Gavrilo Princip; Archduke Ferdinand leaving the Sarajevo City Hall; Gavrilo Princip arrested; Yalta Conference, February 1945; SFOR soldiers guard Sarajevo's Lateiner (a.k.a. Princip) Bridge in 1999.
Posted on 11/11/2001 8:01:05 AM PST by annalex
Defense of Liberty: Attila In a Boeing
This week, let's look into the libertarian theory on the subject.
Gavrilo Princip; Archduke Ferdinand leaving the Sarajevo City Hall; Gavrilo Princip arrested; Yalta Conference, February 1945; SFOR soldiers guard Sarajevo's Lateiner (a.k.a. Princip) Bridge in 1999.
My take also. Small "d" democrats and small "r" republicans will disagree; small "l" libertarians will see the truth but most will be uncomfortable with where it leads.
If one believes it is just as immoral to impose the will of the majority on the minority as it is to impose the will of an individual on another individual, it's hard to see how any but the smallest group of individuals can ever form a just government.
While a consitutional republic comes closest, there are unavoidable flaws, most notably in the interpretation of the meaning and limitations of national defense and law-enforcement. Someone will be given the authority to make decisions about where to draw the lines, and many citizens will disagree with whatever lines are drawn.
I don't know if Fucetola is anarchist or libertarian, but I believe that national self-determination is at best misleading and usually evil concept from the libertarian perspective.
Individuals may voluntarily form collective enterprises in defense of their natural rights. The individuals may form such enterprises without regard to geographical location of the constituents or their ethnic, racial or cultural makeup. Those collective enterpises can go about defense of their client's rights anywhere on the planet. When such enterprises are chartered to operate inside a contiguous territory, they are called governments (or "the state"). The circumstance of a territorial mapping of the enterprise may be a practical convenience but it doesn't add or subtract anything from the rightfulness of its actions: when the enterprise defends individual rights, it is acting rightfully, and when it violates individual rights (of its clients or, more typically, someone else's), it is acting unrightfully. Similarly, the circumstance of common language, culture or ethnic stock may facilitate the forming of the enterprise, but the ethnic cohesion of the constituents is not a significant fact under natural law.
A government of a nation has no more naturally-lawful powers than a private security firm hired by any motley crew of clients. Thus the national government of a big nation does not have a naturally-lawful power to govern over an ethnic enclave if it is peaceful and wants to have its own government. At the same time the enclave does not have a naturally-lawful power to prevent an outside agent from enforcing individual rights. Thus, contrary to the conventional wisdom of national sovereignty/national self-determination, the US government may justly use force to restore American ownership of oil fields nationalized by the country where the fields are located; at the same time, the US government may not tell Texas (or a county in Texas) what laws to have as long as the lawmaking in Texas is consented to by the Texans and US citizens outside of Texas maintain their individual rights.
I disagree that the above is a recipe for geographical smallness and outwardly impotent government. As we discussed previously (Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention), a government may have an aggressive foreign policy and represent a large nation, as long as the rules of the social contract that empowers the government's warmaking are clear, opting out of the social contract (e.g. through emigration) is possible, and the goals of the government are rooted in individual rights.
Didn't seem to be a problem with our forefathers in 1776, the idea of a republic of and by the people satisfied the conditions of a just government, since then it has been a slow slide into the abyss.
Yes, and I'm glad they did, but the philosophical kicker is that some of the people didn't agree. Was it OK for them to force those already living here to thereafter live under their authority? Is it that Might makes Right, as long as it is used justly (according to whose conception of justice)?
If 100 of us are on an island and 51 of us agree that there should be no alchohol, tobacco, "nekkid pitchers," firearms, or high cholesterol foods (all of which in their own ways pose some potential detriment to self or others) is it OK to form a government approved by the 51 and forbid those things? Just about everyone agrees that our Founders were wrong on a few things. Was it unjust for them to impose "wrong" laws on those who didn't agree with them or even agree with the formation of government?
All of this is meaningless except as (for me) a thought-provoking exercise. If people can only form governments when there is 100% agreement, there will be a million+ "countries" and that ain't ever gonna happen. As the article says, those with the power to do so will form governmental structures which they perceive to serve their own, sometimes narrow, interests.
... since then it has been a slow slide into the abyss.
Sometimes not so slow.
Thanks for the reply, and FReegards.
It's true that there's been a lot of violence attached to the idea of national self-determination in the 20th Century. It's also impossible to satisfy everyone's desire for a state of one's own. But I would point out that the empires that the nationalists were in revolt against were themselves oppressive usurpers.
The article raises a lot of questions. If laws have to be made and taxes have to be collected (assumptions the author would reject, but that should be considered), isn't it better that they be collected locally? Won't localities know better what people want? What about the secession-mania of the rockwellites? What about the basic assumptions of the author? There are plenty of people who rightly or wrongly call rights-based individualism into question. One can imagine them applying a similar analysis to the author's own assumptions of individual sovereignty. What kind of world does the author envision? Is the world of sovereign individuals ultimately a world without cultural differences? Is it itself an "empire"?
Local government is not the same as local sovereignty. Sure local government is preferable; using local government as a tool of oppression because of some mythical "right to self-determination" is not justified.
Also see #8.
It depends on how our island government was formed. If we 100% agreed that things are banned if a panel of three chicken slaughterers justifies the ban by looking at chicken entrails, then that's what is rightly banned, regardless of percentages that want nekkid pitchers, etc. banned. The solution to the "tyranny of the majority" quandary is that a 100% agreement should be sought to the process of lawmaking -- i.e. the island's constitution. Each specific law should be made as per the process, -- be it chicken entrails or simple majority, or whatever.
We sure agree about the 100% agreement in the formation of government, and that's what led to my statment in #7 to the effect that only small groups of people would ever be able to form a just government. If I read you correctly, in order for the formation and operation of a government to be rightful and just it must:
1) Recognize and protect inalienable (natural) rights;
2) Establish and implement laws which follow a process as set out in the founding document, which document must...
3) Enjoy 100% support from the populace over whom it proposes authority.
I agree, but outside examples similar to my island with 100 inhabitants, ain't gonna happen, and the founding of our Republic, the best ever, did not meet the criteria.
It's a brain-twister.
If I am asked to write a constitution (hammach once started such project), I will not write the US Constitution word by word, not even thought by thought. Does it mean I don't support the US Constitution?
The criterion of support must be "agreement to live under given a choice not to".
Our US Constitution does enjoy such support from 100% of the US citizens by definition of citizenship.
I propose replacing your (3), which I just rendered tautological, with mine:
(3A) Allow inimpeded renunciation of citizenship and freedom of emigration.
Why is this notable? Why should I care?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.