I was thinking about what I posted here http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13012.aspx and realized that a similar model could be used to create a voluntary state.
Hear me out!
If an individual owned a large piece of land (let's say under anarchy so we don't have to deal with questions of higher powers interfering) and decided to subdivide it. Rather than selling it, he contracts it out. The transferrable contract allows for the use of the land however the contract holder desires to use it, as long as he pays a) a small rent, and b) follows the standard of codes written into a separate document. The contract also specifies that any changes to this code of laws will take effect after a year, so you aren't suddenly springing anything on anyone. The contract (or perhaps the code of laws) also specifies that it will be enforced and arbitrated by a given group, paid for from the rent collected. The contract allows for eviction, but when the owner sells the contract on the market he must give the proceeds to the renter. (Essentially the landlord becomes the default agent for selling the contract in case of eviction.) This way, any change in value from the time that the renter purchased the contract and the time it was sold would be the renter's - if he took good care of the property, it would increase in value and he would be entitled to his profits. People would be free to buy in or leave as they chose. People who chose not to pay the rent (essentially a tax) or didn't like the laws could leave freely. Since the government owns the land, it isn't violating property rights to charge rent.
Now, the individual landowner, at any point, could choose to incorporate the land. Shares, traded on the open market, would entitle one to vote on the board of directors, who appointed the officers of the company. This would, in effect, become a voluntary corporatocracy. This, however, is not required - it could easily remain a monarchy.
Is this technically a state? It has (or could have) a monopoly of force in the territory it controls. It creates and maintains a code of laws. On the other hand, all state income is voluntary, and anybody can come and go by buying a land contract. People can expect that the fruit of their labors on the land won't be in vain, even if they face eviction. It doesn't violate any libertarian principles. It seems to me an example of voluntary minarchy.
How could this system be improved?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_Lacnala: I was thinking about what I posted here http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/13012.aspx and realized that a similar model could be used to create a voluntary state. Hear me out! If an individual owned a large piece of land (let's say under anarchy so we don't have to deal with questions of higher powers interfering) and decided to subdivide it. Rather than selling it, he contracts it out. The transferrable contract allows for the use of the land however the contract holder desires to use it, as long as he pays a) a small rent, and b) follows the standard of codes written into a separate document. The contract also specifies that any changes to this code of laws will take effect after a year, so you aren't suddenly springing anything on anyone. The contract (or perhaps the code of laws) also specifies that it will be enforced and arbitrated by a given group, paid for from the rent collected. The contract allows for eviction, but when the owner sells the contract on the market he must give the proceeds to the renter. (Essentially the landlord becomes the default agent for selling the contract in case of eviction.) This way, any change in value from the time that the renter purchased the contract and the time it was sold would be the renter's - if he took good care of the property, it would increase in value and he would be entitled to his profits. People would be free to buy in or leave as they chose. People who chose not to pay the rent (essentially a tax) or didn't like the laws could leave freely. Since the government owns the land, it isn't violating property rights to charge rent. Now, the individual landowner, at any point, could choose to incorporate the land. Shares, traded on the open market, would entitle one to vote on the board of directors, who appointed the officers of the company. This would, in effect, become a voluntary corporatocracy. This, however, is not required - it could easily remain a monarchy. Is this technically a state? It has (or could have) a monopoly of force in the territory it controls. It creates and maintains a code of laws. On the other hand, all state income is voluntary, and anybody can come and go by buying a land contract. People can expect that the fruit of their labors on the land won't be in vain, even if they face eviction. It doesn't violate any libertarian principles. It seems to me an example of voluntary minarchy. How could this system be improved?
It mimics a state after the initial contract, but you still get the choice to comply on your land or not.
Any land in the state would legally belong to the state. So you could comply on your land, but then you wouldn't be in the state. Anybody who wanted to live in the state would have to comply with the state, much as a tenant would have to comply with a landlord.
Well... the state is different from a landowner because the state does not have a legitimate claim to all the land. If like, the government had homesteaded America legitimately, and we were all guests on their land, that would be one thing. But I don't think its possible for one group to homestead that much land... and even if they did, I think we still have to allow for easement rights etc etc...Also I'm disinclined to rely too heavily on a propertarian framework... I think voluntarism is more important than property rights, but that property rights would probably arise out of voluntary interactions.
If someone who is a member of some other justice-providing organization buys a property in your state, and you get into a conflict with that person, how will your monopoly enforce your judgement without inviting an intervention from abroad?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: If someone who is a member of some other justice-providing organization buys a property in your state, and you get into a conflict with that person, how will your monopoly enforce your judgement without inviting an intervention from abroad?
The contract specifies (as stated) that any dispute over the contract arises, we use the prearranged services. If they want to use their own justice service on this matter, why would they agree to my contract given that stipulation? If the conflict is over something else, wouldn't it be handled just like any other case? My justice service would work with his justice service to determine who is in the wrong?
Aster_Lacnala: If the contract specifies (as stated) that any dispute over the contract arises, we use the prearranged services. If they want to use their own justice service, why would they agree to my contract given that stipulation?
If the contract specifies (as stated) that any dispute over the contract arises, we use the prearranged services. If they want to use their own justice service, why would they agree to my contract given that stipulation?
What if they disagree on what they agreed to?
Aster_Lacnala:If the conflict is over something else, wouldn't it be handled just like any other case? My justice service would work with his justice service to determine who is in the wrong?
In that case it wouldn't be a state.
And what if the person had a problem with the contract between them and their justice service? If they can't understand the contract, they probably shouldn't agree to it. A line like, "Any dispute over this contract will be handled by arbitration company X," is a bit hard to misread.
As for it not being a state, fine, I'm okay with that interpretation. But consider what happens if a U.S. citizen has a problem with a Mexican citizen. There would be arbitration between the U.S. and Mexico. Does this mean neither is a state?
Is this not the model of a proprietary community as described by Spencer Heath and his grandson? As it happens, the wikipedia page for "Heathian anarchism" relies on a quote by... Murray Rothbard!
"The Heathian goal is to have cities and large land areas owned by single private corporations, which would own and rent out the land and housing over the area, and provide all conceivable 'public services': police, fire, roads, courts, etc., out of the voluntarily-paid rent. Heathianism is Henry Georgism stood on its head; like George, Heath and MacCallum would provide for all public services out of rent; but unlike George, the rent would be collected, and the land owned, by private corporate landlords rather than by the government, and the payment therefore voluntary rather than coercive. The Heathian 'proprietary community' is, of course, in stark contrast to the scruffy egalitarian commune dreamed of by anarchists of the Left."
I was actually just introduced to this concept today, having reached the relevant chapter in The Voluntary City.
Aster_Lacnala: As for it not being a state, fine, I'm okay with that interpretation. But consider what happens if a U.S. citizen has a problem with a Mexican citizen. There would be arbitration between the U.S. and Mexico. Does this mean neither is a state?
This would only happen if the matter crossed state borders. If a U.S. citizen owns property in Mexico, disputes involving it are the jurisdiction of Mexico alone - unless Mexico is impotent and can't defend its sovereignty.
Perhaps your state agreed to protect him in exchange for loyalty and subjugation. If he's the one that started the conflict, that would break his agreement of loyalty and void the contract. Therefore, your state could defend its sovereignty by expelling or killing him (if the conflict escalated that far). The justice-providing organization couldn't intervene because you were merely defending your sovereignty.
TelfordUS: Perhaps your state agreed to protect him in exchange for loyalty and subjugation. If he's the one that started the conflict, that would break his agreement of loyalty and void the contract. Therefore, your state could defend its sovereignty by expelling or killing him (if the conflict escalated that far). The justice-providing organization couldn't intervene because you were merely defending your sovereignty.
An organization whose member you executed isn't going to refrain from intervening just because you tell it to fuck off. It has to see it in its self-interest not to intervene.
Stranger: TelfordUS: Perhaps your state agreed to protect him in exchange for loyalty and subjugation. If he's the one that started the conflict, that would break his agreement of loyalty and void the contract. Therefore, your state could defend its sovereignty by expelling or killing him (if the conflict escalated that far). The justice-providing organization couldn't intervene because you were merely defending your sovereignty. An organization whose member you executed isn't going to refrain from intervening just because you tell it to fuck off. It has to see it in its self-interest not to intervene.
Perhaps your state would crush their organization like a bug. A small mafia family cannot take down the United States Military, at least not through battle.
Snowflake:Also I'm disinclined to rely too heavily on a propertarian framework... I think voluntarism is more important than property rights, but that property rights would probably arise out of voluntary interactions.
Property theory defines what is voluntary.
TelfordUS: Stranger: TelfordUS: Perhaps your state agreed to protect him in exchange for loyalty and subjugation. If he's the one that started the conflict, that would break his agreement of loyalty and void the contract. Therefore, your state could defend its sovereignty by expelling or killing him (if the conflict escalated that far). The justice-providing organization couldn't intervene because you were merely defending your sovereignty. An organization whose member you executed isn't going to refrain from intervening just because you tell it to fuck off. It has to see it in its self-interest not to intervene. Perhaps your state would crush their organization like a bug. A small mafia family cannot take down the United States Military, at least not through battle.
Mexican drug lords routinely kill high-rank military officers.
Stranger: TelfordUS: Stranger: TelfordUS: Perhaps your state agreed to protect him in exchange for loyalty and subjugation. If he's the one that started the conflict, that would break his agreement of loyalty and void the contract. Therefore, your state could defend its sovereignty by expelling or killing him (if the conflict escalated that far). The justice-providing organization couldn't intervene because you were merely defending your sovereignty. An organization whose member you executed isn't going to refrain from intervening just because you tell it to fuck off. It has to see it in its self-interest not to intervene. Perhaps your state would crush their organization like a bug. A small mafia family cannot take down the United States Military, at least not through battle. Mexican drug lords routinely kill high-rank military officers.
Do they have the power to take down the entire military?
TelfordUS: Do they have the power to take down the entire military?
They already have. You are stuck in the wrong paradigm.