-12 votes

History of a Voluntary State + A New Problem For NAP

This submission should help anyone still on the fence to see why state governments can form out of voluntarily organized areas of common defense, through unanimous common consent, with defensive perimeters and areas designated public.

This will be my final contribution to the present round of the anarchy discussion. Here I establish all the main points I wish to carry, and take silence to be assent to their correctness.

1. Ten founding families unanimously agree to rules and a common defensive perimeter to their property. Anyone born in this perimeter can buy property and adhere to the rules when reaching maturity, or can go outside that common perimeter to seek their fortunes.

No rights violated, check.

The rules include provisions for changing the rules and other contingencies, and anyone breaking the rules is punished according to originally agreed upon rules. Everyone agrees, and everyone is free to leave the area at maturity. There are publicly provisioned roadways and out of the territory for that purpose.

No rights violated, check.

2. As generations pass, those who enter the territory or purchase property at maturity consent to the rules, by doing so, and change the rules, as they desire over time.

Those who don't agree to the rules leave. Moving to the area or purchasing property at maturity is defined in the constitution of the area agreeing to the rules - the property itself attaches rules and conditions, and everyone inside is either a property owner or dependent, and so subject to the rules.

No signature required by any "new" entry, whether moving in from the outside or coming to majority age and buying property. This new citizen is bound by the constitution upon becoming a citizen, which is the same as acquiring property -- the rules attach to the property.

No rights violated, check.

3. Other similar areas grow with the same characteristics, until their defensive perimeters meet the defensive perimeters (borders) of their neighbors.

Eventually all dissenting individuals must adhere to rules, even if just along the way out, as they use the public roadways to exit further and further, unhindered, until they find unclaimed land areas without any rules and with unclaimed property.

No rights violated, check.

4. As these bodies of property owners expand by natural growth, their defensive perimeters conjoin with similarly organized neighbors, and they consent among each other to a larger, common defensive border and Constitution of more limited common rules.

No rights violated, check.

Joining the common defensive union and constitution takes place according to the rules set out by the original property owners for their own political bodies; if the original founders agreed to a system of majority vote or super majority vote for making such decisions, that is sufficient to join the larger defensive perimeter.

No rights violated, check.

It all follows from the fact that the original group of property owners in each defensive perimeter area consented to a common defense perimeter and set of rules, and each person born or moving into that area consented, by entering, to the rules.

5. Eventually, these bodies bodies come to form a large common area together, sharing a defensive perimeter called a nation-state, formed consensually and sharing a constitution of rules.

Any instances of injustice or violation of rules, or violent acts against individuals, have to be dealt with in the courts and don't nullify the rules of the property owners. The provisions in the original rules stipulate how to handle rule violations.

No rights violated, check.

The only way to exit the area where rules and dues apply is by exiting to a place where property owners have not created rules within a common property defensive perimeter, to somewhere where there is unclaimed property.

6. At no point in the preceding steps was anyone forced into doing anything or agreeing to anything.

The only rules any individual is beholden to are the rules of the property area they entered into, whether by moving or buying property at majority age. Outside of that, they are free to do as they want, unless they attack others, in which case they are attacked/arrested in self defense.

Any rules that exist are those that all founding parties agreed to for their area, inside their common defensive perimeter; they never ranged out to conquer any individual landholders. Landholders who didn't ever agree to any common rules retain full freedom except to harm others, and have no claim on external defense/courts.

No rights violated, check.

Whatever areas were designated for common use like public roadways are to be understood in the same way as corporately owned areas with corporately defined rules, as agreed by the original founding property owners. Anyone who didn't agree upon reaching majority age could leave the territory of those property owners freely.

7. Eventually, by natural growth, all land will either become owned or designated corporately/commonly owned, subject to specific rules for common or public areas, and there is nowhere that rules don't apply. Yet, no one was ever forced to abide by rules they didn't agree to, or to turn over property that wasn't theirs.

***

This, if understood, should sufficiently prove the point that laws and taxes in given territories, extending all the way to the nation-state, don't violate anyone's freedom. Claims that force was used centuries ago against dissenters also holds no sway, any more than claims to stolen land from Neanderthals do. If you can't prove any direct victim-hood to any direct perpetrator, there can't be any restitution. These claims can't be used to nullify all social order, otherwise aggression that occurred in the Pleistocene will count.

Water under the bridge.

***

But! This creates a huge problem.

Since the rules, as such, have not been delimited or restricted in any way, they are completely arbitrary and also entirely voluntary.

This means that any manner of insane customs and rules created by property owners are valid, as long as entrants to the property area are not forced to enter.

So, a puritanical founding community would justly be able to impose puritanical law on all members reaching majority. Laws crazier than puritanical laws are also valid, because they aren't ever forced onto anyone. Everyone gives consent upon acquiring property.

As in Rothbard, the child born is never anyone's responsibility, never owed a piece of property or stream of income. If that child, reaching majority, wants to acquire property, they are beholden to the rules of the land area they are voluntarily entering.

Some other standard of justice is clearly, clearly needed to distinguish just from unjust laws, other than voluntary-arity.

Otherwise, if someone is born in a community with crazy laws, and surrounded in every direction by similarly ordered communities, he could never escape the crazy, unjust laws. If the entire globe was covered in such crazy laws, he could never escape.

Justice would become entirely arbitrary consequence of what property owners decide, and have no objective meaning, once all land was owned and people couldn't escape.

NAP is a clock winding down; once all land is owned and all areas subject to rules, there is no longer any escape. If NAP is the only standard of justice, at this point it loses all function, as whatever laws exist are final, except for changes following the procedures set according to those laws.

Absent some other standard of rightness, NAP fails the moment someone can't exit laws they disagree with, despite no one ever forcing them to do anything.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Gaetano Salvemini

"If the Anarchists are not careful, their enemies will write their history."

Philosopher Robert Nozick

also tried to come up with a theory of the "Immaculate Conception of the State." Murray Rothbard pretty much demolished his arguments, if only in showing that none of the currently existing states originated in this manner.

No one can bind future generations to a contract without violating their rights.

All of the above

pass Rothbard/Hoppe conditions. Please state specifically where it doesn't when you're done saying a hymn to Rothbard.

I would agree that there is much more

to base society on than the NAP.

But any notion of a supernatural lawgiver would be unfashionable.

The endless attacks on

The endless attacks on libertarianism by the pseudo-libertarian troll, Bill3, here are hilarious. Can this guy be any more of an obvious pretender? I, and many others, have answered every one of his logical fallacies numerous times in numerous threads ad nauseum. Instead of finishing any argument and admitting defeat when it's patently obvious his fallacies have been laid bare, he just starts a new thread and repeats it all over again.

Please people, don't feed these trolls. When they don't get food, they leave. I'm all for legitimate debate, but you need to understand that's not what this guy is here for.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

How convenient to call trolls everyone

you disagree with. Bravo!

I on the other hand find arguments from BILL3 to be legitimate, well thought out, and thought provoking. Having followed his posts lately, I have yet to see anyone put forward good answers to some of them. Such impotence to find answers has often yielded the 'feel good' responses that his heresy from anarchism makes him a supporter of governments that killed millions of people, et al. It is somewhat disappointing that in lack of practical solutions accusation becomes the only answer the 'beautiful anarchy' can provide -_-

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

BILL3 is not a troll.

Just someone you disagree with.

Absolutely wrong. I have

Absolutely wrong. There are plenty of people here I disagree with that aren't trolls. Bill3 is different.

I have pointed out numerous crystal clear logical fallacies in his arguments over and over again. He ignores them. Once he's thoroughly beaten in one thread he posts, he posts a nearly identical thread to start the entire process over again with this thread being a perfect example. There's no debate, there's no disagreement, just pure trolling. You have to be blind to not see this.

He's the classic definition of a toll. He's not here for any appreciation or to add any benefit to our movement, just for his own sick enjoyment in being a troll, or actual trolling for profit. Either way, still just a troll.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I know your tricks by now "Mr Raceboy"

You're here to sew division by calling others troll, troll. The pattern is obvious. Who's paying you?

seconded

seconded

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

So far, so good

You are correct that billy and his buddies are not receptive to reason at the moment, use unpleasant and dishonest rhetorical tactics, and endlessly repeat the same errors ignoring or attempting to bury the posts which lay their underlying positions bare.

On the other hand, people do change and eventually can not avoid the truth---it's our only hope. And in the mean time, it might help others who can't see through the attempted statist sophistry---it's the same pervasive bs in current society in general. And sometimes it's fun to untangle their knots which can sometimes lead to new insights about human society.

But maybe you're right, I shouldn't indulge.

Rights violated, uncheck.

In number 1, as Thomas Jefferson pointed out, current generations have no right to bind future generations. Thus, these "founding families" have aggressed against future generations (or at least they are attempting to do so) and have violated their rights. Future generations who have a stronger connection to and are better stewards of that land and its inhabitants have every right to set aside any temporary agreement of the "founders."

I didn't read past number 1, but another fatal problem with this kind of line of reasoning, in a practical sense, is that there never have been any such founders and such unanimity. The statist social structure which folks like bmorebrawler and bill3 wish to defend was unilaterally imposed by an elite segment of society primarily for their economic benefit. To put it simply, the state structure is one of enslavement.

Their other main line of reasoning is to assert that when the social/socialist structure they defend manifests itself for what it really is, that is to say when the contradiction of "limited government" is demonstrated by a society which was claimed to have the elusive "limited government" but loses any hope of maintaining the illusion of limitation, they make a big deal of changing the wording. They then say it's "totalitarian" and a totally different thing. When that stage of their structure falls apart and the next group of elite psychopathic livestock managers lines up to "institute new government," they call the intervening chaotic period "anarchy." Of course, anarchy is not just some system of government as they claim. Anarchy is a very non-intuitive idea, and you don't *ever* have anarchy without anarchists. This is why feudalism has nothing to do with anarchy. There were no anarchists to speak of in feudal times. Feudalism was the result of the collapse of one contradictory and unstable social system---that of the Roman state.

You lost me before point #1

My silence does NOT mean assent.

Your silence means

You don't own property, because all property carries these contractual obligations with it upon each sale, otherwise the sale is invalid. This is true in any property cooperative, which on anarchism would be the law of the land.

If you don't own property, you're either trespassing or being harbored by a property owner.

Since the property owner contractually bound himself not to harbor non-signers, he therefore forfeits his property, and the new owner ejects you as a trespasser. No one's rights were violated.

Do you realize that

NAP isn't just an "idea" it's an AXIOM.(Definition provided)
noun
1.a self-evident truth that requires NO PROOF. (please ask why this is so, even from the pages of a dusty old dictionary)

Do you argue hypothetical "what if" circumstances; like the sky being green ? If so do you accept that everyone see's it as being blue?

Do you realize there is nearly 8000 years of government abuse ?

Do you TEACH YOUR OWN CHILDREN interventionist style thinking (intervening in the personal relationships of others and applying coercing) or do you teach them to mind their own damned business and too not hit? I would find that question to normally be rhetorical as it's self-evident? Care to enlighten me.

Even children can understand such a simple self-evident truth.

Even the constitution is based on this FACT.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalien
-
able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

good question

Wonder why he didn't answer it.

Do you TEACH YOUR OWN CHILDREN interventionist style thinking (intervening in the personal relationships of others and applying coercing) or do you teach them to mind their own damned business and too not hit?

Theoretically

a person could teach their children to only use violence in self defense, and also explain to them that the reason they are sometimes disciplined physically is because they are children and under the rule of their parents, and that actions have consequences, but when they're full grown adults and have the rights of citizens, they will be on their own and free of any authority that uses force, besides the law, which also has the right to use force to maintain the rules of society.

That's quite consistent and actually what most parents do teach and always have. Perhaps the reason there are so few parents who don't discipline their children physically is because it's not a good parenting strategy. If it was a good parenting strategy, surely it would have been hit upon thousands of years ago and would have spread by producing more, better adjusted, more successful children who would carry on the practice. Since this doesn't happen, it shows it is a flawed strategy that produces poor results.

This is the same reason there are so few people who deny that force is justified for imposing rules and laws, because any society that adopted such a strategy would quickly disappear, failing to produce sufficient defense or wealth to grow.

Here's an axiom

NAP is silly.

Now you see that merely calling a statement an axiom doesn't actually bind anyone to agree with it. This is learning, this is growth. You just grew. Let's hug. Hugs 4 u.

Sounds like you are counting

Sounds like you are counting on all of those people with the power to alter the rules, being noble. It kinda defies everything I know about humans concentrated into large enough groups that they don't know everyone on a personal level.

If I am born to the land and I don't like all the rules, my options are to deal with it, be banished from all my friends and family, or fight about it? What happens when you pin a primate in a corner like that? Harmony?

Those contractual rules are written prior to my birth and I am bound by that contract I never consented to, like the U.S. constitution? Those agreements trump my natural right to reside in my place of birth? Do those land owners that get tired of an inner circle buddy system exploiting everyone else, have the right to secede? Does might make right?

I would have to agree

that grave injustices can occur under NAP, as outlined above.

Anarchists will take issue

Anarchists will take issue with the fact that if someone disagrees with the rules in a geographic jurisdiction then he has to leave. They think this is unfair. Notwithstanding that this is an admitted necessity of anarcho-capitalism according to Hoppe, Rothbard etc, there is a more fundamental reason why this will always be the case.

Scarcity.

You talked about this yourself, all land will be owned and protected by some rule making agency. This is the case today. Just because you don't agree with the rules in all land does not mean it is unfair and you are being coerced. There is a scarcity of options that is a fact of life. To say otherwise is exactly the same argument that socialists make against the laborer who is "coerced" into taking a job he hates by the capitalist division of labor.

The problem with the new breed of anarchist simpleton is that the non aggression principle is their ONLY principle.

Ventura 2012

What about your own land?

What if you want to live on your own land without paying extortion fees? How is that not fair of you, to demand that right?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

You wouldn't be allowed to

You wouldn't be allowed to free-ride in an anarchocap community. I guess you could live outside of the community but you would not receive the services that you don't pay for, like courts, roads,police, etc.

Ventura 2012

So let's say the whole world went anarcho-capitalist

and all land is owned by anarcho-capitalists. Where are the freeloaders to put their bodies on? Who is to safeguard their lives, property (whatever they have in their pockets) and liberties, given the fact that they cannot or refuse to pay?

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

They're screwed, unless

They're screwed, unless someone is willing to give them charity. No Constitution so they won't have any rights protected. They would probably be put into indentured servitude/debtors prison.

Ventura 2012

Finally!

And that is one of the two reasons why I reject anarchy. The other one is the fact that NAP does not hold water in life threatening situations. Such as: I would kill you in order to save myself.

Ron Paul Revolution is spreading around the world: Freedom and Prosperity TV: libertarian network of alternative media in Western Balkans

Absolutely

Absolutely

Ventura 2012

agreed

I have no issues with that statement.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

In the scenario outlined,

In the scenario outlined, those who had land and never joined any common defense perimeter with rules are not bound to any outside law besides not attacking others.

They are also not protected by the surrounding communities from aggression, and are not protected from military attack by external powers if they don't contribute to the defense fund. Now, since they live in the interior, they are basically free riding on the defense of the general border, but a wealthy society can afford some freeriding, and if an example was wished to be made, a small team of paratroopers from a powerful state like Croatia could be welcomed in to occupy the town which doesn't pay for military defense and collect a larger sum in penalty, just to teach a simple lesson.

Very good point

I didn't emphasize enough that in long run all the open area will be gone. I think though that even if rules exist everywhere in a NAP world, there can still be just resistance/civil disobedience and justified disregard for others' rules. That's why most people wouldn't want to enforce a NAP only system, they'd require other independent standards of right law.