“the reed separating my perpetually-balkanizing-minarcho-socialism from your anarchy”
My comment responding to the above phrase in a comment from la Rana at IOZ’s blog is probably the concisest expression yet of my “political” ideals:
That’s a thin reed indeed, and in fact I see no separation whatsoever. Anarchy prevails betwixt the governments of the world. What is an individual laying claim to a house and a yard but a little government? My prescription for what ails the world: balkanization (all the way down to that schlub in his castle) and confederation mediated by Georgism.
As for the kind of legal “systems” such balkanized confederacies should form, I’m partial to John Hasnas’ argument in The Depoliticization of Law:
Advocates of the privatization of law often assume that unless law
springs from some act of agreement, some express or implicit social
contract by which individuals consent to be bound, it is nothing
more than force. In this Article, I argue that this is a false dilemma.
Although law is rarely grounded in consent, this does not imply that
law necessarily gives some individuals command over others. Law
can arise through a process of evolution. When this is the case, those
subject to law are indeed bound, but not by the will of any particular
human beings. Although this depoliticized law is inherently coercive, it
is not inherently a vehicle for domination. This Article argues that such
a system of depoliticized law is consistent with the ideal of the rule
of law, and, in fact, is free market law, when that phrase is properly
understood.
Follow
