its a totalitarian police state), and of its people to emigrate (not neccesarily of other to immigrate though). Of course, the smaller such communities, the better. According so such a test, there is only one minarchic state around: Lichtenstein, which allows by constitution all of its wards to freely secede.

But at this point we can see that the difference between minarchy and panarchy is one of degree, not of kind. The smaller the communities allowed to secede, the closed minarchy comes to panarchy.

Indeed, if the ideas of private property, the NAP and homesteading are superior to others, than we can easily see that minarchy will, in time, evolve towards panarchy. Once the idea of a right of secession, be it for cities, is acknowledged, it’s a downhill struggle toward freedom.

Even if panarchy does turn out to be unstable or unfeasible on some account, a minarchic commonwealth is still a nice thought and would be a nice place to live. A world (or even a lage contiguous territory) of city-states would, by itself, go a long way towards providing much of what we expect from panarchy. Even if privately funded defense turns out to be unfeasible, even if some state of nature really does result from there being no state, even if solving the issue of public goods takes a long time, even if the mob would take over, minarchy would yet be a worthy goal.

Anyway, just wanted to throw this evolutive concept of panarchy of mine around. This is the way I see our slow motion revolution happening.

Comments are appreciated.

Should Anarchy Happen Suddenly or Should it be a Slow Process?
Emergence of the State
2

Somalia has a weak government. Various warlords that fought each other to form a government does not equal anarchy, absence of government.

Better government definition: an involuntary, usually tax-funded, violence monopoly in a certain area. Even if government enforced no taxes, being an involuntary violence monopoly in a certain area meant it forcibly prohibited competition in that area, so any money that it obtained was illegitimate, since it likely would have obtained less, if any money, if there was the possibility of competition.

3

Everyone’s a monopolist, whether their idea of sovereignty ends at the individual, family, extended family, tribal, or larger level. There is hence no difference between a small-enough-territory minarchist and an anti-statist. “State” just means a monopoly that is too big.

4

@Merlin

Even if panarchy does turn out to be unstable or unfeasible on some account, a minarchic commonwealth is still a nice thought and would be a nice place to live. A world (or even a lage contiguous territory) of city-states would, by itself, go a long way towards providing much of what we expect from panarchy. Even if privately funded defense turns out to be unfeasible, even if some state of nature really does result from there being no state, even if solving the issue of public goods takes a long time, even if the mob would take over, minarchy would yet be a worthy goal. – Merlin

I think your right on with this point, hence I put this at the top of my reply since the rest of my reply is more critical.

Indeed, a collection of higher order liberal democracies populating the planet would be incredibly peaceful, prosperous, free and stable. And this appears to be where we are headed. Moreover, my suggestion that an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy civil and poltiical Bill of Rights is more likely since economic realities are exposing the bankruptcy of our current government monetary and fiscal spending and regulatory policies.

I challenged the anarchists on this forum a while back to a $1000 wager that a list I provided of higher order democracies (50+ and many contiguous states) would not fight a war in the next ten years and predictably these anarchists ran, hid, or engaged in amusingly ridiculous fallacious arguments.

However in the rest of your post, you’ve made many assumptions that aren’t valid.

  1. anarchy is debunked because it always degenerates into absolutism.
  • anachists society does not have any intentional institutionalized mechanisms to balance, deter, limit, decentralize or make transparent the elements of armed force in society, hence …
  • through economies of scale (vertical and horizontal monopolies), specialization of labor, and intra-industry cooperation private military agencies form cartels to minimize the costs to the consumer through destructive competitions.
  • This cartel quickly devolves into absolutism unless you discount the tenet that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
  1. the most effective minarchist system would one similar to the American Constitutional Federal Republic that intentionally balances, limits, decentralizes, and makes transparent the element of armed force in society. Of course, an Economic Bill of Rights must be added to the equation to complement our effective civil and political Bill of Rights.

What we really aim at, the way I see it, is not to do away with the state, but to let every property holder be a state, a sovereign of his own property! We do not really aim at anarchy, but panarchy. Everybody must be a sovereign, not nobody! – Merlin

And property, capital, labor, et al must be protected – hence the smaller the state, the less effective its defense. Hence, small states coalesce into larger states in order to provide for the common defense.

Others take minarchy to be a government functioning according to the constitution of the US (funny concept indeed).–Merlin

It is not funny that the USA has bestowed more political, civil and economic freedoms to its citizenry than any in history (the last two administrations, not withstanding). Of course liberal democracy is not perfect, but neither are human beings. In addition, while far more free and prosperous than competing systems, the USA also bestows far more security than any other system in history. Hence, it is relatively free and secure from external threats. Of course, the economic transgressions from government must be addressed — hence an Economic Bill of Rights.

In contrast, there are always utopians (anarchists, marxists, et al) who seek the perfect society — it isnt possible.

All these ideas must be brushed aside. Defining a minarchic state is impossible. What kind of political structure should this night watchman have? Will there be elections? Who will vote? Will it be a parliamentary democracy, a presidential system, or some mix? Which Civil Code to adopt? Common law perhaps? How to define the Rule of Law? How much to devote to defense? What kind of taxes to impose? --Merlin

Not so.

Everything can be free and removed from government meddling except armed force which must be contained at the start by the intentional societal decentralization, balancing, limiting, and transparency of the elements of armed force in society.

Why armed force and not other sectors of the economy ?

Because armed force has no substitution good and a monopoly in this industry can force its will on all other industries ---- otherwise the free market would have already removed dictators who have gained a territorial monopoly on armed force, yet we have seen that terriitorial monopolies of armed force require armed force to remove —free markets are demonstrably prostrate against armed force.

We must recognize attempts to answer such questions as futile: only a market can guide any organization into making the optimal choices.-- Merlin

True, but those who gain a territorial monopoly of armed force are not concerned about economic efficiency – they are only concerned with power.

Similarly, within a liberal democracy institutionalizing the elements of armed force within a Constitutional Federal Republic is less efficient than military agencies within an anarchist society – but they are not designed to be efficient – they are designed to prevent a vertical and horizontal monopoly of armed force from developing in society.

Thus, I think we can only call minarchic a state that acknowledges an inalienable right to its communities to freely secede (even if otherwise its a totalitarian police state), and of its people to emigrate (not neccesarily of other to immigrate though). Of course, the smaller such communities, the better. According so such a test, there is only one minarchic state around: Lichtenstein, which allows by constitution all of its wards to freely secede–Merlin

As I have stated, these small states would be subject to immediate predation from larger states. IN addition, there would be no economic motivation from neighboring states to intervene since anarchists are non-interventionists. As proof, 99% of the anarchists/minachists on this forum would not lift a finger to liberate the millions in Iraq, Rwanda, et al from enslavement, torture and murder.

5

If a property-holder cannot be sovereign within his property, he is no property holder at all

Property rights can only be safeguarded for all, protected against arbitrary confiscation, through a widely-agreed-upon, prohibitively-powerful “night watchman.” Such is the role played by the state, in the form of a military, and of law enforcement. It isn’t necessary to trust this “person,” or to stay silent when a line is crossed here and there; but making of “him” an evil, monopolizing monster, the only real obstacle to our peace and harmony–this is the worst sort of dysfunctional utopian-myopia.

Your panarchic formulation attempts to skirt the night-watchman imperative by way of an evolving, voluntary deconstruction of the widely-agreed-upon protective role of the state, without addressing its necessary substitute–or explaining why the implicit absence of such a guarantor would work then, when it has heretofore abided nowhere.

Of course, a market of sorts for states can only be created by having many such states, by lowering “entry barriers” into the ‘business’ of state-formation.

Shall we then lower the “entry barriers” to the development and purchase of nuclear weapons? No.

I agree in principle that federal power must in every possible instance be devolved to the most localized seat of control; hence, I support a cautious form of direct democracy, one where the night watchman still stands among us, a Bill of Rights in his grip.

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Constitution-Democracy-Alternative/dp/1463666837/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326559116&sr=1-1

But until all Earth’s people retire their night watchmen at once, it won’t be safe to send ours home early. And while he yet looks over us, he must be paid as handsomely as the others, or more so. Thus the imposition of compulsory contributions must continue.

6

@DarylLloydDavis

If you advocate direct democracy, then this is counter to our Constitutional Federal Republic that protects the rights of minorities.

Tyranny of the majority is the end result of direct democracy, hence the majority vote to plunder the wealth and freedoms of the minority.

What protections would your New Constitution have to protect against plunder from the majority. See the dysfunction in California.

7

Centinel

If you advocate direct democracy, then this is counter to our Constitutional Federal Republic that protects the rights of minorities.

It isn’t the Congress that guarantees the rights of minorities: it’s the Bill of Rights. And just as it would be very difficult for Congress or the States to alter those fundamental protections under our founding document; so it would be equally or more difficult under mine. Yet it goes without saying, that if enough of the People wish to deny a minority their civil rights, any system may fall.

Tyranny of the majority is the end result of direct democracy, hence the majority vote to plunder the wealth and freedoms of the minority.

Your supposition is that I propose a winner-take-all, free-for-all direct democracy, where all are subject to legislation imposed by the largest majority. In fact, it’s quite the opposite: This constitution precludes “plunder” and preserves “freedoms” in any number of innovative, even redundant ways:

Amendment X – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall establish a debt, project or fiscal program where the financing thereof would obligate future citizens to the financial commitments of current voters. Appropriations shall be drawn from revenues collected within one year of their appropriation through floating debt and the collection of these fees and revenues only:

Usage fees levied upon persons whose activities degrade or monopolize public property;
Usage fees levied upon persons enjoying exclusive use of land, in proportion to its acreage and the volume, mass and scarcity of natural resources therein;
Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities, whether intentional or negligent, damage public property;
Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities damage the private property of another person, or impede its exclusive use by barring lawful access to it, or operation of it; physically altering it or its value; or otherwise converting or making improbable its peaceable, lawful, exclusive enjoyment; thereby necessitating the intervention of law enforcement or courts of law;
Misusage fees levied upon persons who assume unnecessary risks or file frivolous complaints that require emergency public services or courts of law;
Sales of forfeited, seized property;
Sales of goods processed or manufactured by state-confined workers; or revenues from the contracting-out of their services;
Sales of government property to allies of the United States, upon a two-thirds majority vote among the Governors and a unanimous vote between the President and the Cabinet—or the Defense Cabinet, in the case of military property;
Duties, imposts and excises;
Safety-inspection and handling charges;
Any fiscal-program income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative.
All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse, so that collections in anticipation of use may necessitate reimbursement.
No law enacted by precinct electoral initiative shall institute or increase an appropriation from revenues derived in part or in full from another precinct, unless with a fifty-one percent consenting vote within the latter precinct, or unless authorized by this Constitution; nor withhold or disburse revenues lawfully collected for and due to a city, county or state government, or the federal government.

I realize that this is too much to process at once. But the upshot is that the Constitution would have to be amended in order for the People to “plunder” future generations. And since the government is financed in a pay-per-usage manner, one class is not pitted against another–no income tax at all.

See the dysfunction in California.

Predictably, they developed a system that represents the worst of all worlds: a still-active legislature, and an unlocalized initiative process; in other words, one which primarily imposes statewide initiatives, rather than encouraging local experimentation, through the reform of ordinances first.

8

Centinel,

Please let us suppose, for the paragraph, that defense of a small state is not an issue. Would you agree, under this assumption, that a minarchic commonwealth of small states would be better that any specific form of a state (a US-type of Republic, for instance)? After all, if your belief in the optimality of the Constitution is strong, you’ll have no issue with letting it emerge a victor in the market of states. This is why you’d advocate a free market in cars rather than advocating, say, the production of your favorite brand: you believe that that brand would be produced.

Now, you write that this would be nice if these small states could defend themselves, but they cannot. I agree with you, and that is why historically very liberal states such as Venice and Ragusa have perished to their bigger and more statist adversaries: they could not defend themselves.

But we live in the nuclear age, and I believe that nukes make defense a very cheap option even for small states: Singapore could, if it decided to develop nukes, defend itself very easily against China, which in the past would have been unthinkable. The survival of Israel in the pre-nuclear era would have been unthinkable, too.

So, the unwritten assumption of my post is that nukes have forever changed the game of state-making: now a market of states can emerge, and indeed is emerging. Under such conditions, wouldn’t you agree that to advocate such a market of states is much better than to advocate any single type of state?

And I could go on with discussing why, under these condition, if panarchy is possible, it too shall emerge (and nto because everyone will have his own nuke either), but I’m content with getting people to agree with this definition of minarchism.

9

But that is precisely my point: if such a substitute exists, than the evolutive way is the best way to find it. The smaller states get, the closer the world gets to panarchy, and the strongest the incentives to discover institution that could work under panarchy, if such exist. Whether such institutions do, in fact, exist, we can only see by getting as close as possible to panacrhy: by having as many small city-states as possible around.

Certainly so! That is indeed our only hope for real freedom! See the post above for details.

10

Merlin

if such a substitute exists, than the evolutive way is the best way to find it. The smaller states get, the closer the world gets to panarchy, and the strongest the incentives to discover institution that could work under panarchy, if such exist.

Your market analogy is deficient: it takes for granted real and necessary protections already in place, provided by our state defense and law enforcement apparatus against real threats. The instant we deconstruct this machinery we leave ourselves vulnerable to states that have not began such experimentation. If we wished to discover an anti-gravity device, the most rational plan is not to throw each off a cliff until one floats. We cannot simply ignore real-world dangers, and arbitrarily start using the “night watchman” on a part-time basis, as though we really didn’t need him in the first place.

Certainly so! That is indeed our only hope for real freedom! See the post above for details.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons may in fact be unavoidable. But, once again, your application of pure market principles is folly. To whatever extent it is possible to keep nukes out of the hands of the highest bidder, they ought to be. It’s too powerful and destructive a technology to have in the bed of everyone’s pickup truck.

I support states like Israel developing nuclear weapons so as to help ensure their survival; but it would obviously be a flimsy deterrent, if any at all, against the irrational private owner of a nuke. And if Israel is killing off Iranian nuclear scientists now, then they would understandably assassinate private owners of nukes as well. It’s a behind-the-scenes system of checks and balances, much like the global stalemate in play between the U.S., China, and, to a lesser extent, Russia–a stalemate that now serves to protect Singapore, has served to protect Europe, and one that wouldn’t be any less necessary if everyone had nukes: Who knows what anti-nuke technology has already been developed? The answer isn’t to give everybody nukes–any more than to throw everyone off a cliff until someone learns to fly…

Once begun, the arms race never ends. Consequently, the need for the full funding of a large state never dies.

11

DarylLloydDavis,

I think I take nothing for granted in my post besides that one assumption: that small states cannot conquer one-another by armies (though they can by cover operations and engineering popular revolts as seen many times). By that assumption alone, a market of states is created. You need no grand central world authority to fix international law or the ‘rules of the game’: all you need is to make it impossible for states to conquer one-another, and then let them vie with one-another for capital and citizens.

And let’s not discuss how the existence of such a commonwealth would slowly but surely give rise to an accompanying set of cultural norms which would stigmatize war in its own right, in a sense what happened during the late medieval age when war was a joke in Western Europe (especially northern Italy) because all states where far too small to conquer one-another. Perhaps such norms would then further the breakdown of states into smaller communities without the need for every such community to have a nuclear device? I believe so, or at least I believe that if such a set of norms could ever emerge, this is the sole way in which it would emerge.

Now, I agree that the prospect of individuals having nukes in their basement is frightening but I do not for a moment think that that would be allowed. The point has been discussed often and I do not think it would be worth the wile to revisit it, but let’s just say that the possession of nukes would settle in the hand of the smallest entities which can be rationally trusted to use them well. If you somehow found a nuke in your basement, you’d find it mysteriously stolen the next day by the local friendly PMC, and no one would help you retrieve you ‘lost’ property.

What is important is that city-states would certainly, if you ask me, own nukes, at the very least in the beginning (whether they’d own their own nukes or contract with PMCs to operate their nuclear deterrence is less important). Balance-of-power never lasts forever and to hope that small states will survive because of that is rather optimistic.

12

Merlin

Let us agree, then, to disagree.

13

You have quite the fetish for aggression/defense. The “arms race” only exists to the extent that there exist brainwashed, scared automatons willing to submit their bodies and treasure to monopoly rackets in return for “protection”. One could reasonably hope that as education and enlightement spreads about the infinitely larger benefits of trade and division of labor (vs enslavement and aggression) the said fear and obedience would only be getting weaker. How could an “aggressor state” actually profit from “attacking” and “enslaving” an economically enlightened population? What is the risk/reward equation for the aggresor exactly, and which enlightened population of said aggressing state would agree to fund it? Do you have any recent examples of such profitable expeditions?

14

Amen to that!

15

z1235

The “arms race” only exists to the extent that there exist brainwashed, scared automatons willing to submit their bodies and treasure to monopoly rackets in return for “protection”.

Your assertion indicates no awareness that not all people are nice, non-violent and independent–a belief that the whole arms race was just a big misunderstanding. If this is so, then we too must agree to disagree.

One could reasonably hope that as education and enlightement spreads about the infinitely larger benefits of trade and division of labor (vs enslavement and aggression) the said fear and obedience would only be getting weaker.

Yes, if only Saddam Hussein had opened a book once in a while…

How could an “aggressor state” actually profit from “attacking” and “enslaving” an economically enlightened population? Do you have any recent examples of such profitable expeditions?

Ask Kuwait about that; Iraq seemed to think it was worthwhile–until we kicked their butts out of there–with our huge conventional forces, funded by a huge conventional state.

What is the risk/reward equation for the aggresor exactly, and which enlightened population of said aggressing state would agree to fund it?

Didn’t we fund our wars? And if we aren’t enlightened, then name one who is.

16

Don’t put words in my mouth. I clearly stated why I think the “arms race” is occuring. Of course we could agree to disagree, what else could we possibly do?

No, if only the citizens of Iraq (the automatons submitting their bodies and treasure to him in return for the “protection” he was offering/giving them) had opened a book or went online, both of which they are likely to do be doing more going forward…

Ask “Kuwait”? How, pray tell, do you manage to speak to countries? How did “Iraq” profit from that expedition. How did “we” (you?) profit from “kicking their butts” out of there?

“We?”. I haven’t funded any of my wars. Actually I haven’t had a war as far as I can remember. Have you? You are definitely not enlightened but you are getting there. So will others if Ron Paul had anything to say about it. Give it a generation or two, tops, globally.

17

@DarylLloydDavis

Wouldnt the following Economic Bill of Rights address and simplify your ‘Constitutional’ goals:

  1. balanced budget amendment

  2. Federal government receives revenue directly from individual states based on 10% of each state’s GDP.

  3. supermajority from Congress required to raise tax rate above 10%

  4. simple majority from Congress required to lower tax rate and this rate becomes permanent until raised by supermajority or lowered by simple majority

  5. any tax rate increase is temporary (1-2 years) and requires supermajority vote to reinstate.

  6. Government cannot regulate or influence industry and commerce including but not limited to money, banking, education, energy, monetary policy, utilities, transportation, communications, et al unless approved by supermajority in Congress and then for only a ONE year period unless renewed by supermajority in congress. Hence the only role allowed by the federal government is final arbiter of interstate disputes, interstate law enforcement, and national defense

  7. Only federal agencies , bureaus, departments, et al allowed by law are attorney general and defense (state department subordinate agency of defense department) unless established and approved by Congress by supermajority and then only for 1 year period unless reinstated by supermajority vote in congress

  8. Supermajority in COngress required to deploy conventional forces into combat, and this action must be renewed every year by supermajority.

  9. similarly, a supermajority in Congress required to restrict trade and this action must be renewed by supermajority every year or it expires

  10. states DO NOT have the right to seceed from the Union and any state that fails to submit taxes they are subject to Federal control.

18

Your posts are objective, rational and independent thinking which is rare for this site. And I don’t disagree in principle with any of your statements, however I just have a few observations to offer:

Please let us suppose, for the paragraph, that defense of a small state is not an issue. Would you agree, under this assumption, that a minarchic commonwealth of small states would be better that any specific form of a state (a US-type of Republic, for instance)? After all, if your belief in the optimality of the Constitution is strong, you’ll have no issue with letting it emerge a victor in the market of states. This is why you’d advocate a free market in cars rather than advocating, say, the production of your favorite brand: you believe that that brand would be produced. – Merlin

Actually the current geopolitical situation that exists among liberal democracies in Europe, North AMerica, and the Asian Pacific Rim resembles what you envision. Namely an utterly cooperative, free trading, mutually peaceful, stable, and politically free confederation of likeminded states.

If the free world can eliminate despotism abroad then it is likely that the need for large militarily powerful states like the USA will no longer be justified in a world ofprosprous, stable, free and peaceful Lietchenstein-like states.

Until then, I’ll continue to support a strong centralized USA defense arrangement. INdeed, it was American hegemony that has encouraged expanded and maintained the beneficial growth of liberal democracy and with it free markets (although admittedly not perfect if your a utopian anarchist).

But we live in the nuclear age, and I believe that nukes make defense a very cheap option even for small states: Singapore could, if it decided to develop nukes, defend itself very easily against China, which in the past would have been unthinkable. The survival of Israel in the pre-nuclear era would have been unthinkable, too. – Merlin

Nukes are overrated.

In the hands of small states or non-state actors, they are only of use as a terror weapon. In contrast, gunpowder has since the 14th century been the weapon of choice for those seeking to gain and hold power.

So, the unwritten assumption of my post is that nukes have forever changed the game of state-making: now a market of states can emerge, and indeed is emerging. Under such conditions, wouldn’t you agree that to advocate such a market of states is much better than to advocate any single type of state?-Merlin

every weapon ever made is eventually rendered obsolete by technological advancement. Also, nukes have no sway over non-state faith-based actors. Indeed, these actors will absolute use them against population centers if given the opportunity which would cause the collapse of any pacifist panarchy into chaos in short order.

19

@z1235

Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:

  1. security is required in ancap society – indeed no ancap denies this fact.

  2. if security is required in ancap society then the level of security is critical, so logically …

  • a decrease in the level or funding of security increases the likelihood of predation
  • an increase in the level of security decreases the likelihood of precation.
  • hence, the economic profitability of a given resource (whether land, capital, labor, et al) will determine the level of security and hence the risk of attack
  1. profit seeking actors in society will use armed force to acquire valued resources under the following conditions:
  • peaceful exchange is not possible
  • peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
  • acquisition of the resource by coercive means results in a net gain in profit
  1. society will generally approve of and benefit by coercive action to acquire valued resources if the following occurs:
  • efficient economic managers who acquire valued resources will better manage, market, utilize these resources thereby increasing growth and standards of living.
  • the citizenry will approve of this action if heretofore mismanaged and denied resources are made available to the markets thereby increasing supply, reducing scarcity and lowering prices
  1. and the fallacy from ancaps that military defense agencies will not wage war because they directly bear the costs of war is debunked because they similarly benefit from the plunder of war. Hence, MDA will actually be more aggressive in utilizing their capital investment in warmaking equipment and personnel. Indeed, they will be forced to use these resources otherwise they will have been wasted. It is like spending billions on production machinery, yet not turning on the power in the manufacturing plant.
20

Centinel

  1. balanced budget amendment

During times of war, particularly a defensive war, a balanced budget would be an unnecessary impediment to victory. And if one begins to allow exceptions for war here, and a “crisis” there, as would surely be the case, then opportunistic, pandering politicians would erode the amendment until it was meaningless.

  1. Federal government receives revenue directly from individual states based on 10% of each state’s GDP.

Why should the federal government be entitled to more money than it may require? And why should it receive less than it does legitimately require? And if the fed serves functions that the states cannot provide for themselves, like military defense, why should they not all pay for them equally?

  1. supermajority from Congress required to raise tax rate above 10

I object to representative government in principle. We learn and grow as human beings by being held personally accountable for our actions, not hiding within the ranks of a political party, behind its elected representatives–who themselves hide behind the party platform. If progress were ever to be made toward the free society that most on this forum desire, it will come by such directly democratic steps.

Representative government was based upon a two-hundred-year-old assumption that the People cannot determine for themselves what is best for them. This may have been understandable then; now it is pure bunk. No one will ever convince me that the average person today needs Nancy Pelosi to figure things out for them. The internet make us all capable of doing our due diligence, accepting accountability for our decisions.

  1. simple majority from Congress required to lower tax rate and this rate becomes permanent until raised by supermajority or lowered by simple majority

Why tax rates at all? I don’t accept that government is entitled to a “cut” of others’ every transaction. Government ought not be a profit-making enterprise. I prefer pay-as-you-serve.

  1. any tax rate increase is temporary (1-2 years) and requires supermajority vote to reinstate.

I require all programs to be re-authorized every year, myself. But I want government to be as fluid as possible, so as to handle every eventuality, and to teach what lessons the People must learn.

  1. Government cannot regulate or influence industry and commerce including but not limited to money, banking, education, energy, monetary policy, utilities, transportation, communications, et al unless approved by supermajority in Congress and then for only a ONE year period unless renewed by supermajority in congress. Hence the only role allowed by the federal government is final arbiter of interstate disputes, interstate law enforcement, and national defense

There are too many regulations to make this a realistic requirement. I prefer a general rule to guide all regulations:

No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensible to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect or imbecility inheres in the requirements thereof: But any irreparable injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.

  1. Only federal agencies , bureaus, departments, et al allowed by law are attorney general and defense (state department subordinate agency of defense department) unless established and approved by Congress by supermajority and then only for 1 year period unless reinstated by supermajority vote in congress

I don’t object to being rid of federal agencies; but I leave it to the People to do so. Meanwhile, I check their actions by the agent of the Attorney General, now third in line for the Presidency, and by a 3/5 vote among the Governors, who replace the role played by the Senate in many cases.

  1. Supermajority in COngress required to deploy conventional forces into combat, and this action must be renewed every year by supermajority.

No declaration of war, nor any peacetime initiation of military force outside the borders of the United States and its territories, shall be undertaken without the consent of two-thirds of the Governors of the States and a unanimous vote of assent between the President and the Defense Cabinet, whose membership shall include the Attorney General, the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security and Treasury, the Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the heads of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency; the number and composition of which may be altered by a three-fourths majority vote among the Governors of the States, but shall not exclude the Attorney General.

  1. similarly, a supermajority in Congress required to restrict trade and this action must be renewed by supermajority every year or it expires

I bestow this function upon the Commerce Secretary, subject to the same checks as above. And under my system he and all pols may be voted from office every summer–except the President, who may be replaced after two years.

  1. states DO NOT have the right to seceed from the Union and any state that fails to submit taxes they are subject to Federal control.

Secession is probably much less desirable under direct democracy.