RoR: Forum

What is the difference between a "formally constituted agency" and a group of cooperating private property owners vis-a-vis rights defense? There is nothing about the State which relives it of the need to have greater might than its enemies. Might certainly doesn't make right, but it is necessary to secure rights. Why does a group calling themselves the State have any better chance of protecting its rights than a group calling themselves the Objectivist Rights Agency?

A free society certainly does not have to put up with criminals. Any association worth a damn will contract between its members to exclude undesirables. When considering anarcho-capitalism it has to be remembered that the foundational unit is a person and their private property. All the derivative associations are made up of those units. Private property owners may exclude, therefore the associations that they form may also exclude. The wherewithal to defend rights within such associations is the same as that within Objectivist States (denoting a non taxing-power State); the constituent individuals' weapons and their organisation into an army to defend their private property.

The characterization of anarchy as without rules is simply wrong, no libertarian anarchist is suggesting that we live without civil society, only that those who are innocent of rights violation retain the right of secession from it. We don't need a State to tell us right from wrong, that is objectively known, we can form our own association thank-you-very-much.

Post 1

Monday, April 5, 2004 - 5:58pm

An anarcho-capitalist can have no quarrel with the present order of things, since what we have is a situation in which various agencies have successfully competed in their spheres, and now dominate the market.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/05, 6:57pm)

Post 2

Monday, April 5, 2004 - 8:00pm

Good article. Brings up some interesting points.

Alastair, you anarchists confuse me. I can never quite understand what it is you're trying to say. For instance, you say that anarchists just want a "right of secession" from the government. But you were just talking about an Objectivist government that doesn't tax. What exactly does it mean to secede from that? Do you mean that if you initiate force, they can't punish you? Do you mean that you can start your own little gang that uses force, and the government isn't allowed to judge your use of force to determine whether it's an initiation?

Rodney is right on. We live under anarcho-capitalism. Doesn't seem as great as people make it out to be. I'd rather try that whole minimal state thing.

Post 3

Monday, April 5, 2004 - 9:18pm

I used to be an ardent supporter of limited government.

I've changed my mind. I'm now an anarchist.

To turn the argument around the other way - a minimal state can never exist as a stable entity. Governments, by definition (having sole monopoly right to the use of retaliatory force), are bound to grow ever more powerful and despotic. There is nothing in history to suggest otherwise.

America is the prime example. Once the land of the free - with a Constitution to hold up to the world - it is now sliding down the slippery slope of fascism.

No constitution is worth the paper it is printed on - if those subject to it either don't believe it, or don't observe it.

I claim that any government, no matter how small it starts out, can only grow ever more powerful and more corrupt.

This is even more true when talking about a democracy. It is a provable fact of life that the average person wants "security", not freedom. Therefore, under democracy, freedom will never take root.

It thus follows that voting for freedom is an illusion - and a waste of time.

Even if there are politicians who support freedom - their presence in government will have no effect.

Politics is the art of compromise - and is certainly not the place to pin one's hopes of any form of society that respects individual freedom.

Expecting a government to be "minimal" is like expecting a drunk to be sober.

So, from my perspective, (given that freedom will never arrive via the ballot box, and that government, by its nature, is bound to become despotic), there is only one solution - the acceptance of the fact that all functions of a civil society can and must be managed by business enterprises competing in a free market.

The essential ingredient of any meaningful, practical freedom is the freedom to opt out. With competing civil society services, one will always have the option to change providers.

With the present set up of governments and nation states - there is no provision to opt out, and therefore no freedom.

Now, if governments allowed an individual to opt-out (of taxes, of regulation, of welfare, of health services, of education, of policing etc.) - then that would be a real move in the right direction. But it will never happen - precisely because it would cause the collapse of the state as we know it.

Post 4

Monday, April 5, 2004 - 11:12pm

Joe raises some good questions re anarchists.

Example: you are arrested and charged for a crime you didn't commit and you are detained pending trial. However, while detained, you are able to convince many people that you are innocent. They take umbrage at your detention and stage a jailbreak. You're free!

Uh, is this "opting out" legitimate in an anarchist society? If not, why not?

And what if you are, in fact, guilty?

Surely, for the freedom that we all seek to exist in any meaningful manner we need a state that can act with lawful authority to allow abuses to be judged and punished.

Ross

Post 5

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 2:56am

Dave Said: America is the prime example. Once the land of the free - with a Constitution to hold up to the world - it is now sliding down the slippery slope of fascism.

No constitution is worth the paper it is printed on - if those subject to it either don't believe it, or don't observe it.

I claim that any government, no matter how small it starts out, can only grow ever more powerful and more corrupt.

**********************************************************************************************

Eric: A few problems with Dave�s ideas:

First:

Objectivism isn�t just a political system it�s a moral revolution, it�s a revolution in thought. Dave, you claim that any government, no matter how small it starts out can only grow ever more powerful and corrupt. What you�re presenting is not historical evidence against the possibility of a minimalist states existence; you are presenting evidence of a clear problem upon the founding of the American state though.

America was not founded upon a clear and rational philosophy. It was not a principled founding it was a political one. This lack of objective principles was what lead to the eventual �Super Sized� Mac-Government we know today. How would this be stopped in the future with the founding of a minimalist state? By instating clear boundaries for governments granted powers, instilling the objective values and ethics we know to be self-evident.

The solution to the problem you are seeing is not to turn to Anarchism. Where if one gang is not doing something you like you can opt out and turn to another gang. The solution is a principled state based upon objective standards. In this type of state ones principals are not up for compromise. There is no compromise between good and evil, right and wrong. The growth of the state is inherently wrong if it means a compromise of individual�s rights. Thusly if there is no compromise of principals there cannot be any voting the government larger for the security that Dave is sure most people want.

Secondly:

Dave, you seem to be interested in what needs to occur for freedom to work. I think I can tell by the resigned cynicism in your writing that you don�t see any better option than what is below.

******************************************************************************************

Dave Said:

So, from my perspective, (given that freedom will never arrive via the ballot box, and that government, by its nature, is bound to become despotic), there is only one solution - the acceptance of the fact that all functions of a civil society can and must be managed by business enterprises competing in a free market.

***************************************************************************

Eric Again:

Dave, you think that government is inherently malevolent. And indeed looking at the history of the world I would have to agree that it appears that way. But behind every government are the people who run it. And behind them, the cause of their actions is philosophy. The true root of tyranny, and despotism is irrational philosophies that have believed everything from might is right to mob consensus controls reality, swords and mysticism. The malevolence of government is therefore rooted in the philosophy of the people who run it.

The one clear solution to this is not to establish a system of government competition, or enterprise-governance competition but to seek a revolution in the philosophy of the men behind those governing entities. Only through a moral revolution can we hope to find freedom. The method suggested by Anarchism is not to revolutionize philosophy but to set philosophies in competition with each other where only the blood and brutal ideas would survive.

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 6

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 1:00pm

David:

As an anarchist, you noted:

To turn the argument around the other way - a minimal state can never exist as a stable entity. Governments, by definition (having sole monopoly right to the use of retaliatory force), are bound to grow ever more powerful and despotic. There is nothing in history to suggest otherwise.

This is true. No human institution endures over the generations without change. Each generation must learn anew and succeeding generations simply are not going to have the same dedication to the founding principles of an institution as those who built it. There are, of course, ways to check the drift from founding principles -- e.g., constitutions which are not entirely the "scraps" of paper you suggest -- but institutions will evolve over time.

This is true of any institutions founded upon anarchist principles, because institutional "drift" is a fact of human nature. Medieval Iceland is a good example of this. Anarcho-capitalists frequently cite tenth through thirteenth century Iceland as proof that anarchy can endure. (I would argue what is being termed anarchy in this instance is nothing more than government by other means. Nevertheless, the "government" of medieval Iceland was about limited as it can get.) So, yes and no, the anarcho-capitalists' peculiar notion of anarchy can endure under the right circumstances, but not forever.

Over time Icelandic anarchy gave way to roughly geographic chiefdoms, which then violently consolidated themselves into a group of geographically delimited mini-states, which in turn warred with each to obtain supremacy over the limited resources of a small island. Exhausted by anarchy by the thirteenth century, the Icelanders surrendered their independence to the king of Norway who would enforce the peace.

So the anarchist argument against government on the basis that is always fails to adhere to its founding principles is not persuasive, because all human institutions fail that way.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 7

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 1:37pm

David:

You wrote:

So, from my perspective, (given that freedom will never arrive via the ballot box, and that government, by its nature, is bound to become despotic), there is only one solution - the acceptance of the fact that all functions of a civil society can and must be managed by business enterprises competing in a free market.

The free market is not a bazaar in which the only law is "caveat emptor". The free market is a transparent marketplace in which the buyer and seller efficiently trade because they can rely upon a disinterested government authority to enforce their agreements. The free market exists because the rule of law exists, and only government can enforce the rule of law.

So, the free market cannot exist in anarchy. Although private agreements can establish standards that replace the law, the problem remains one of enforcement. Any method of enforcement proposed by anarchists either devolves into mafioso "might makes right" or is in fact a quasi-government.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 8

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 6:01pm

Eric, replying to "Dave" (whoever he is), said:

"The one clear solution to this is not to establish a system of government competition, or enterprise-governance competition but to seek a revolution in the philosophy of the men behind those governing entities.� Only through a moral revolution can we hope to find freedom."

Or maybe it was "Erica" who said that :-)

Yes, I'm fully aware of the Objectivist view on this - that the way to change society is via a moral revolution - a "changing of minds", top down from the intellectuals.

I once firmly believed that also.

However, I now believe Ayn Rand and Objectivism is wrong on that count.

The idea of moral revolution is akin to what Christians have been trying for millennia - that one can go around the world and change people's minds, by force of philosophy.

The Christians still believe in their strategy - but I'm afraid I do not.

Human nature is human nature. If enough individuals do not value freedom, but actually prefer security, then it is impossible for freedom to flourish.

There are two "means" available for achieving one's ends - the "political", which is the process of head-counting, compromise and ultimately the use of force - or the "market", which involves voluntary interaction between individuals.

There is nothing a government actually does that cannot be undertaken by the market. And much better.

The market also provides the ultimate "opt-out" mechanism - the power of the dollar. The dollar is the only vote worth having.

To arrive at freedom by political means would require that a majority of people wanted it enough to vote for it. And if a majority don't value it and don't vote for it, those of us who DO value freedom are doomed to "serf" status by the political outcome.

Of course, any anarchist society cannot arrive by the process of changing people's minds, or head counting, but by the advancement of the market in the area of being able to deliver services that outstrip what any government can offer.

At that point (where the market can offer services that outperform what governments are offering) - freedom, for those who choose it, has a chance of becoming reality.

Post 9

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 6:01pm

Lindsay: �And we infer that one independent agency, a dispassionate third party � is required to specify and enforce such prohibitions, neutrally, consistently and universally.�

I�m no anarchist, but the above principle seems to conflict with the very rights it seeks to uphold. If liberty is an inalienable right, no third party is justified in restricting or otherwise violating that right. In that case, the setting up of a monopoly agency to enforce a prohibition against the initiation of force is itself an initiation of force, in that it imposes a set of laws on individuals with inalienable rights.

What�s more, the principle can be used to justify further intrusions on rights. For example, without a sufficient income, an enforcement agency cannot effectively do its job. If a sole agency is �required� and can be imposed to enforce prohibitions against initiation of force, by the same token that agency also requires and can impose a funding mechanism on the individuals whose rights it is protecting.

Brendan

Post 10

Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - 9:40pm

Bill, a.k.a. Citizen Rat said:

"So the anarchist argument against government on the basis that it always fails to�adhere to its founding principles is not persuasive, because�all human institutions fail that way."

Only "political" institutions fail that way - although the failure is not of the institution itself, but in its ability to deliver on its original promises.

Market enterprises fail because of a number of other possible reasons - including: failing to offer what customers actually want, failing to manage the enterprise effectively and profitably, failing in areas such as service and quality.

The point is - political organisations fail the way they do, because they have a completely different operational dynamic from business organisations.

A business cannot succeed unless it meets its customers expectations and operates in a rational profit-orientated manner. And if it fails, it ceases to exist.

If a government fails to deliver on its promises - it doesn't fail as an institution, it's still there.

Post 11

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 5:48am

David:

You wrote:

If a government fails to deliver on its promises - it doesn't fail as an institution, it's still there.

No. Governments routinely fail and are replaced by dissatisfied citizens (through election, coup, or otherwise), just as businesses apparently would be in the anarchist utopia by their dissatisfied customers. What remains is the state and its institutional infrastructure, which does endure, but is not immune to change or even destruction. For example, where are the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German Empires that ruled central Europe less than a century ago?

These businesses that would take over the functions of government in an anarchist society would still exist in some sort of institutional context substituting for the state. How could they not? Without a social compact among the denizens of an anarchist society and some sort of institutional structure to enforce that agreement, these quasi-government businesses would have no basis upon which to operate. And like it or not, the institutions guaranteeing the anarchist principles of that social compact will drift away from those principles, just as ours have from the Founding Father's principles behind our Constitution.

For this reason, unless you can transform human nature (and you can't), an anarchist society will end up becoming a state with a government over time -- and if medieval Iceland is any example, it won't necessarily be a liberal free-market one.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 12

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 11:09am

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/eboa_toc.htm

Lindsay: �And we infer that one independent agency, a dispassionate third party � is required to specify and enforce such prohibitions, neutrally, consistently and universally.�

I�m no anarchist, but the above principle seems to conflict with the very rights it seeks to uphold. If liberty is an inalienable right, no third party is justified in restricting or otherwise violating that right. In that case, the setting up of a monopoly agency to enforce a prohibition against the initiation of force is itself an initiation of force, in that it imposes a set of laws on individuals with inalienable rights.

Brendan, you are very observant. You have found the main conflict that Roy A. Childs illustrated in his "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand". Roy argued that the ethical problem lied in the demand for an enforced monopoly - since to maintain its monopoly it has to initiate force on other potential Objectivist governments.

To see more about what Roy A. Childs said on this subject I suggest that you read his "Objectivism and the State: An Open Letter to Ayn Rand" which can be found at the bottom of this site:

Post 13

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 12:47pm

David,

Erica didn't know you prefered David and did not mean any offence by it.

Now I guess if you liken the objectivist method through discussion to be akin to the christian method of witch-doctor and sword. I cannot excatly continue to beat my head into the wall on that with you on the subject.

The only question that remains for me is what keeps the various folks in your market from taking up rifles and having at it? Rather than just opting out of the places they dislike and joining ones they do like. Eventualy there will be a resource problem with one group and you freedom loving guys with all the nice stuff will be overrun by the security loving hordes. So is war between the various groups the method of the market?

Eric

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/07, 12:48pm)

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/07, 1:01pm)

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 4/07, 1:04pm)

Post 14

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 1:36pm

David:

You envision an anarchist society coming into being by the following process:

Of course, any anarchist society cannot arrive by the process of changing people's minds, or head counting, but by the advancement of the market in the area of being able to deliver services that outstrip what any government can offer.

At that point (where the market can offer services that outperform what governments are offering) - freedom, for those who choose it, has a chance of becoming reality.

Why would the bureaucrats ever allow their sinecures, perks, and pensions to be threatened by such competition UNLESS the voters -- i.e., "head counting" -- installed a government that would implement it? You're back to persuading hearts and minds, and all you may gain is a choice between UPS or Fedex to deliver your mail. Perhaps over time, people would vote for more and more of this private competition in formerly government services, but this assumes they'll stay the course.

How does that happen without the advocacy of anarchism being institutionalized to sustain this proselytizing effort? And what stops the bureaucrats of this institution of anarchist advocacy from perverting the principles of that organization to preserve their positions? In time the professional anarchists will realize that their interests lie in maintaining the struggle for the anarchist society without ever actually achieving it. Thus, the very guardians of the cause begin to defeat it. (A good example of this is the race-mongering that many civil rights organizations engage in to rationalize their continued existence even though they long ago achieved their political victories, and so now only serve to exacerbate racial tensions rather than relieve them.)

So I don't see how we get to anarchy by the path you propose. It will still require conventional politics. Of course, revolution is always a possibility, but you still have the same problem of proselytizing the people with the anarchist creed and then dismantling the institutions of the revolution so that they do not turn into a new form of government. I just don't see how you get from here to there by any means.

The reason is that anarchy is predicated upon a stasis in human institutions that have never existed and never will.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 15

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 5:48pm

Citizen Rat said:

"No.� Governments routinely fail and are replaced by dissatisfied citizens�(through election, coup, or otherwise),"

No, "government" (the state) is still there - regardless of whether Republicans, Democrats, Tories, Labour or Greenies (or the military) win - it's still government. Changing the label doesn't change the reality.

When a business enterprise fails - it is gone. The two examples cannot be compared.

Eric Said:

"The only question that remains for me is what keeps the various folks in your market from taking up rifles and having at it?�"

Well, that indicates your estimation of the essential character of humans - that they will end up fighting unless "government" is there to stop them.

I disagree. It is in the interest of humans to cooperate - and given half a chance, that is what they do. That is how the market evolved.

Citizen Rat said:

"Why would the bureaucrats ever allow their sinecures, perks, and pensions�to be threatened by such competition�UNLESS the voters -- i.e., "head counting" -- installed a government that would implement it?"

You misunderstand the potential for the market to take "customers" away from the state. You assume, wrongly I believe, that potential customers for alternative services to government, will first have to convince the electorate at large to vote for a government that will "allow" such competition.

Let me give you one practical example of what I mean.

Right now, if you want to buy and sell - you are assumed to be using government money (fiat paper). As long as you play this "game", you must play by the rules. That means your bank will report any suspicious cash transactions, Your government will tax your income. If you don't pay, they will raid your bank account. The government will require that all your financial dealings are reported to it. You will be required to pay VAT, GST or sales tax on most of what you buy. The list goes on.

But what if you don't play the game - what if you start buying and selling privately using non-government money? What if the transaction systems for this are completely private and secure - away from prying eyes, so no one can discover what you are doing in the privacy of your own financial "home"?

At that point, the market has delivered up an alternative to the government "system" - and the incentive for anyone to use it is simply the keeping of one's own money. It's a strong incentive.

No voting, or head counting is required. Simply a choice to move from one financial medium to another. If most don't join in, it doesn't matter - it works for those who DO join in.

In this way, technology can deliver practical freedom - via the market place.

In fact, if you consider Galt's Gulch - it was such a private community and market - protected by superior technology.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the "size" of a society. It can be any size you like. Some of the more successful states are quite small - Singapore, Hong Kong etc. So, it's perfectly plausible that small private communities could emerge - based on contract.

This medium we are using now - the internet - is an anarchic "social" system of sorts. It is not centralised. It is not run by any government. There is no leader - no George Bush, or Saddam Hussein. There is no voting. There is no police force. There is just millions of individuals making their way in relative peace and harmony.

Of course, there are con-men, crooks wandering the cyber-highway also - but the answer, on the internet, to such activities, is to create technological solutions (not political solutions) for minimising their impact.

One example - "old world" thinking (as emanates from the small mind of George Bush) would implement laws and regulations to stop spam on the 'net. Useless idea of course. The way spam will be controlled or eliminated will be by technological means - delivered by the market.

The internet is also a wonderful tutor - for it is educating millions of people in the way of the market. It is providing a haven for free speech and free commerce - out of reach of moralist busy-bodies, totalitarians in waiting, and generally anyone of the "political" class.

It is providing a mechanism to "test" the concepts of practical freedom, and cooperation - without the need for a political system to sustain it. And it is encouraging the principle of self responsibility.

All in all, I'm much more optimistic about the market delivering practical freedom - as compared with politics.

[Sorry I'm not able to make use of the formatting functions available only to those who use Microsoft Explorer. As a Mac user, typing into the Mozilla browser "Firefox", it seems I'm at some disadvantage :-) ]

Post 16

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 6:16pm

Could one of you anarchists answer my questions from above? None of you ever describe what it means to "opt out" of the system, and yet that's the defining attribute of anarcho-capitalism. I really want to know what it is you think you're endorsing.

1.) If one 'protection agency' thinks you've initiated force, can you opt out? Can you say "No thanks, I don't want to be arrested by you?" And do you expect that 'protection agency' to say "Oh...well...that's okay then."

2.) Can one protection agency judge another's actions, and determine if they're initiations of force or not? Or are they only allowed to judge the people who "opt in" to their system?

Another question I have is whether one 'protection agency' is allowed to prosecute people for crimes against non-members. Before you dismiss this as impractical, I think it's very reasonable to assume that nobody wants murderers running free in their community. If person X kills someone, and no other 'protection agency' does anything about it (or just gives him a slap on the wrist), I know I wouldn't want them living next door to me.

Post 17

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 8:33pm

Hi makemore,

Thanks for the comment. As Roy Childs points out, if one is committed to an absolute policy of NIOF, then monopoly government is a no-no. He also presents some very persuasive rebuttals of Rand�s justifications for monopoly government, at least when considered in the context of Objectivism.

I�ve heard that Childs changed his mind regarding anarchism towards the end of his life. It would be interesting to see what sort of justifications he might have used to support his revised opinion.

Brendan

Post 18

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 8:33pm

To answer Joseph's questions:

To "opt out" is simply to have the freedom one has in any normal market place. If I don't like one brand of beer, I can buy another. I opt out of the previous brand.

More seriously, if I don't like the education provider - I can opt out and choose another.

If I don't like my insurance company, or my security company - I can opt out and change providers.

As to the particular questions raised:

Joseph asks:

"If one 'protection agency' thinks you've initiated force, can you opt out?� Can you say "No thanks, I don't want to be arrested by you?"� And do you expect that 'protection agency' to say "Oh...well...that's okay then."

First of all, opting out can only apply to actions which do not include those defined as initiating force against another. I can opt out of any voluntary exchange of values - but I obviously cannot opt out of the consequences of committing robbery.

The assumption here is that the enforcement agency in question is from "outside" - that it has no means of enforcing. In reality, protection agencies would form relationships with each other - based on their commonality of principles. So, assuming they both agreed robbery was a crime (which is highly likely, given the history if societies and moral systems) - then such a relationship/treaty would provide for such enforcement. It would also be reasonable to assume that any rational enforcement service was concerned not only in apprehending the suspect, but enforcing compensation should such a suspect be proven guilty.

The idea of different enforcement agencies cooperating is not new - as is illustrated by how enforcement agencies from different countries currently work together to enforce a particular law across different jurisdictions - PROVIDED, both jurisdictions agree a crime has been committed.

On the other hand, if the "crime" in question was smoking marijuana - then it's quite possible that other enforcement agencies would have no means to enforce outside their area. That is similar to how things are now. In some cases, what is defined as a crime in one country, is not a crime in another. And because of that - the so-called criminal is only defined as such, in the country where the act is considered criminal.

Joseph also asks:

"Can one protection agency judge another's actions, and determine if they're initiations of force or not?� Or are they only allowed to judge the people who "opt in" to their system?"

What is being suggested here is the need for another "higher" agency which can arbitrate between enforcement agencies - sort of like a "high court" service. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume such a situation "may" arise - and create the need for a mechanism to settle such disputes.

Joseph says:

"Another question I have is whether one 'protection agency' is allowed to prosecute people for crimes against non-members."

The assumption of that question is that protection agencies will only work for members - not defined areas. That may not be the case. It is more than likely that private communities would grow, based on the idea of common contracted services - including protection. Now, in this case, if a non resident is robbed in the area of its jurisdiction - then such an agency would obviously prosecute.

In the case of residentially defined jurisdictions - the choice to participate or not comes with the choice to live there or not.

I think the essential point about competing agencies is that such agencies would obviously enter "treaties" - to allow them to offer meaningful protection across much greater areas.

And like I said - such multi-jurisdictional cooperation already happens. For on a global scale (taking nations as individual entities) we already have an anarchic structure. That is, nations have sovereignty over their own territory - to define their laws and customs. One country's laws are not automatically enforceable in another's - but that issue is overcome by cooperation between countries.

Of course, many people don't like these "individual" nations - and all the problems they bring - and would rather abolish them all, and have a one world government. One law for all. One police force. One army. One justice system.

Currently, opting out means leaving the country you are in - and finding a more favorable one. A very difficult thing to do, by the way - especially when it's getting more and more difficult to find a country with MORE meaningful freedom than the one you are already in!

We need to bring "sovereignty" down to the level of each human individual (not nations or groups) - and in doing so, provide the essential opt out mechanism that is the essence of freedom.

Post 19

Wednesday, April 7, 2004 - 9:23pm