Quote from: Walter Rothbard on November 22, 2013, 09:50:41 PM

Quote from: crumbs on November 22, 2013, 09:29:02 PM

Quote from: Walter Rothbard on November 22, 2013, 09:11:05 PM

...
Suppose my group of people banded together to defend our rights starts oppressing you, infringing your rights. This is how decentralization helps: you also have the right to defend yourself, to join together with others to do so, etc. Basically there would be no problem whatsoever with you and I, in the same territory, belonging to competing institutions that defend rights - you could call them governments if you want. And it would be a very good way to protect ourselves, to prevent any of these institutions from becoming oppressive. It's a fantastic "check and balance."

That is why any legitimate government should allow people to secede. Rather than forcing people to accept its rights-securing services, it should permit people to decline to participate and to participate in competing service providers. The reason governments as we know them don't allow this is because what they really want, rather than protecting people's rights, is power.

I agree with pretty much everything you say until you get to secession. It's a nice thought, but other than granting exit visas (i'm sure that's not what you mean), there are just no practical ways to implement that without wrecking the whole system.
If i'm understanding you correctly, there would emerge multiple city-states & even house-states in the middle of a country state? How would that work?
(maybe i misunderstand what you mean by "secede")

It would work just fine, as long as people respect rights, and as long as no central institution stops people from defending their rights.

In the case of the "house state," how would that not work? They would be free to go about their business - free to "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" (another quote from the U.S. Declaration of Independence). There is no reason that any other state should compel them to be members/subjects/"citizens".

The basic question is - can you and those who want to cooperate with you defend your rights without compelling others to support your cause? Or must you use force - must you compel participation and support? My contention is that when you start compelling participation, you become the very problem you are supposedly trying to fight against: you become rights violators.

I'll start off with a few house-state problems:
1. Roads. The roads are built and maintained by nation-states, and house-states will, by necessity, use them. Since the house-state doesn't pay taxes to the country-state, the country-state now has to devise an awkward & costly toll system. And an enforcement system, different from an existing enforcement system, to enforce the laws regarding "home-staters." For instance, i think i make an awesome drunk driver, and as a free individual, i don't wish to be penalized for simply being a potential road hazard. As long as i don't do any actual harm, i should be free to do as i choose, amiright? Then a State Thug pulls me over & wants to penalize me. The problems start.

You can see endless similar problems sprouting up. The reason large societies are able to function at all is the universality of standards. English, for instance, is far from being an ideal language. But if everyone talked in their own, custom tongue, communication would be impossible.

Sorry for veering of on seemingly disjointed tangents, but i see so many problems. Sort of like granting every cell in your body complete autonomy, and expecting to stay alive. And even get better for it Cheesy