Free Liberal

Coordinating towards higher values

283 Nonarchy Pods -- Comin' Right Up

by Robert Capozzi

Nonarchist theorist Roderick Long, philosophy prof at Auburn, is bold. He's so bold that he and 282 other brave souls are petitioning the government – to abolish itself! And be replaced with...nothing.

Always one to prefer constructive criticism, Long might want to consider broadening his "demands" out a bit. Why limit his petition to the United States? If Marx can cry out: "Workers of the world, unite!" why can't Long exclaim: "Governments of the world, dissolve!"

Of course, all the stockpiles of munitions will need to be disposed of, but why get wrapped around one's axles about such minor details?

Long is technically correct when he states, "...few if any of those over whom you claim authority have ever consented to such governance...." After all, did you sign a contract with the government that gives them authority to do what they do? I know I didn't. I'm quite sure I'd like government to do less, a lot less in my dreams. I've even toyed with moving to the stateless area formerly known as Somalia, but I've become accustomed to my inside-the-Beltway oasis and its creature comforts. And, while a time machine has yet to be invented, it might be cool to teleport back a thousand years to Iceland. This way, I can validate the historians who claim to've read the records scratched on bogs that suggest that perhaps that isolated tundra of an island was an anarcho-paradise. Of course, that even Iceland could not maintain its nonarchic utopia might -- just might -- give pause to the Long 283.

Or, like the sun rising and setting, we just might accept that some sort of State seems likely for the foreseeable future and beyond. Call that a "constructive contract" if you must, but unless the 283 swells to tens of millions, I'm making book on some semblance of government continuity. And, near as I can tell, 99.9999% seem to accede to the terms, more or less.

Still, it seems we should have compassion for the 283. What to do? My modest proposal: Nonarchy Pods. If someone really, really, really wants to opt out of the state's authority to keep the peace, we should let them. They can buy a pod that envelopes them on their property. The pod is impenetrable – nothing comes in or out. They become autonomous little Lichtensteins, except they cannot leave, as the 283 have stated they refuse to abide by the rule of law here amongst the governed.

OK, OK, we allow them to trade through a small hole in the pod, I'm feeling generous. And if someone wants to go in the pod, they may, so long as the understand that there is no exit.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program, "Roll Back the State."

-RC


« Calculating the Cost of a Carbon Tax | Main | Escaping the State? »

Comments

Doesn't Locke say something about how continuing to live in a State after one has been released from the governance of one's parents constituting consent, for all intents and purposes?

May not constitute the full contract that would be citizenship. But doesn't make the government illegitimate.

Of course, I should read the petition before commenting on it. . . .

Even 'ol Njal and the Althing would acknowledge that your pod phreaks wouldn't be phree until Allodial title was less applied.

Locke was basically repeating the words of Socrates, and I think both of them may well have been right at the time. Socrates, in particular, went on about how he had chosen to remain in Athens, despite the fact that he could have, had he so desired, moved to another polis once he came of age, or to a colony, or even gone to live among the barbarians. Socrates had choices.

What choices do we have? With the exception of only the most marginal of land (read: uninhabitable), or a few anomalous regions such as Somalia, where can one go to escape the State?

# posted at by Tarvok [TypeKey Profile Page]

There is nowhere to go. Anywhere you go, someone is in charge of some area of common concern. Even in cases where there is no "state" there is some form of governance, sometimes having less recourse than the modern state. Condo and Home Ownership associations come to mind - or even rental property management or university conduct codes.

Someone always has rules and agreements for you to live by where you have greater or lesser control over the content of these rules.

Its part of moving out of the house.