EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Radical decentralization and anarchy are the same thing
Anarcho-capitalism has a PR problem. Its main postulate – the principle of non-aggression sounds simple and noble enough to be understood by everyone and could even be a basic principle of the libertarian movement itself. But when it comes to private courts, most people turn pale and this is where we lose them. Go and explain to them later that they ARE NOT A FEATURE of some political system, but a POTENTIAL market alternative, spontaneously arising in the vacuum of the withdrawn centralized law forcibly imposed from above.
This article aims to show that anarchy is not a political system like republics and monarchies, maintained by some formal power, but a state of relations between individuals. This leads to a number of rearrangements of definitions that current anarcho-capitalists take for granted from scholars such as Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and David Friedman. With this improved concept, anarcho-capitalists will be able to attract followers more easily.
Smaller countries are better for the individual
In his book Human Action, Ludwig von Mises describes how the choices each of us makes determine our economic well-being. For different people, this can mean different things. Some have a high time preference and live for the moment, preferring to spend on pleasures over saving for the future. Others do the opposite. The same principle applies to a person’s acceptance of living in a large (in terms of population) country over whose laws he has very little influence, or to fighting to be part of a smaller one in which he would be a much greater factor. It doesn’t matter whether this struggle is political or military.
But are some countries large and others small simply because of population preferences? Actually, no, because common sense is relatively evenly distributed around the world. Geographical factors also play a role. It is no coincidence that Poland, Ukraine, and Russia are so large, while Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro are so small. The former are located on plains where a small group of people (in the past) had nowhere to hide from the galloping cavalry of a great conqueror. Therefore, the history of these countries tends towards one huge state controlling its entire territory – the larger always devours the smaller state.
However, the Balkans have many mountains, peaks and ridges that deter tanks on the battlefield and, for most of history, horses. That is why the Balkan nations are so numerous and small - no conqueror has managed to hold on long enough to assimilate them. It can be argued, but historical data shows that the political tradition of the Balkans is much more liberal and humane towards the individual than the satrapy of the rest in history as the “Bloody Lands” during World War II from the northern European plain.
Another important factor in determining how large a country will be historically is the fertility of the land and the wealth of its people. The Netherlands is located right in the center of a very rich region and has practically no poor neighbors. This means that it was able to trade in all directions and thus develop the deepest specialization of its labor, which means higher incomes, and they in turn - more fortresses. That is why the Dutch were not conquered and assimilated by their larger neighbors, the French and Germans. And it is no coincidence that they were the richest Europeans for centuries, until the Industrial Revolution, when they were displaced by the British. For the same reason, African countries are so large.
Where is Rothbard wrong?
Murray Rothbard defines an anarchist society as one in which there is no LEGAL POSSIBILITY of forcible aggression against the person and property of any individual. At the same time, however, he recommends that the right of secession be extended to the smallest permissible MAJORITY in a given territory, because “there may be technical considerations limiting the practicality of secession to a lower level.” For example, at least 20 people are needed in a neighborhood for it to be profitable to have at least one border guard or policeman.
These two definitions contradict each other, because according to the first one there is no anarcho-capitalism if de facto each person does not have a state for himself. But in the second one Rothbard points out that there are some practical problems that do not allow individual secession. However, he states in his works that if individual secession is possible – it should be done. This means that anarcho-capitalism will be achieved by technology, not by political growth. But which technology affects the size of states?
Anarcho-transhumanism NOW!
The technology of defense is the ally of small states, while that of attack is the ally of large ones. Until the 19th century, Europe was dominated by a system of microstates, made possible by castles, which became a bulwark against cavalry attacks from the east. European territorial centralization after this period coincided with the improvement of artillery, which made fortresses redundant. During this period, Germany and Italy were also united after centuries of territorial division.
The answer to defensive technology was trenches equipped with machine guns in World War I. Back then, the attacker had to have at least three times as many soldiers as the defenders to take control of their trenches. And it is no coincidence that after World War II, a number of empires broke up into a series of small nation-states. A victory for defense and decentralization. Then came tanks and fighter jets as a response to trenches that had become unnecessary during World War II. This led to political centralization, reducing the political organisms in Europe to just two camps – NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
The modern answer to defense could be cyber technology. If a hacker with a computer manages to hack into a government database, he can erase all traces of his existence and de facto carry out an individual secession. He could do the same if his government sent troops to his home and he hacked their tanks so that they attacked each other. This may sound like fantasy, but the power of the machine gun was unimaginable to people at the time until it appeared. In any case, the market will contribute to this development, so there is no way to be sure what the technology will be in the future.
