How does a free-market territory prevent a foreign government from forcing a state unto them?
Theoretically a country like Kuwait could become Anarcho-Capitalist.
What if a neighboring country like Iraq who would possibly have a Government funded military and passionate patriotic citizens willing to keep paying taxes, decide to conquer Kuwait and make it´s citizens pay taxes to Iraq's government.
Ever heard of a Private Defense Agency? Just hire a few of them to protect the territory's borders.
A government could probably destroy an anarchic society if it did not wish to control them, but if it wishes to extort taxes from them, then they're job will be much more difficult. An anarchic society has no central command point from which essential services flow outward from, no central cache of information. There is no central food store to sabotage and thus starve the population. There is no central energy source or weapons cache. What it is, is a decentralized, presumably wealthy, presumably armed population. Not only is it likely that the free men are armed, because of an absence of state-ban on arms, but they will have access to the services of PDA's. To conquer the free society, the invaders will have to kill everyone. After that, what have they actually gained other than war-ruined territory? The state is kind of like the Matrix, where all the humans are plugged in and used as batteries for a central function. When there is no main apparatus that is subjugating these people prior to invasion, there is no simple way to conquer them. Actually conquering a free people means occupying militarily all the land that was once occupied by free people.
The scenario depends a lot on the ability of the people to feed themselves, so maybe Kuwait wouldn't be a great scenario because it's in the desert where it is hard to grow food. But the great empire's of history have met failure at the hands of persistent, unconfrontable, and adaptable guerilla's. What good way is there to invade a guerilla territory other than nuking the place? (and after it is nuked, what good is the land?)
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I just chose Kuwait as an example because it is neighboring powerful military countries.
So There would probably not be a central defence agency. Each landowner and business would only hire enough defense to keep it´s own land and business secure.
If a neighboring military seizes food production starting from its border. The anarchist territoriy's people can just obtain their food and supplies from another place.
But, a country like Iraq could simply buy some land inside Kuwait set up strategically located military posts there and since it is a bigger coordinated effort , it theoretically could surround and defeat uncoordinated private agencies's range of jurisdiction, reducing them to small islands surrounded by a tyranical government willing to convert the free market society into more statist, tax contributing drones.
There are multiple factors at play here.
First of all, remember - even the existence of a state is no guarantee of survival. Countless states have fallen through history.
If you choose Kuwait, you might have some problems because of their small population. Yes, theoretically Pakistan could bomb them to oblivion with nuclear weapons if Kuwait doesn't have anti-ICBM missiles.
Now, I am not certain that Kuwait wouldn't have a "national" defense. Why not? Do you think that a free people will suddenly say "you know what? Screw national defense!" ?
The nation defense might not look like anything we've ever known. It might be some special division of forces created by defense agencies coming together for a common goal.
About your land-buying scenario: you're making a common mistake that is residue from the statist mindset - yes, this is theoretically possible, but is it probable?
Think about it - you can't just "buy" land in the middle of some territory. There has to be someone willing to sell it. If this person does sell it, he will certainly face a lot of opposition for, well, everything from then on - from buying food to transportation to water. I'd imagine there would be a system of contracts that bars sale of lands to hostile enemies. In case a court finds that such a sale has occurred, the sale would be invalid and the land transferred to some "responsible" entity (in accordance with the original contract).
the only possible way for a State to enforce taxes on "free market libertopia" is to make them slaves (at the point of the gun) and I mean not metaphorically. They have to go from one individual to another with bags and demand for cash. Otherwise, propaganda would not only be inefficient, but a really useless tactic. No propaganda can make me believe in "taxes". Same with people in libertopia. So yeah, the state would have to directly agress upon them and not just appeal to "consciousness" like "without taxes you would die, pay us!".
But slavery is very expensive tactics unless slaves believe they are free. So in short - that's quite unlikely if not impossible.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Note that if we have a successful AnCap country, many others would likely follow...
the only real problem is from within. Sort of the same thing that brought down classical liberalism. People get so wealthy from the free markets, etc. and they forget WHY they got this way, because it doesn't cost them anything if they don't know WHY it is that they are rich. This means that individuals living in a free society are not punished for not believing in a free society, the more people that don't believe in a free society the less likely one is to exist.
On the other hand there are some ideas that humanity, or at least in the West, will never go back on. This is sort of a 'progressive' (literally, not as in code for socialist) view of history, but I just can't ever see chattle slavery ever being on the table of ideas in the West again, same goes with a myriad of other things that used to be a perfectly accepted and unquestioned part of human culture in the recent (in terms of evolutionary time) past, that seem completely unpalatable to us today. Hopefully, oneday, humanity will see government in this same light. "how could people HAVE EVER beleived in something so OBVIOUSLY stupid"
Some territories are simply more difficult to invade due to geography. The United States doesn't have much to worry about.
Since you used Kuwait and Iraq as examples, it's worth pointing out that one of the best defensive policies is to avoid aggravating your neighbours. If you steal your neighbour's resources from under their feet, you make war against yourself a far less costly policy relative to peace than it would otherwise have been.
It would always be best to make war against you an extremely costly option relative to peace. Make yourselves valuable to your enemy, and they will not want to be your enemy.
Murphy on this topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3n0raXQ0oU
He also did a very technical peiece with formulas and everything about the possibility of one PDA emerging as a monopoly and the odds of that happening. Can't seem to find it, might have to email Bob, so I can post it here.
James: It would always be best to make war against you an extremely costly option relative to peace. Make yourselves valuable to your enemy, and they will not want to be your enemy.
A free-market territory keeps foreign governments at bay by becoming increasingly like an actual state, with communities or associations banding together to form a common military under a central command comprised of representatives from disparate interests. Then comes funding for research and development, acquisitions, training and deployment that will necessitate an ongoing defense budget and a reliable revenue source; a merit-based hierarchy will require voting for civilian leadership of the military. And oversight of the military will require at least an over-arching civilian review board comprised of representatives, presumably elected. And so you have the rebirth of democracy. The truth is that a defense from enemies abroad is a legitimate function of government and remains a legitimate concern, even in the absence of a formal government. The only alternative is to have a small, representative, paramilitary nuclear installation with its proverbial finger on the button and a real willingness to use it to prevent or to punish invasion.
Above comment - lol. Free market - no centralized government. Learn the lesson.
It seems to me that the Somalis have been giving hell to imposed, colonial governments for going on a century now.
Clayton -
I didn't realize that Somalia had turned from a warlord dictatorship to an anarcho-capitalist society. Or is there no distinction between the two? Maybe we should poll the average Somali about the benefits of their purely voluntary, non-aggression society. Now if their society were flourishing under free-market capitalism, so that they had lots of natural and man-made resources to attract war-like countries, and they still managed to defend themselves, it might be a little better example.
I didn't realize that Somalia had turned from a warlord dictatorship to an anarcho-capitalist society.
Somalia has never been a warlord dictatorship unless you define Siad Barre, or his colonial predecessors, as warlords.
Or is there no distinction between the two?
It's simply a red-herring.
Maybe we should poll the average Somali about the benefits of their purely voluntary, non-aggression society.
LOL. The Western mind is so ... geometrical.
Now if their society were flourishing under free-market capitalism, so that they had lots of natural and man-made resources to attract war-like countries, and they still managed to defend themselves, it might be a little better example.
Make up your mind. Is your argument that Somalia is too poor to be an example of a society that has resisted serious efforts to impose central governance? Or are you insisting that Somalia is a "warlord dictatorship" and therefore does not qualify as a stateless society? I'm confused.
(Sorry, I had trouble posting my response)
"Somalia has never been a warlord dictatorship unless you define Siad Barre, or his colonial predecessors, as warlords"
Report this to the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14094503
"LOL. The Western mind is so ... geometrical."
I think you mean linear...but that's still non-responsive.
The question concerned how a free-market territory could defend against a foreign government trying to impose a state upon it. I was imagining such a territory inside the U.S., attacked by a modern foreign military--with a modern air force, navy, etc. So my answer reflected the measures necessary in that eventuality. Somalia is a not what I consider to be an ideal example, not solely because it is poor, but because it's invading neighbors are poor, and because it is and it was no model of a free-market society to begin with. A stateless society is not necessarily a free market society. In a well-established free-market territory, one where voluntary agreements and private property rights are respected by most, there still has to be an element of united military deterrence in order to prevent through the invasion of a modern military the dissolution of the market system into a war-ravaged mess. I would have thought that obvious. That the invaders could not physically force inhabitants to follow their new system would not save their previous one from annihilation or save themselves from eventual extermination or imprisonment.
asked Bob, here is the link, be sure to watch it with the power point: http://mises.org/media/1465/Anarchy-and-Economies-of-Scale
Boy, I'm glad that you know exactly how a free market would evolve!
And where in your analysis did you address forceful expropriation by the state to collect funding for the military? It's a non-sequitur.
Sure, you could have democracies emerge. But remember - democracy is not a system of government, but a system of decision-making. You do not have a state when people voluntarily come together to vote and have already agreed to carry through with the majority choice.
Plus, how does any nation defend itself in case of World War? If you apply your own logic, all nations must also be totalitarian states because during World Ward nations become totalitarian. Ergo, democracy and any semblance of a free society is moot as well.
Report this to the BBC
Um, the first six words of that article make my point and refute yours, "Years of fighting between rival warlords..." Rival warlords do not a united tyranny make. What they do make is typical Western scrambling of Somali culture out of an utter and deplorable failure to step outside of the journalist-academia-"refugee" echo chamber.
Somali society is incredibly nuanced and complex. It is also very ancient, a fact lost on the Orwellian-memory-hole journalism of today where only those historical facts that are convenient for the Anglophile empire are remembered, all others forgotten.
The warlords are a symptom of foreign intervention in Somalia. During the late 90's and early 00's, the prospect of a government in Mogadishu was remote. The country was largely pacified during this time and the ancient legal code, Xeer, operated to resolve disputes between Somalis as it had for thousands of years, even under the most brutal repression by the Italians and British colonial rulers.
The whole concept of Somalia as a "country ruled by rival factions of warlords" is really a form of soft-racism, a holdover of 19th century European colonization of Africa. The implication is that these are backwards, ignorant, tribal people who wouldn't know civilization if it bit them in the ass. The facts of the case are, unsurprisingly, quite different.
The question concerned how a free-market territory could defend against a foreign government trying to impose a state upon it. I was imagining such a territory inside the U.S., attacked by a modern foreign military--with a modern air force, navy, etc. So my answer reflected the measures necessary in that eventuality. Somalia is a not what I consider to be an ideal example, not solely because it is poor, but because it's invading neighbors are poor, and because it is and it was no model of a free-market society to begin with.
My point is that your thought-experiment is flawed. The whole line of thinking is inherently contradictory... a "free market territory" carved out of a larger political union and protected by encroachment from all the evil, aggressive governments out there by a bristling border is inherently contradictory. You must have a large, powerful central government to maintain the bristling border, and this means high taxes, high regulations and a very un-free market.
Somalia is not and never has been "free market" simply because this concept is a European way of thinking, just as collectivism, socialism and communism are European ways of thinking. These are our categories, not theirs. But Somalia is most certainly a stateless society and has been for going on 20 years now and a stateless society does not have taxes or economic regulations beyond those which arise out of necessity, that is, as a matter of the costs of bodyguards, security details, passing roadblocks, hiring guides, and so on.
A stateless society is not necessarily a free market society.
Sure, but "free markets" are not an end in themselves. The problems with modern society are rather simple: taxation, regulation, monopolization. Fixing these problems is far from simple but it's easy to set out precisely what is wrong with modern society and why it is wrong.
In a well-established free-market territory, one where voluntary agreements and private property rights are respected by most, there still has to be an element of united military deterrence in order to prevent through the invasion of a modern military the dissolution of the market system into a war-ravaged mess.
For the last two decades, they didn't need that in Somalia. I'm not holding Somalia up as a model society and I'm not mentioning it in order to say "we should be like Somalia." The point I'm making is theoretical. What is the point of invading a territory where there is no central power structure? There is no capitol city to seize? There is no flag to capture? There is no apparatus of governance, regulation, tax revenues and economic cartels and monopolies to be taken over? What's the point? It's all costs and no benefits.
That's what Somalia is. It's all headache, heartache and no money in pocket. It doesn't serve any purpose to invade Somalia unless you're a New World Order fanatic and the mere thought of one square inch of dry land over which there does not exist some kind of "legitimate authority from above" causes you to have stomach ulcers.
I would have thought that obvious. That the invaders could not physically force inhabitants to follow their new system would not save their previous one from annihilation or save themselves from eventual extermination or imprisonment.
Imprisonment requires an infrastructure for imprisoning people. The CIA is using some old basement to imprison and torture people in Somalia. This is either very recent construction or its an old facility from the days of the Barre regime. Under the conditions of statelessness in Somalia over the last two decades, they had no need for prisons because Xeer does not comprehend the concept of imprisonment. There is no such thing as imprisonment in Xeer, only payment of awards or damages for torts. If you're a real bad actor, you can be expelled from your clan, which is basically a death-sentence.
Without an existing infrastructure with which to punish, tax and distribute largesse, any attempt to impose government in Somalia has to build every damn piece of government infrastructure de novo. It turns out that this is a lot more costly than you might at first guess, especially if you can't just leave piles of dead bodies in your wake like they used to do it back in the 19th century.
In fact, that just gave me a thought that perhaps the best defense a "free market territory" could set up would be a network of webcams and video streams which are maintained as a defensive measure in the event of invasion, in order to document and transmit to the rest of the world the crimes being committed, while they are in progress.
Wheylous:
I gave a good, common-sense explanation of how one would have to survive. And I'm waiting for yours.
And where in your analysis did you address forceful expropriation by the state to collect funding for the military? It's a non-sequitur
That would likely come when their common survival required a common defense and a common revenue. ( Non-sequitir is a non-sequitir in your sentence.)
democracy is not a system of government, but a system of decision-making.You do not have a state when people voluntarily come together to vote and have already agreed to carry through with the majority choice
By state do you require force? Any agreement must have an element of enforceability to be worth the paper it's written on; so force rears its ugly head; and by your apparent definition, a state forms.
Clayton: Bless you for responding with a measured, articulate intelligence.
"Rival warlords do not a united tyranny make."
I wasn't intending to claim that Somalia was united under a single warlord dictatorship; but to call attention to the contradictions between a free-market system, as proposed, and any warlord dictatorship. The latter system does not meet a working definition of a free market and throws out of balance the scenario of what I imagined to be the intial proposed scenario.
I'm glad to be informed about the Xeer system. And I regret all colonization in world history including, quite frankly, that of America. A "failed state" in an ideal book is any in which a majority of its inhabitants cannot show one another mutual respect without force or limit themselves to their own natural resources.
You must have a large, powerful central government to maintain the bristling border, and this means high taxes, high regulations and a very un-free market.
You seem to be strongly seconding my initial answer, which I based upon the idea of an entire "U.S." as a sprawling territory of independent, free-market communities and what they must do in order to salvage any semblance of that freedom.
What is the point of invading a territory where there is no central power structure? There is no capitol city to seize? There is no flag to capture? There is no apparatus of governance, regulation, tax revenues and economic cartels and monopolies to be taken over? What's the point? It's all costs and no benefits.
Again, I imagined a scenario of thriving, modern free-market communities with plenty of assets and infrastructure, if not government--pure conjecture, as no such place exists, including Somalia. And I suspect we both know how a discovery of huge oil reserves in Somalia would effect your invasion cost-benefit analysis, unfortunately. A lack of infrastructure is a poor deterrent to invasion, occupation, "imprisonment" and extermination. We might conduct a poll of Native Americans for the truth of that assertion.
And just for the record, I would love to alter human nature, such that no state apparatus were necessary. I rewrote the U.S. Constitution in order to provide the People a direct democracy, in hopes that they might learn through trial and error that the best laws are those left to the smallest political communities--or none at all. http://www.amazon.com/New-American-Constitution-Democracy-Alternative/dp/1463666837/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325164133&sr=1-1
DarylLloydDavis:Wheylous: Boy, I'm glad that you know exactly how a free market would evolve! I gave a good, common-sense explanation of how one would have to survive. And I'm waiting for yours.
Hang on just a minute. What exactly makes your explanation either "good" or "common-sense"? I think that was Wheylous' point - he doesn't agree with your characterization of your explanation.
Furthermore, what obligates Wheylous or anyone else to provide an alternative explanation? An alternative explanation isn't necessary to disprove yours.
It seems to me that you're trying to shift the burden of proof onto others, a la the canard "GOD EXISTS - PROVE ME WRONG."
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
(I'm still having trouble posting)
Autolykos:
Wheylous has yet to respond to my characterization. But if you believe that the original assertion or my characterization of it are in error, then follow the good and common-sense example of Clayton and present a thoughtful counterargument. Not only have you not refuted my original assertion or my characterization of if, you haven't asserted anything at all.
DarylLloydDavis:Wheylous has yet to respond to my characterization.
As I see it, Wheylous certainly has responded to your characterization. If you don't like his response, that's too bad.
DarylLloydDavis:But if you believe that the original assertion or my characterization of it are in error, then follow the good and common-sense example of Clayton and present a thoughtful counterargument. Not only have you not refuted my original assertion or my characterization of if, you haven't asserted anything at all.
Again with trying to shift the burden of proof. "MY EXPLANATION WAS GOOD AND COMMON-SENSE - PROVE ME WRONG."
Can you explain why you think your explanation was "good" and "common-sense" or not?
Thanks. I like to keep it real. Life is too short for squabbling and Internet trolling.
Again, I imagined a scenario of thriving, modern free-market communities with plenty of assets and infrastructure, if not government--pure conjecture, as no such place exists, including Somalia.
But this gets to the heart of the problem. Why shouldn't the owner of an asset be responsible for looking to its security, even its strategic security?? If you think about it, the whole European concept of "territories" with "boundaries" between them is somewhat absurd, especially when applied to non-European geographies like the American West, the desertified portions of Africa and much of the Middle East. This is just "defense of territory for defense of territory's sake." Why bother defending something which has no value? Nobody defends big square blocks of open ocean, or air currents or regions of the Moon because these things simply have no value.
The whole thing has an air of pissing-contest about it. "This is the border of Molravia, invade it to your eternal peril!" Security motivated by asset-protection is a lot more rational. "We would like to build a coal-burning electrical facility right here because it's close to a massive coal supply and has a large electrical market nearby. But what if those damned Molravians invade and capture it and hold it for ransom?"
Borders scramble the analysis, in my opinion. Just erase all political boundaries in your mind. They're just imaginary, anyway. What exist are actual assets... cities, ports, roads, electrical and phone lines, power-generation facilities, etc. In a society without socialization of the costs of defense (taxpayer-funded armies), the owners of those assets would be responsible for paying the security costs associated with them.
In the process, we can make some predictions: Some assets are probably fundamentally un-defendable because the costs of securing them exceed the revenues which they can generate. Hence, the fact that someone built something somewhere does not, in itself, make it a human tragedy if that thing is destroyed by someone else. If the asset could not be profitably defended, then it is better that it cease existing, anyway. The fact that it is today being defended on the backs of taxpayers simply means that immense numbers of immensely unprofitable ventures are embarked upon when the decision-makers do not have to bear the costs of their decisions.
Hence, what you could see emerge is a society where someone builds a new car factory out in an open region where they are free from paying duties to a municipality or port and deciding to take on the costs of securing the facility themselves. Then, people move near the factory not only for the jobs related to the factory but also to "free ride" on the defensive "blanket" surrounding the factory. Its very existence is a guarantee that marauding warlord gangs will not be allowed within a certain perimeter of the factory, unchallenged by the factory's security provider.
But the factory owner doesn't get a "right" to "tax" the people "free-riding" under the "blanket" of his security any more than he can charge people walking past his factory a fee for looking at the fancy terracing and interesting architecture on the front entrance to the factory.
I think you could have "pure free market" municipalities built up piece-by-piece in this manner, as well. Two owners of adjacent properties decide to purchase a combined security contract so they can afford a much higher-grade defense than they could individually. Now, if someone invades, the security company will bring in real tanks, not just armed pickups. The border of these two properties can be thought of as a real perimeter or territorial border. But unlike fiat borders, this border corresponds to actually owned assets. Now extend the process.... the owners realize they can fund part of the costs of defending their assets by purchasing the outlying lands that will sit under their defensive blanket and then selling them to real estate developers who will contractually belong to the municipality and pay into its defense funds, and earn their revenues by building and selling homes which are desirable precisely because they exist under the defensive umbrella of the municipality.
The real world is not that different from this story at the local level. Small, local governments are still abusive and still result in irrationality and inefficiency but, as a matter of degree, they are much closer to what I've described above than they are to the national superpower governments, like the US government, whose existence has little, if any, connection to real defense of assets.
And I suspect we both know how a discovery of huge oil reserves in Somalia would effect your invasion cost-benefit analysis, unfortunately.
But I think we have to think a little more deeply about this. The concept of "original appropriation" is the idea that a natural resource becomes the property of the first person to use it. So, I don't see armed forces moving in to protect a newly-discovered oil well on behalf of an oil corporation which has discovered the oil well as an "invasion" of "territory", it's just a new development along the lines I described above.
A lack of infrastructure is a poor deterrent to invasion, occupation, "imprisonment" and extermination. We might conduct a poll of Native Americans for the truth of that assertion.
But you are confusing private assets with infrastructure for the administration of government. The two are distinct. Power lines deliver electricity to my home. They don't deliver my taxes to Washington, DC. It is the latter, not the former, which does not exist in Somalia and which plays a role in making it such a pain in the ass to subjugate them to colonial rule.
"The whole thing has an air of pissing-contest about it. "This is the border of Molravia, invade it to your eternal peril!" Security motivated by asset-protection is a lot more rational"
I wholeheartedly endorse your analysis of the folly of Man....now what do we do? Such a user-based system of control of assets is predicated upon a human nature not currently in existence. Frankly, I would prefer humans to recognize that land itself ought not be claimed at all--that they lived much closer to Nature, limiting their populations to areas of rough, natural sustainability and just dealing with drought and famine--appreciating the non-material aspects of Life. But that would require a level of sharing and respect that the human heart cannot currently afford.
"I think you could have "pure free market" municipalities built up piece-by-piece in this manner, as well. Two owners of adjacent properties decide to purchase a combined security contract so they can afford a much higher-grade defense than they could individually."
One starts to detect a pattern here? A gathering move toward control of land, resources and regional power. Ruled by one factory owner? Or an oligarchical "governing body" of factory owners? I begin to object to this vision, as human nature encroaches upon it. It's really a circular problem, one that can't be gotten' around. Human nature, that is. Furthermore, and perhaps without any principled defense, I abhor the image of a world where private enterprise is free to exploit every inch of available real estate. Finders keepers, if you will. I like that state boundaries act as a partial check on the wholesale development of the nation and of the entire planet. I want national forests and parks; nature preserves; etc.
"Power lines deliver electricity to my home. They don't deliver my taxes to Washington, DC. It is the latter, not the former, which does not exist in Somalia and which plays a role in making it such a pain in the ass to subjugate them to colonial rule."
It returns to a discussion of human nature. If the ancient culture of the Somalis is such that a respect for a common law has been nearly bred into their DNA, then a centralized state may no longer be necessary. Love it. But human nature encroaches all the same--from their controlling neighbors and presumably from ''mutants" within, whose DNA isn't yet so amenable. That their tribal lives close to Nature leaves nothing to be seized but the land itself is apparently not deterrent to others attempting do seize control. And that it is difficult to do so makes the struggle prolonged and bitter. But no "peace" will come until the statists achieve their goal. Unless human nature changes outside of Somalia.
Give me your thoughts on my user-based version of funding for a limited, direct democracy government, vis a vis this tenth amendment:
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.
Give me your thoughts on my user-based version of funding for a limited, direct democracy government
I'm sure you're very smart but I don't believe that any individual, or even any group of specialized experts, is smart enough to know what the law should be. Statutory law itself is a big part of the problem, in my view. You want people to live more locally? Then return the law out of the hands of the experts and the imperialists back into the hands of individuals, families, communities and cultural organizations. Let the individuals involved in a dispute settle it as they see fit, rather than allow the experts and imperialists to impose their vision of how every dispute "ought" to be settled.
This is the lesson that I believe the West needs to learn from cultures like the Somalis and the Afghanis. These people are, I think, smarter than we are. I don't mean this in a racial superiority sense, I mean it in the sense that on the issue of the nature of law and how it interacts with the interests of the individual and the culture, I think they "get it" and we just don't. The average American simply doesn't grasp the concept that a unilateral law monopolist consists of ordinary human beings with their own agendas and selfish interests who will use that monopoly to further their interests at the cost of steam-rolling anyone who gets in their way. The Somalis get that. The Afghanis get that. There are other pockets of fiercely customary-law cultures scattered around the world who get it and this is why they simply won't "bear the yoke". You're either going to have to kill them off or accept that they cannot be governed.
Those indigenous peoples may well have it right, for the most part; though some rites are barbaric all the same. But that organic growth of cultural "law" in Somalia and elsewhere was largely lost to the Western world centuries ago. And their artificial, technological society is crowding those stateless cultures more and more. My attempt to devolve power to local communities through direct democracy is a step back from the blind momentum of the state--and an attempt to open the eyes of the People.
@Daryl: Well, we agree that the State needs to be rolled back. I think that American history pretty roundly rebuffs any idea that a piece of paper can restrain a government.
DarylLloydDavis:Those indigenous peoples may well have it right, for the most part; though some rites are barbaric all the same. But that organic growth of cultural "law" in Somalia and elsewhere was largely lost to the Western world centuries ago. And their artificial, technological society is crowding those stateless cultures more and more. My attempt to devolve power to local communities through direct democracy is a step back from the blind momentum of the state--and an attempt to open the eyes of the People.
What happened in the Western world centuries ago was that common-law legal systems increasingly got in the way of monarchs who both de facto and de jure owned all the land that everyone else lived on. Only monarchs had allodial (i.e. sovereign) title to land - everyone else was merely some form of tenant.
That's why I focus upon a system that has the best potential to teach the masses quickly--through trial and error in local communities--that local control is preferable to centralized control. If I could snap my fingers, instead, and infuse the People with a respect for Nature and liberty all at once, I would. Then no piece of paper would be necessary. It's a small step, I admit. But I would argue that it's vastly preferable to ceding control to elected officials who DO surely represent the elite.
I think you may have written the West off already; and you may be right to do so. But I felt guilty about sitting back on a deckchair and going down with the ship; so I wrote what anyone with decent intelligence and a strong moral sense could--a better piece of paper for modern America. The "expertise" of tribal elders only applies in an isolated community, as a symbiotic adaptation to the local environment; but the foreign strains of a darker human nature have cast their shadows there as well. I hope they maintain their old way of life; but I have to focus on my own environment.
DarylLloydDavis:A free-market territory keeps foreign governments at bay by becoming increasingly like an actual state, with communities or associations banding together to form a common military under a central command comprised of representatives from disparate interests.
Why must there be only one military? And even if there is only one military, how does that justify said military usurping ownership (at least de facto, if not also de jure) of the entire territory?
DarylLloydDavis:The truth is that a defense from enemies abroad is a legitimate function of government and remains a legitimate concern, even in the absence of a formal government.
You're committing a category error here. There's no truth about legitimacy or illegitimacy. Those are value judgements.
Anybody else have their text disappear when they post?
I wasn't arguing that there would be one government, necessarily--though a larger force may be preferable to a smaller one, ceteris parabus--but that the threat from a modernized, collective military would likely impel free-market communities to suspend their autonomy and impose taxes or some other form of forced contribution, in order to ensure their future as a free territory. Much as the American economy was transformed into a war-making machine during WWII, a large enough threat might well impose the same sacrifices upon ancap communites. The alternatives would seem to be death, surrender or protracted guerilla resistance. But the free-market territory would nevertheless be no more.
I may have used the term legitimate too loosely. I meant to say that, given the anti-liberty, acquisitive tendencies of human nature, one of the very few justifiable functions of government is a defense against foreign enemies.
DarylLloydDavis:I wasn't arguing that there would be one government, necessarily--though a larger force may be preferable to a smaller one, ceteris parabus--but that the threat from a modernized, collective military would likely impel free-market communities to suspend their autonomy and impose taxes or some other form of forced contribution, in order to ensure their future as a free territory. Much as the American economy was transformed into a war-making machine during WWII, a large enough threat might well impose the same sacrifices upon ancap communites. The alternatives would seem to be death, surrender or protracted guerilla resistance. But the free-market territory would nevertheless be no more.
Can you explain to me just what these likelihoods are and how you came up with them?
Furthermore, don't you think that, once a free-market territory "suspends autonomy" (I'm translating this as "suspend private ownership") and imposes taxes or some other form(s) of forced contribution (note that threatening force in the face of non-contribution does not guarantee that contributions will be made), the free-market territory has already been destroyed from within? How, then, can its future be ensured when it de facto no longer exists?
DarylLloydDavis:I may have used the term legitimate too loosely. I meant to say that, given the anti-liberty, acquisitive tendencies of human nature, one of the very few justifiable functions of government is a defense against foreign enemies.
The notion of justifiability seems to me to be just as normative as legitimacy. Where is the necessary truth for any justification?
What do you think are the "anti-liberty, acquisitive tendencies of human nature"? Can you spell them out for me?
How and where do you draw the line between "foreign" and "non-foreign" or "native"?
private military agencies would coalesce into a monopoly to enjoy economies of scale and reduced costs to the consumer via reduced competition.
Why doesn't this happen with any other industry? As soon as a big company stops benefitting its customers it loses to other companies.
Plus, where did you get the idea that there always exist economies of scale and that a company may indeed achieve them?
Furthermore, you are selectively looking at only one part of the system and failing to see it as a process: firms do not simply "begin to merge." This all happens in the context of the market, and it takes time to happen, as mergers aren't 1) immediate 2) made up of all companies coming together at once. Hence, if in the middle of the merging process the public decides that the mergers are bad, they would not support them financially any more and when the "evil" private defense agencies have no money for their cops, they're broke and out of business.
Seriously, you're committing the "World Walmart Monopoly" fallacy - isolating one aspect of the system and wrongly coming to a conclusion about it because you are disregarding all other market forces that would prevent that conclusion.
Why the "WWM"? Because satists often ask "well, what if Walmart bought out everyone else", without realizing that Walmart does not simply "buy out everyone else" as if everyone else is on display with a nice price tag and guaranteed shipping upon purchase. As soon as Walmart starts being bad for customers, the customers would stop backing it and companies not yet bought out by Walmart would have much higher incentives to not be bought out.
Plus, why do you think new companies won't emerge during this process of mergers? For example, a company created by a large community of concerned citizens.