Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Emerging States?

Rate this topic


Jon Southall

Recommended Posts

Now that I feel I have my thoughts on some of the fundamental issues a little better clarified, I can turn my attention to "emerging states." I do so with the caveat that, again, I do not yet consider myself to be settled all of these matters, or to fully understand them. This discussion is as much a process of discovery for me as it is an "argument."

Individual men have the right of self-defense. They may delegate this right to some third party, consenting that such a "government" may rightly use force in retaliation to its initiation, for the overarching purpose of eliminating the use of force from society, which leaves individuals to pursue their ends sans coercion. This, politically, is what it means to "protect individual rights," and in "The Nature of Government," Ayn Rand wrote:

Quote

 

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

 

Thus a government is only "legitimate" when it fulfills this purpose (at least "characteristically" or "essentially"). A legitimate government bars the initiation of physical force from social relationships through the threat/use of retaliatory force. When a government does the opposite--when it itself initiates the use of physical force--then it is illegitimate in its actions, which have no right claim to authority.

When some government characteristically initiates the use of force, then it is right that moral men withdraw their consent that this government may exercise authority (both "in their name" and "at all"). This "withdrawal of consent" may take many forms, depending on an individual's context. One such form is the establishment of some new government, the better to protect rights.

So it is in the case of (what has been so courteously described as) "the Alaska business." If the people of Alaska decided that they wanted to be free to drill for oil (as they ought), and for this reason withdrew their consent from the American government in Washington D.C., to establish their own, they would have every right to do so.

The conditions for this new Alaskan government would be the same as everywhere else: the government would have to be instituted for the purpose of protecting individual rights. Insofar as it accomplishes this end, it is legitimate. Where it does not, it is not.

The creation of the new Alaskan State might be accomplished in peace. Or it is also possible that some other government, such as the American government, might decide to initiate force, to prevent them from exercising their liberty. In such a case, the Alaskan State would have the moral right to defend itself against such force, as in the manner of any (properly) sovereign nation.

Such is an "emerging state."

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

I recognize that there are more questions that have been raised over the course of the thread, and I should like to come back to some of them. But this may serve as an initial foray, so that any immediate controversies can be aired and addressed.

Edited by DonAthos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is not much difference in our positions Don and DA. Thanks both for an interesting discussion/exploration of this topic.

Don, what are your thoughts on the territorial aspects? Do you consider the idea of a borderless government to be one which would deserve as much recognition as say your hypothetical Alaskan state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Don, what are your thoughts on the territorial aspects? Do you consider the idea of a borderless government to be one which would deserve as much recognition as say your hypothetical Alaskan state?

I'll try to answer this shortly.

5 hours ago, AlexL said:

I started to prepare a detailed answer to your comment, but then I realized that, on the main points, I am simply repeating myself in refuting your objections. Therefore I will stop here.

Yes, I think we're probably both at the "repeat" stage, which is an excellent point at which to acknowledge the fact and move on -- perhaps to be revisited at a later date. Thank you very much for your participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Don, what are your thoughts on the territorial aspects?

I think this is an interesting question. It's not one where I have a prepared answer, or even know the way to find one necessarily. This initial contribution is likely to be messy as I try to talk my way into a position, so my apologies in advance for that (even when writing argument or philosophy, I want it to be coherent at minimum and even enjoyable, if possible... and I know that this may not be either). I regard it as especially challenging in that "territory" is so well established as providing boundaries for governance, that it will take some imagination to try to assess what a government might look like else-wise. I'm aware that I have a bias for "governance as I know it."

The key question, I think, is: whatever shape we conceive of for a theoretical government, can it fulfill the role that governance has? Which is to say, if we imagine some new government, will it be able to do the things that government ought do? What I'm looking for is an objectively governed retaliatory force against the initiation of force: some structure, some institution or set of institutions, to effect this in reality, on Earth. Maybe it's my bias showing, but I have to imagine that a government unified by territory is far more efficient (generally speaking) than other potential configurations. And yet we have examples of non-contiguous governments (such as the US government uniting Alaska! among other disparate possessions; or the British Empire at its zenith), though these are still defined in terms of territory.

So the next question I have of myself (and others), I suppose, is whether there are any real-life analogues to the kind of thing we're exploring here. Are there examples of governance which aren't so strictly defined by territory? A few things occur to me, though I may be mistaken to consider any one, or all, of them. (Really, I'd like to defer to 2046, who has evidenced a great deal of knowledge with respect to different law systems throughout history; I expect he'd have some insight on this topic, and a great deal more information than I do.)

* When I sign contracts, though I live where I live, it is often stipulated in the terms of the contract that it will be adjudicated (if necessary) by the terms of some other state or jurisdiction; this seems to provide a model that could prove useful to non-territorial governments.

* The existence of extradition agreements suggests that, though governments may have competing claims for the administration of justice in some case, they can yet come to an agreement, giving one such government precedence in a particular matter. While they currently do so on the basis of "territory," it isn't clear to me that they couldn't have other non-territorial systems which produce the same general effects.

* The existence of apparent law outside of the bounds of recognized governmental territories, such as in "international waters"/"maritime law."

* "Diplomatic immunity," which may or may not be admirable, as such, but which seems to suggest precedent for an ability to treat an individual as a citizen of some (remote) government even while within the "territory" of another.

Thus far, I have no answer except to say that I see no principled reason why governance must be thought of in terms of "territory," and I think that there's reason to believe that some other method of organization may be possible... yet I can not envision it entirely as yet, and so I cannot advocate for it.

The central issue which occurs to me again and again is the practicality of, at the least, proximity. For how are we to defend one another when apart? Israel was formed first through the Zionist movement, and I could maybe see something similar happen for Objectivists (whether in Alaska or Galt's Gulch) before a diffuse "Objectivist State" could do anything practical to protect the rights of its individual members. But maybe with sufficient coordination and resource, it would yet be possible (just as multinational corporations may protect their interests across several states, or so I have heard).

8 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Do you consider the idea of a borderless government to be one which would deserve as much recognition as say your hypothetical Alaskan state?

I think that a proper government (i.e. one which protects individual rights and does not initiate the use of force) would recognize as proper any other state or organization which serves the same ends. At the least, if this "borderless government" is not itself initiating the use of force in its activities, then our proper government would have no call (and no justification) to interfere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

There is not much difference in our positions Don and DA. Thanks both for an interesting discussion/exploration of this topic...

The original DA (and yourself) may be less willing to suffer bad governance than myself, but I agree.  It takes a lot of work to maintain a proper government shared with all the diversity of fiercely independent individuals, but worth the effort in the long run.  I say that from the perspective of an aged social warrior.  The premise I support is that of self governing individuals looking to secure an ideal marketplace of diversity.

States as territory is a concept that doesn't exclude a state of one individual, which is where the whole process begins.  Where it goes from there is entirely up to the individual's involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Devil's Advocate said:

The original DA (and yourself) may be less willing to suffer bad governance than myself, but I agree.

A quick note: for me it is less about any "willingness to suffer" (and after all, I pay my taxes), and more about a refusal to acknowledge any moral obligation to suffer, not only "bad governance," but immoral governance. If I thought I could get away with not paying my taxes, I would consider myself morally free to do so, despite what my fellow men have voted for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 at 10:44 AM, DonAthos said:

... and after all, I pay my taxes...

... and continue to vote, which is the means by which We the People effect a more perfect Union of justice and security.

If this conversation goes further, I'd like to further explorer the contractual aspect of voting, and why an Objectivist might consider themselves morally bound to a ballot result.  For now I'll just refer you back to Contracts in the Lexicon, and wish you, et al, a happy and prosperous new year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steps to O Nation (an emerging state of being?)

1) Recognize that every individual has a natural right* to self-determination (commonly understood to be Life, Liberty and Property)

2) Recognize that by definition, self-determination** applies to both individuals and states (of individuals).

3) Recognize that by definition, the private property of an individual with self-determination is a territory***, which can be reduced to ones footsteps.

4) Recognize that the security of ones right to self-determination (in a social context) requires respect for everyone's right to self-determination**** - so play nice.

--
*  "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival..." ~ Individual Rights, ARL

** definition of self-determination (Merriam-Webster):
1)  the freedom to make your own choices
2)  the right of the people of a particular place to choose the form of government they will have (i.e., make their own choices)

*** definition of territory (Oxford Dictionaries):
1) an area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state (or property owner)

**** "The only 'obligation' involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected." ~ Individual Rights, ARL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...