See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Anarchism and Radical Decentralization Are the Same Thing
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02 ... lism-radical-decentralization/
Published: Feb 3, 2016
Author: Ryan McMaken
Post Date: 2016-02-03 08:40:18 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 229
Comments: 5
Those who wish to portray Ludwig von Mises as the “moderate” one, compared to the more radical Murray Rothbard, will often point out that Mises was no “anarchist.” This assertion, however, runs into trouble when we consider Mises’s comments in Liberalism on the topic of radical decentralization: The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. To call this right of self-determination the “right of self-determination of nations” is to misunderstand it. It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they wish to belong… However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and that the right of self- determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country. “But, wait” the anti-anarchists will say. “Mises says it’s impractical for every person to have total self-determination. To this observation, the answer can only be “so what?” In the selection above, Mises clearly states that he agrees with the theoretical case for secession down the individual level. He merely states that there are certain practical considerations that make its application in the real world unlikely. And who could disagree with him? Of course there are practical limitations on the ability of each and every person to be a — to use Mises’s term — “national unit” unto himself. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine that most human beings would even want to be stand-alone national units. It’s far more likely that even laissez-faire minded persons — provided practical options for exit always remain an option — would seek the convenience of life within a city, association, confederation, or league managed by some group of elected or appointed persons. These organizations would be charged with keeping the peace and promoting commerce by maintaining reliable and predictable laws governing the use and protection of private property. Moreover, its difficult to see how Murray Rothbard would have disagreed with this assessment. After all, any student of history and human nature, which Rothbard indeed was, recognizes that people have always grouped themselves together for social reasons and to take advantage of economies of scale in defense and economic production. The question for anarchists has always been not whether or not individual human beings can exist as nations unto themselves, but whether it is possible to create a society in which a person would have numerous practical options from which to freely choose. That is, can we create a situation in which persons choose their political regimes in a truly voluntary way? We Need More States For this reason, the practical answer to any current lack of choice (i.e., lack of “self-determination”) lies not in the immediate abolition of all states (as no one has ever convincingly described how this might be done) but in the breaking down of existing states into smaller and smaller states. This can be done in a de jure fashion, such as through formal secession movements, or it might be done through de facto secession through nullification and insistence on localized autonomy. What Mises describes above refers to formal votes and declarations of independence, but the same effects, in practice, can be obtained through the methods of local nullification and separation as suggested by Hans-Hermann Hoppe here. And, of course, de facto secession, for practical reasons may often be preferable. The claim is often made by some doctrinaire and impractical anarchists that secession is a bad thing because it “creates a new state.” This is a rather simplistic view, however, given the realities of geography on planet earth. Unless one is forming a new state completely in international waters or in Antarctica or outer space, the creation of any new state will have to come at the expense of some existing state. Thus, the creation of a new state, in say, Sardinia, would come at the expense of the existing state known as “Italy.” Deprived by secession of tax revenues and the military advantages of territory, the state that loses territory would be necessarily weakened. In addition to weakening states, the advantage from the perspective of the individual, then, is that he or she now has two states to choose from where only one existed before. The individual now has more options from which to choose a place to live that best suits his or her personal lifestyle, ideology, religion, ethnic group, and more. With each additional successful act of secession, the choices from which each person has to choose grow larger and larger:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
If only people would stop worshiping the politicians, judges et al -- that would be such a giant step toward freedom. There will be NO progress without it.
Will it matter if the people become disillusioned? Anything they can do about it?
They MUST become disillusioned if they're to survive. Then become re-illusioned with the "animating contest of liberty"! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NN Sequitur -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disillusionment may come by itself but they have to be educated to appreciate liberty.
Oh, but as long as there are churches with steeples and stained glass, preachers will reassure the faithful that nothing we talk about here need concern them :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NN Sequitur -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. To: NeoconsNailed (#1)
If only people would stop worshiping the politicians, judges et al -- that would be such a giant step toward freedom. There will be NO progress without it.
#3. To: Ada (#2)
#4. To: NeoconsNailed (#3)
They MUST become disillusioned if they're to survive. Then become re-illusioned with the "animating contest of liberty"!
#5. To: Ada (#4)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest