Assume we wake up to an AnCap Earth. Also assume that entities are being established as voluntary cooperative corporations -- something like co-ops in NYC, in which every citizen is also a voluntary member and shareholder of such corporation. Citizenships or co-op shares could be freely traded in the global market, just like co-op apartments are traded in NYC. Membership/citizenship would be strictly associated with a lease of property (land) or residence within the boundaries of the corporation. Each corporation (co-op) would have its bylaws (laws), maintenance fees (taxes), boards (governments) and security (military, police).
I haven't taught this all the way through, but how would this world be inconsistent with full respect of private property rights (private corporations) and in what fundamental way would it differ from what's in existence today (apart from nomenclature)? Assuming such co-existing mesh of corporations was established, with territorial ownership clearly delineated among the corporations, would there still be AnCaps born into this situation that would consider such corporations as initiators of aggression?
[EDIT: Not advocating anything here. Merely a thought experiment.]
Z.
Interesting idea.
First, I believe that in an ancap world something like that would come to pass: most city blocks (excepting downtown areas) would come to be owned by either co-ops or by entrepreneurs who would rent out apartments to customers and require them to follow some code (hence one would be able to chose the moral restrictions in vigour in his community).
But that would be quite different form a state simply because: 1) you can flee if you want, and fleeing a neighborhood is much easier than fleeing continental USA and 2) no one is forcing you to rent a house/become a member of such firms/co-ops. If enough people feel like owning their houses, this demand will be satisfied.
Yet on practical levels I agree that a world of neighborhood-sized compulsory states would be almost identical to this ancap vision. The problem with states is size.
Welcome to the dungeons of the ultra-right. I recommend you read the Unqualified Reservations blog, especially these posts:
From Mises to Carlyle
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Merlin, a world in which every square inch of land has been (initially voluntarily) organized into such corporations (neighborhoods, towns, villages, blocks, cities, etc.) would be perfectly consistent with ancap private property principles. An ancap born into such a world would have no basis to claim that he's subject to any sort of aggression/coercion. If today's states (or counties) were to voluntarily incorporate, and their citizens were to become each state's shareholders, ancap's claim of such state's aggression (over their shareholders/citizens) suddenly becomes moot from a private property perspective. Both shareholders in such corporations and citizens of today's states are free to flee and abandon bylaws (laws) they find objectionable. Finally, if the problem with states is merely their (physical) size, how is that a problem at all?
Liberte, thanks for the links. I especially enjoyed the first article. Do you know anything/more about the author? I always felt that power and security are somewhat different from bananas and haircuts -- square pegs probably not so easily squeezable into the round holes of free markets (for goods and services) paradigm.
Merlin, a world in which every square inch of land has been (initially voluntarily) organized into such corporations (neighborhoods, towns, villages, blocks, cities, etc.) would be perfectly consistent with ancap private property principles.
"Initially voluntarily"? I'm confused, or you are about what homesteading is. If someone wrestled land from a native, it isn't "perfectly consistent with ancap private property principles."
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
What if the natives (homesteaders) voluntarily formed their corporations thus becoming their shareholders? Would such a corporation (state) still be an aggressor in the eyes of a next-generation AnCap who was born to an original shareholder?
Would such a corporation (state)
If you are going to define things like that, you are going to have serious problems.
edit: Uh okay, whatever.
Such as? For the sake of the discussion how about we don't mention the word "state" going forward. As I originally said, I hope the issue is not merely about nomenclature.
Isn't this really just making the idea of a "social contract" formal?
If the social contract is really a contract (an enforceable agreement voluntarily entered into by all parties) it ceases to be a "social" contract and just becomes a contract like any other. The only reason to add "social" in front of contract is to show that it is not actually a contract at all and is simply naked coercion of one class of people by another.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
false organismic analogy advisory is in effect
I'd still would like a response to:
"An ancap born into such a world would have no basis to claim that he's subject to any sort of aggression/coercion."
Well, I want a pony for my birthday but I was told that I poorly defined my terms.
BTW how is ancap formed?
"Merlin, a world in which every square inch of land has been (initially voluntarily) organized into such corporations (neighborhoods, towns, villages, blocks, cities, etc.) would be perfectly consistent with ancap private property principles. An ancap born into such a world would have no basis to claim that he's subject to any sort of aggression/coercion. "
Fully agree.
"If today's states (or counties) were to voluntarily incorporate, and their citizens were to become each state's shareholders, ancap's claim of such state's aggression (over their shareholders/citizens) suddenly becomes moot from a private property perspective."
Rothbardians would never agree that that would be fine, but its perfectly fine with me if states just go:”OK, lets turn private corporations right now and let the past be the past”.
"Both shareholders in such corporations and citizens of today's states are free to flee and abandon bylaws (laws) they find objectionable."
If I don’t like the way GM’s CEO is doing business with my shares, I do not flee for NY, I just sell those shares and exert a downward pressure on share prices. If enough people think like me, GM goes bust. Can I do that with today’s states form the comfort of my sofa?
"Finally, if the problem with states is merely their (physical) size, how is that a problem at all? "
Small size is the best substitute for competition among states. Short of non-territorial voluntary associations (which would not even qualify as ‘states’), a world of neighborhood-sized states would be , for all purposes, ancap.
Radical Privatization and other Libertarian conundrums, the international journal of politics and ethics, vol 2, pp. 165-175, Walter Block 2002.
III. Unanimity'* For libertarians, the illegitimacy of the state rests squarely on the fact that "the consent of the governed" is no more than a myth (Spooner, 1867). Well, what if, just suppose, that the scenario depicted in civics classes were correct. That is, that there were a time, during the formation of the country, when the entire populace, all of them, every last person, did sign the constitutional contract. It was a unanimous agreement, binding all to all. And not only that. Let us also presume that this was true of every nation on earth, the totalitarian ones, the democracies, all of them. Further, while we are supposing, let us concede the fact that all of these countries, unified into a completely voluntary World Government, had homesteaded every square inch of the earth's surface. (Look, if we can posit Martians, we can certainly give credence to this scenario, if only for argument's sake.) Now this world need not be a libertarian one. Indeed, we posit that it is not. All we need do in order to attack libertarian premises is to assume that the World Government was formed, initially, under premises required by the libertarian philosophy. Namely, that it was the voluntary formation of a state. Once in effect, it could take any measures supported by a majority. After all, if libertarianism can support (the legalization of!) voluntary sado-masochism, or "murder parks" (where people may shoot one another, provided only that all of them had agreed to take part in this game, and there are thick walls so that no outsiders are shot), then certainly they may unanimously and voluntarily set up a government which is less than libertarian. As long as it was set up in a manner totally consistent with libertarianism, no adherent of this philosophy can logically object to the results. Under these circumstances does it not follow that freedom will be reduced by libertarianism? For consider the position of a new world citizen, or, rather, a person of, say, age 21, who is now being considered for citizenship. This person is offered a stark choice indeed: Join us in our mixed economy world (similar, by the way, to what obtains today in reality), or die. Since we, all together, legitimately own the entire world (this ownership was established through the libertarian process of homesteading), he has no right to exist on it without OUT permission. To do so is to engage in trespass, which is legitimately a crime even under libertarianism. If newcomers must either embrace the mixed economy (or Marxism, or feminism, or whatever the majority wants), or die, this, to say the very least, doesn’t bode too well for libertarianism claim to be compatible with freedom. An unfree society brought about solely in conformity with libertarianism” is surely a major flaw in this philosophy. There are several ways to reply to this challenge. 1. It is rather unrealistic. When as few as five friends get together for dinner and a movie (leaving 5x5=25 different combinations for those two events, if everyone has his choice and each has different preference for both), it is rare that all will be fully satisfied. To think that all people in the world at any one time would unanimously agree to be bound by the majority vote of all of them on anything beggars the imagination. of the
This, it must be confessed, is not much of a response, since this particular critic of libertarianism is certainly prepared to admit as much. His is more of a theoretical than a practical critique of this philosophy.
3. This scenario is incompatible with the nature of physical reality.
A weakness of the critical scenario is that it requires that all land be owned by the political collective. If there are significant, not to say large tracts of space still available, the choice for the man coming of age is not to join or die. He now has the option of moving to an unowned area. At the time of this writing (1998), there are vast parts of the earth's surface that have not been homesteaded. The high mountains in many countries, the Sahara, and deserts in Australia and other continents, the tundra in Canada, Russia, the Antarctic. And this is to say nothing of the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers of the world, both on the surface and underwater. As well, our homesteading on the land (apart from mineral exploration and mining) has barely even begun to scratch the surface. It cannot be denied that these lands are now claimed by various countries. However, mere claim is insufficient under the libertarian legal code. For legitimate ownership -- whether of land or water -- the would be owner must mix his labor with it. The point is, with modem technology, it would be impossible at this time for the political collective to legitimately own the entire globe, surface and subsurface. Therefore, this scenario would fail to overturn libertarianism even had there once been a unanimous agreement for a world government. Suppose, however, that another few centuries pass; that the economic system adopted by the world government is not so interventionistic so that no progress can occur; that in the year 2525 there will truly be no space on the earth or in it that has not been already (legitimately) homesteaded. Would this critical scenario then suffice to embarrass libertarianism?
Not a bit of it. For then there will be the moon, Mars, Venus, the asteroids, and other heavenly bodies. Those who turn 21 years of age and are asked to join the world government would still have an option other than death. They could migrate to these other places. (Presumably, interplanetary travel will then be so cheap as to be able to accommodate youngsters whose only savings is based on the type of part time work that many reaching their years of majority will have undertaken.) The reason the critique fails is that in any even slightly realistic scenario the very technology which will allow for more and more thorough homesteading (thus precluding new adults from setting up shop for themselves) will also enable them to move to further and further away to far off destinations. There is no reason that this process would not continue indefinitely. So that at no epoch would it be true that unanimous agreement to a constitutional contract, a phenomenon consistent with libertarianism, lead to people being forced to join the resultant collective against their will, something inconsistent with this philosophy.
Some arbitraty bounderies would not be ok but if it is restricted by property ownership then it is fine I guess.
Though it seems unneccessarily complicated. Why would we need this?
- All I need is a corporation that insures me against violation of life, liberty and property.
- Someone that insure contracts I enter.
- Standard contracts to use provided by various branch and consumer groups so I don't need to hire a lawyer to type it up everytime.
- A more or less universally trusted arbitrator.
I don't see much benefit at all into centralising these servies in one corporation. Specialization is better. There is also no need for any kind of regional nomarlisation of laws.
There are some people with wierd belives that would require a setup like the one your propose to enforce complex rules on themselves and the people they choose to live with. Various religious counities and gates communites with certain agendas. I would not want to live in such a place and I see no need for an organisation like this.
All that is required is that people around me don't kill me or steal from me. This is quite unviersal and don't require any form of geographical division of legal systems. Maybe a few restictions on when loud music can be on from the landlord .... it doesn't have to be more complex them that.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
Merlin:Can I do that with today’s states form the comfort of my sofa?
Both with the corporation and with the state you could sell your shares (property) to someone who finds the bylaws (laws) and fees (taxes) more acceptable and you can move to another corporation (state) with bylaws (laws) and fees (taxes) more to your liking. Co-ops with attractive laws and fees would attract productive agents that would make them more prosperous, making their shares more attractive (valuable). Co-ops with idiotic bylaws and fees would whither, bringing their share values down.
Merlin:Small size is the best substitute for competition among states. Short of non-territorial voluntary associations (which would not even qualify as ‘states’), a world of neighborhood-sized states would be , for all purposes, ancap.
Agreed. Switzerland's 26 cantons, each competing with attractive laws and taxes are a hair's breadth away from this scenario:
"Swiss Ratchet Up Tax Breaks as Europe Fights Deficits" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDL4y9zxGnyU
Finally, if a co-op (corporation) is not to one's liking, there's always mountain-tops and wilderness out there where they can mind their own business and enjoy freedom unhindered.
Most corporations are not co-ops. Here you are with more ridiculous definitions.
This is not even close to true. States not only claim just about every inch of land on Earth but the oceans surrounding it and the moon. States also don't sell their sovereignty except in one instance I found of some obscure sub-territory which I can't even remember the name of now.
It's okay to, in some way, compare "fees" to taxes, but there is a huge difference between the natural order I advocate and the statism you are attempting to obfuscate. The fees, say subscription to a security patrol or a water service, are distributed among various firms, each with a vested interest in serving consumer's desires, in a libertarian society. While smaller states are arguably superior to larger territorial monopolies, superior still is anarchy and division of labor in the various services people desire.
The fees, say subscription to a security patrol or a water service, are distributed among various firms, each with a vested interest in serving consumer's desires, in a libertarian society. While smaller states are arguably superior to larger territorial monopolies, superior still is anarchy and division of labor in the various services people desire.
That's fine. Even today there are all sorts of zones, condominiums, co-ops, and gated communities in which members voluntarily give up some freedom (to bylaws) and wealth (to fees) in return for order and stability that they find beneficial to their prosperity. In an ancap world, voluntarily incorporated co-op territories would compete for productive agents (shareholders, members) with your "natural order" (bylaw-less, fee-less) territories. We really don't have to argue today which alternative (if any) would "win" and prosper better in a free market. While theoreticians theorize, producers produce. Though things can always get better, there's plenty of bylaws/fees (laws/taxes) choices in this world TODAY for the world's producers to pick from, as the Swiss canton example in the article clearly showed.
Each corporation (co-op) would have its bylaws (laws), maintenance fees (taxes), boards (governments) and security (military, police).
It's important to recognize you're still talking about a single company planning all services and having authority over all justice in a single geographic area.
You're still arguing for "voluntary governments". This is like "Heathian Anarchy", which as I've pointed out numerous times, could only exist small-scale (like with wacky religious/pinko sects) or else would attempt to aggrandize power in the form of a state. To suggest otherwise, at the very least, exhibits your poor understanding of the role of thymology in directing action.
That's fine. Even today there are all sorts of zones, condominiums, co-ops, and gated communities in which members voluntarily give up some freedom (to bylaws) and wealth (to fees) in return for order and stability that they find beneficial to their prosperity.
Homeowners associations, what all that jargon you puked up can be reduced to, have a very limited scope in most cases. The people want some sort of liberty to fly their favorite football team's flag, but don't want to see a Nazi flag in their neighborhood. Some may collect fees and organize local events or landscape the local park, but few get involved with the member's affairs, especially away from the small, local community.
This is nowhere near the hypothetical state of affairs where a company legitimately procurs vast territories and is able to sustain homesteading of them by providing everything for consumers, when this "company" (remember it remains non-state and legitimate) is simply a member of a free market, competing with individuals specialized in various segments of the market economy.
The reason the critique fails...
Conza, thanks for Block's interesting article. I wasn't critiquing, I agreed with most of the quoted text, but it was a bit irrelevant to this thread. Even if every square inch of land was already owned (occupied) by corporations and individuals alike, nothing's stopping agents from buying/selling such land on the free market. So if one doesn't have land and needs it badly while someone else has more than they need, there's a price at which ownership would change hands.