9 hours ago, AlexL said:
I thought I have already explained this. But maybe I don’t understand the question. I suggest both of you to share with me your own thoughts on this subject. In this way I will understand what aspect(s) you ask me to address.
The reason why I’ve been questioning you is because you’ve had the appearance of one who is certain of his beliefs on this subject. In contrast, I don’t yet know precisely what I believe with regards to “sovereignty” or “jurisdiction,” such that I can answer the OP with confidence. While this subject interests me, and while I wish to better understand it, I don’t yet have an argument that I can make (not according to my own standards, at least, though I do have a “lean,” or a “bias”). So I thought that I (and secondarily the thread) stood to benefit by probing your position.
With that said, I can share some of my thoughts on the subject… so long as it is understood that I don’t intend on driving to a point (and expect that I will ramble… even worse than usual), and I recognize that there may yet be some contradictions among my thoughts, as they are not yet fully integrated.
I have asked you as to the source of authority (of the police officer; of the Constitution writer; of government), though I still do not yet know your mind on the subject. Personally, the answer I like best thus far was given by Ayn Rand:
Quote
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.”
I like this answer because it seems consonant with my ethical philosophy, with my vision of man, and with what I understand about Objectivism generally. I look at “government” as a byproduct; it is something that men do to secure their rights, as Jefferson had it, but it does not create those rights. The rights come first and then we create governments, working together, to protect those rights as best we can. Thus we may create, alter, or dissolve some government, as is deemed necessary, the better to fulfill the role of governance; the better to protect our individual rights.
Thus the source of “sovereignty” must be the individual. The individual is sovereign, and possesses the power of self-defense–along with everything that entails (including everything that the military, or the police, or the legislature, or the court might do)–and then delegates that power to some third party, which is the government. If these powers do not exist in the individual man, if a man cannot do these things as a matter of right, then how could any group come to possess them? Rights do not emerge in the aggregate; and fifty men do not have any more right than the solitary individual.
Okay.
Now as I say, I find this to be consonant with the rest of Objectivism, as I understand it. Government must serve the needs of the individual, otherwise why (in the name of rational self-interest) should any individual support it? I may judge it as being in my interest to recognize the authority of some third party, and thus consent to it, but if I do not judge it so, then why would I grant it my consent? Why would I proclaim that it has the authority to work against my life? Because it says that it has this authority? Because others believe it to be true? Because it was established before I was born? Because they outnumber me? Because they have guns?
What I guess I’m coming to is that, if “consent” is to have any meaning, then it must be given and it must be given voluntarily, and it must be revocable; I should be able to withdraw this consent, reclaiming my sovereignty and individual authority, which I can then bestow onto some other form of government, should I choose, in the interest of my own life. This perhaps mirrors Rand’s idea that government should be financed voluntarily. What is a government, and what good is its “authority,” if I may elect to give it the means to exist, or withhold the same? And if I am to fund anyone to help me in protecting my own rights, then why could I not withdraw my funding from group A in order to fund group B, should I judge that group B will better serve my needs? In point of fact, why could I not strike out on my own and form my own government?
Taking all of this together as best as I can at present, I don’t yet understand why a British citizen living in Spain must bow to the authority of the Spanish government (which in reality means: some group of Spaniards who have guns and who say that they somehow have authority over him; why should they be believed?). Insofar as he is “the governed,” if he does not consent to delegate his right of self-defense to the so-called Spanish government–if he, let us say, chooses to be represented in this manner by the British government, and if they agree to represent his interests–then I do not understand why this wouldn’t fulfill all that is required by governance, generally. Therefore I do not understand why it is necessary to conceive of government in terms of “territory.”
If the answer is that to approach governance in terms of “territory” is convenient, well, that might be the case; and thus our British citizen might be persuaded to heed it, if the Spanish government is sufficiently rights-respecting (or close enough to whatever he would gain by appealing to the British government), in the name of his own self-interest. But if it is not… if it is Fascist Spain, or if he concludes that he would be treated better by the British government (or if he is John Galt and would prefer his Gulch), then I see no call to demand that he participate in his own destruction by surrendering to the idea that the Spanish government (again: some group of Spaniards with guns) has the right to dictate terms. No individual, and no group of individuals, has the right to violate the rights of any other, not across supposed national borders and not within them.
As for the charge that this line of thinking would create pandemonium if enacted… well, I’m not sure that’s true. These are the sorts of arguments I find, time and again, contra all manner of pro-liberty proposals, where I don’t know the specifics of some potential future, but I believe that acting according to principles (and specifically: respecting individual rights) is yet “for the best.” If we eliminate social security, would the elderly all starve to death en masse? I don’t believe so, yet I cannot guarantee that some individuals might not suffer. If we do away with welfare, would there be rioting? If we do not tax to support some great endeavor, would we have them at all? Would there be space exploration, or highways, or so forth? How would they be organized? I cannot claim to know these things with precision. So would some other organization of government (which yet conforms to the purpose of governance, and the principles discussed) lead to greater chaos by some given metric? I don’t know. Yet I believe that if the proper principles are adhered to, the best outcomes are likely to manifest, and especially long-term.
That said, if I were a betting man, I do not believe that this sort of chaos–with folks clashing in the streets, panicked, pillaging one another, running around aflame, and etc.–is likely, for the same reason why I wouldn’t expect the elderly to be left to die in the streets without coercive wealth redistribution. Indeed, we already have “competing governments” in the world (often with competing claims), so the existence of things like extradition policies leads me to believe that people would yet work out ways of coordinating their interests, in reason.
Well, those are my thoughts, such as they are. But as I say, they are not yet “baked”; I’m not yet satisfied that I know what I’m talking about, and I apologize for any lack of coherence, or poor reasoning, accordingly.
