The Stability of Anarchist Societies

[Hogeye]

Individual Celts ... had no private ownership of land. The territory stayed with the tuath.

Barbara, you are totally mistaken about private ownership of land. For your edification, read Property Rights In Celtic Irish Law.

Somalia is a country in name only.

A country is a geographical region. Since Somalia is a geographical region, it is a country. We live in Ozark mountain country. "Country" and "State" are not synonomous; the former is a geographical region, the latter a political institution.

It is actually a bunch of war lord (strongman dictator) militia-defined territories within the boundaries of the failed state of Somalia.

Yes, although I would use a less connotative description. What western media call "warlords" would more accurately be called "militia leaders." I suppose you call George Washington and Francis Marion "warlords" too?


Doug, that wasn't my description; it was quoted from a Rothbard paper.

They had no state? They had local kings. How is that not a state or anything like it?

You still haven't read the Weberian definition of State, have you? If someone can switch defense agencies and keep their land, then the defense agencies are not States (they fail the geographic monopoly condition.)

A Celt "king" is not a king in the usual sense. He had no power to decree laws. He was basically a militia leader in time of war, with only a few ceremonial religious duties other than that. "King" is a poor translation of this position.

No police? They had the king's goons. No public enforcement of justice? They had a rigid code of law enforcement within the kingdom, and your status in society determined which laws applied to you.

You are wrong on all three points. You really don't know squat about Celtic culture, do you? Law enforcement wasn't generally done by king's goons. There were competing courts with different competing laws - not a rigid code. Status, much like colonial Anglo-America, was based on whether you owned land, not on birth as in feudal England.


Darrel, you are still arguing with a magazine article title, not me. Some of your points are rather bizarre. E.g. Citing the weakness of a statist fiat currency as an indication of something wrong with statelessness. Huh? I think it's wonderful that there is no decreed legal tender, and people can use gold, silver, dollars, or whatever they want. You seem surprised that fiat money printed by a long-since deposed dictator loses value!

Private passports! Cool! The balance of power among tribes and militias is a wonderful thing IMO - this is precisely why a new State is unlikely to be established (despite the UN's evil efforts.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The below definitions of "state" come from Allwords.com - Please note none of the definitions restrict it to the military monopoly of a geographic region.

"2. A territory governed by a single political body; a nation. (Thesaurus: republic, country, nation, kingdom, land, federation, commonwealth, body politic.)
3. Any of a number of locally governed areas making up a nation or federation under the ultimate control of a central government, as in the US...
5a. The political entity of a nation, including the government and all its apparatus, eg the civil service and the armed forces;
5b. Relating to or controlled or financed by the State, or a federal state; (Example: state police)"

I left out the definitions dealing with conditions (state of health or state of mind), since they don't apply.

A country is not just a geographic region, most countries have quite a number of geographic regions (heck, the state of Texas has 5 major geographic regions and over 100 subregions) - what makes a state is the government, which may or may not, but usually does, include multiple geographic regions. Country and state ARE synonomous - see definitions above.

Don't confuse admistratorship with ownership - land had usually hereditary administrators (as in, elected from the administrator clans - I forget the Irish name - just like the kings were elected from the royal clans), but Ian O'Brian didn't own a specific piece of property that he could sell to someone else at will. They did have what we'd call personal property - they were, amongst other things, the artisans of their time - they were metal workers, created what was probably the first steel, and the technology of their war chariots was cutting edge - they were fameous as merchants of farm and manufactured products even more than as mercenaries - an Irish ham sold in Greece for as much as an adult slave - but real property belonged to the family group.

[Doug]

They had no state? They had local kings. How is that not a state or anything like it?

You still haven't read the Weberian definition of State, have you? If someone can switch defense agencies and keep their land, then the defense agencies are not States (they fail the geographic monopoly condition.)

A Celt "king" is not a king in the usual sense. He had no power to decree laws. He was basically a militia leader in time of war, with only a few ceremonial religious duties other than that. "King" is a poor translation of this position.

DOUG
No, it's a good translation.

No police? They had the king's goons. No public enforcement of justice? They had a rigid code of law enforcement within the kingdom, and your status in society determined which laws applied to you.

You are wrong on all three points. You really don't know squat about Celtic culture, do you? Law enforcement wasn't generally done by king's goons. There were competing courts with different competing laws - not a rigid code. Status, much like colonial Anglo-America, was based on whether you owned land, not on birth as in feudal England.

DOUG
Stop reading those silly anarchist propaganda pages and start studying.

Political Structure
By the later Celtic period, Ireland was ruled by a series of perhaps 100 to 200 kings, each ruling a small kingdom or tuath. The kings came in three recognised grades, depending on how powerful they were. A rí túaithe was the ruler of a single kingdom. A 'great king', or ruiri, was a king who had gained the allegiance of, or become overlord of, a number of local kings. A 'king of overkings', or rí ruirech, was a king of a province. Ireland had between 4 and 10 provinces at any one time, because they were always in a state of flux as their kings' power waxed and waned. Today's 4 provinces (Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught) represent only the final state of these borders. Each province had a royal site, a place where important events took place. In 100AD there were royal sites at Emain Macha, near Armagh; Tara, county Meath and Dún Ailinne, county Kildare as well as other locations (see Celtic constructions above).

For most of the civilian population, however, life was spent in small farming units consisting of a wooden or wattle-and-daub house within a circular enclosure. Most would have had access to common land on higher ground on which to graze animals. Dairying was common, but almost everyone grew grain crops such as corn, oats, barley, wheat and rye. The land was ploughed using wooden ploughs pulled by oxen. Almost all farming was subsistence-based, and there was very little trade in food.

The only interruption to the daily ritual of grazing animals and growing crops would have been cattle-raids from neighbouring warriors, who may have pillaged and burned on their way to battle, although in general warfare seems to have been a highly formalised affair in which the peasants were usually not involved. By 400AD there were probably between half a million and 1 million people living in Ireland. This number would have fluctuated due to the recurrent plague and famine which affected all prehistoric cultures in Europe.

Brehon Law
The law that the Celts of Ireland used has been called Brehon law. Forms of Brehon Law were used in Ireland for hundreds of years. A full treatment of Brehon Law is beyond the scope of this article, but the idea was that a person's identity was defined by the kingdom in which they lived. A peasant had no legal status outside the tuath, with the exception of men of art and learning. Those who were tied to their tuath were unfree and worked for the king. All land was owned by families, not by individuals. Wealth was measured in cattle, and each individual had a status measured in terms of wealth. Almost any crime committed against an individual could be recompensed by paying a fine equal to the status of the individual. For example, a 50 cows for an important person, 3 cows for a peasant. There was no death penalty; but, an individual could be ostracised from the tuath in certain circumstances.

See:
http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ire ... n_age.html

[Doug]

DOUG
Cattle raid, anyone?

In Ireland, the institution of the fianna involved young, aristocratic warriors who left the tribal area for a time to conduct raids and to hunt...

Celtic society was hierarchical and class-based. Tribes were led by kings but political organizations were remarkably plastic. According to both Roman and Irish sources, Celtic society was divided into three groups: a warrior aristocracy, an intellectual class that included druids, poets, and jurists, and everyone else.

Society was tribal and kinship-based; one's ethnic identity was largely derived from the larger tribal group, called the tuath ("too-awth") in Irish (meaning "people") but ultimately based on the smallest kinship organizational unit, the clan, called the cenedl (ke-na-dl), or "kindred," in Irish. The clan provided identity and protection—disputes between individuals were always disputes between clans. Since it was the duty of the clan to protect individuals, crimes against an individual would be prosecuted against an entire clan. One of the prominent institutions among the Celts was the blood-feud in which murder or insults against an individual would require the entire clan to violently exact retribution. The blood-feud was in part avoided by the institution of professional mediators. At least an Ireland, a professional class of jurists, called brithem, would mediate disputes and exact reparations on the offending clan.

Even though Celtic society centered around a warrior aristocracy, the position of women was fairly high in Celtic society. In the earliest periods, women participated both in warfare and in kingship. While the later Celts would adopt a strict patriarchal model, they still have a memory of women leaders and warriors.

Celtic society was based almost entirely on pastoralism and the raising of cattle or sheep; there was some agriculture in the Celtic world, but not much. The importance of cattle and the pastoral life created a unique institution in Celtic, particularly Irish, life: the cattle-raid. The stealing of another group's cattle was often the proving point of a group of young warriors; the greatest surviving Irish myth, the Táin Bó Cualingne, or "The Cattle Raid of Cooley," centers around one such mythically-enhanced cattle-raid.

DOUG
A warrior aristocracy? Hogeye, do you want a society like that? I thought you were against elitism.

Stealing as an institution? I thought you said an anarchist society had protection.

[Dardedar]

Darrel, you are still arguing with a magazine article title, not me.

DAR
It's your magazine article and you advised reading it in order to find out: "what's really happining" in Somalia.
I simply roasted it and pointed out how the guy was carefully cherrying picking his data. I also used his very own source to show what a hell hole Somalia is in contrast to his bullshit title: "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It". You said to compare Somalia to neighboring states, and that "Somalia looks good in these comparisons." So I checked this claim using your very own source's charts. In the six categories measured Somalia came in:

Next to last
Last
Last
Last
Last
Next to last

So your claims are nuked, but you don't respond to any of this.

HOGEYE
Some of your points are rather bizarre.

DAR
My points are bizarre? You post:

"Here's what's really happining: "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It"

And then when I show it is a living hell using the same source as your article you say:

"I agree, and have never disagreed on this. By first world standards, Somalia sucks."

When as anyone can see, Somalia sucks by third world standards.

HOGEYE
E.g. Citing the weakness of a statist fiat currency as an indication of something wrong with statelessness. Huh?

DAR
I always quote what comment I am specifically referring to in order to prevent this type of mistake. I cited the (profound) weakness and declining value of the Somalian currency in response to your comment:

"Compared to the neighboring States, Somalia is doing well economically."

After I used your own source's stats to show this is not the case, you, as per usual, then say the source isn't valid (even though it was the source provided by your original article).

Then you say it can't be measured:
"The CIA, UN, and such are simply unable to measure economic productivity in a stateless society."

Then you postulate you think it is doing better than the stats show:

"I think the economy of Somalia is doing a lot better than the CIA indicates."

If Somalia had good economic productivity, in relation to their neighbor states, I don't see why their currency would be going down rather than up in value.

HOGEYE
I think it's wonderful that there is no decreed legal tender,...

DAR
Obviously you are not taking this discussion seriously. They do have a decreed legal tender, and the $1,000 Somalian denomination is worth about 7 cents US.

HOGEYE
and people can use gold, silver, dollars, or whatever they want.

DAR
When you have no rule of law, or almost no rule of law, people can use whatever they want and this leads to the lawlessness and the hellhole of Somalia. Not good, unless you live in the comfort of a state and like to fanasize about an imaginary Somalia that doesn't exist.

You seem surprised that fiat money printed by a long-since deposed dictator loses value!

DAR
You need to show how a declining currency is consistent with your assertion that Somalia has good economic productivity and "is doing well economically."

HOGEYE
Private passports! Cool!

DAR
Dishonest, criminally forged passports. This is the lawlessness you say you revere, while sitting comfortably in... a state. How convenient.

HOG
The balance of power among tribes and militias is a wonderful thing IMO - this is precisely why a new State is unlikely to be established (despite the UN's evil efforts.)

DAR
Your comments are basically not responsive to the points I have made. This is so ridiculous it's starting to look like trolling.

The last article I posted above, from the BBC, was the nail in the coffin on any pretense that the people there aren't profounding suffering from this anarchic situation. I hope you read it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4017147.stm

That you could wish this condition would continue, along with the profound suffering outlined in my eleven lines of evidence, is just cruel. Perhaps cruelty goes along well with anarchy? That's the stereotype. Perhaps with good reason.

DOUG says:
Stop reading those silly anarchist propaganda pages and start studying.

DAR
I second that, and calling them "silly" is kind. They are garbage.

DOUG
Stealing as an institution?

DAR
Indeed. What kind of person want this sort of society?

Hogeye wouldn't last a week before yearning for the comforts, success and easy/safe living of his home "state based" society. They'd shoot him to take his shoes and keep on walking.

D.
--------------------------------
"The lack of a government also means that the US dollar is the currency of choice - even refugees beg in hard currency.
Somali shillings are still used but the notes only come in one denomination - 1,000, worth seven US cents." --IBID

Hard to beat good "state fiat" money.

BONUS:

Nine hundred thousand Somalis face food crisis
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from 900,000 Somalians in dire need of humanitarian assistance)

LINK

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

I have worked and played with a number of people in fantasy roleplaying games, but I have never seen anything as deeply in fantasy as the ideas Hogeye has been putting out about the benefits of statelessness in Somalia. I typed some of the transcripts of humanitarian visitors to Somalia in the early 1980s, when Somalia first became "stateless" - and the situation has not improved since. The baby shown in Darrel's post was dead within days of the picture being taken - probably of starvation, but possibly of one of the diseases that accompany starvation.

It's easy to sit in the most affluent "state" in the world (even if the specific state - Arkansas - has things in common with 3rd world countries) and fantasize about the glories of statelessness, but I've talked to people who've been there - and heard them cry because they knew the people they'd interviewed were dead by the time they got to America with the tapes.

[Doug]

I think it's wonderful that there is no decreed legal tender, and people can use gold, silver, dollars, or whatever they want. You seem surprised that fiat money printed by a long-since deposed dictator loses value!

DOUG
Hogeye, I hope you are not under the impression that gold and silver somehow avoid the charge of "fiat money." All currency, whether printed or gold or silver, are only as valuable as people agree that they are. It is not clear how one type is any more a matter of fiat than another.

By the way, I saw a TV special on anarchism in America the other day. The movement looked interesting in a number of ways, but utterly doomed. Anarchism looks like it can work in small communities, "communes," but with large populations it is untenable.

[Hogeye]

Barbara, the definition of "state" that virtually all modern anarchists use is the political definition popularized by Max Weber: "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." source This is the technical definition that e.g. political scientists and sociologists generally use. Some people, per Franz Oppenheimer, add a plunder criterion. E.g. Anarcho-capitalist guru Murray Rothbard defines state as "that organization which possesses either or both (in actual fact, almost always both) of the following characteristics: (a) it acquires its revenue by physical coercion (taxation); and (b) it achieves a compulsory monopoly of force and of ultimate decision-making power over a given territorial area." The Ethics of Liberty chapter 3

As for "country," Merriam-Webster online's first def is: 1 : an indefinite usually extended expanse of land : REGION. Of course the Orwellian statist powers that be would very much like all their sheeple to equate "State" and "country." If they can transform people's natural affinity for their home community to subservience to the State, they win. Another word used by politicians in lieu of "state" is "nation" - a people having a common origin, tradition, and language. Thus, the State which trys to tax and regulate me is the USEmpire, my country is the Ozarks, and my nation is Anglo (roughly the combination of US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.)

Politicians like to leverage the epigenetic trait of community cohesiveness from the hunter-gatherer days, perverting it to love for Big Brother. (Thanks to Richard Dawkins for the $100 word "epigenesis.")


Doug, your quote seems to verify my "anarchist" points, or ignore them. It verifies that there were competing "kings" and tuaths. It doesn't mention the actual duties (or lack thereof) of "kings." It verifies that there was private property, albeit held by households rather than individuals. It mentions the libertarian emphasis on (what we would call) civil law - based on compensation to the victim rather than e.g. offenses against a State. Dig a little deeper, Doug, and you will find that the king had no law-making power. And that people (or households) could opt out of a tuath. This last point is the critical one in determining whether a tuath is a State or not. Doug, the word "king" was bestowed by outsiders laboring under the feudal monarchial paradigm on a culture they didn't understand.

So your claims are nuked, but you don't respond to any of this.

I responded by pointing out that Somalia's economic success has been underreported, with a citation on why that occurs.

If Somalia had good economic productivity, in relation to their neighbor states, I don't see why their currency would be going down rather than up in value.

In short, because people use other types of money now. It is not "their" currency - it is the currency of the now-dead dictator deposed over 15 years ago! Looking at currency is a terrible way to gauge an economy, especially when it's fiat money from a defunct regime. Would you use Saddam Hussein's currency to judge Iraq's economy?

Hogeye> Private passports! Cool!

Darrel> Dishonest, criminally forged passports.

I guess you wouldn't like this passport either then:

World Service Authority offers non-statist passports.


Darrel, you continue to write as if I had claimed that Somalia standard of living was like a first world country. To clear up some misconceptions: the person in the article who was "loving it" in Somalia was Michael van Notten. I cited an article written by a libertarian favorable to the prognosis in Somalia; you cited one written by a statist. Factually they are essentially the same, but clearly the interpretations are different. Even though Somalia has no mineral or natural wealth like its neighbors, I predict that Somalia will do quite well. Hong Kong didn't have any natural wealth either.

I typed some of the transcripts of humanitarian visitors to Somalia in the early 1980s, when Somalia first became "stateless"...

Somalia didn't become stateless until it deposed its dictator in 1991. For several years after that, there was warfare based on tribal attempts of take over the State apparatus. Only when it was generally recognized that no one could get control did the violence die down. If the UN creates another State, then warfare will occur until it is destroyed. It's a cultural thing - democracy cannot work in a society of tribal loyalties. Forced unification of nationalities won't work in Somalia ... or Iraq.

Hogeye, I hope you are not under the impression that gold and silver somehow avoid the charge of "fiat money."

Commodity money is money. Fiat money by definition is a token given value by decree, and not backed by a commodity. (fiat = decree) E.g. When the dollar could be exchanged for 1/16 troy oz. gold or one oz. silver, it was not fiat money. Now it is unbacked. (Using "backed" very loosely, some would say that the US$ is backed by future taxing power. But this is technically incorrect.) Like all fiat money in history, the dollar will sooner or later hyperinflate. I suggest that you do not keep too much of your savings in dollar denominated instruments. And have some gold/silver/platinum in your portfolio. It sounds like you don't know the basic definitions (e.g. "fiat money"). Might I recommend What Has Government Done to Our Money? as a good primer?

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Hogeye - Your anarchists have much in common with Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland - words mean what you want them to mean. I copied definitions of "state" from an online dictionary in my post - none of the definitions fit yours. As for the word "country", it also can be defined as "rural area", as in "he's from the country" or "Country Mouse and City Mouse" - but that definition doesn't apply to the context any more than the one you apparently insist is the right and only one.

Money backed by specie is no more a commodity than fiat money is - silver or gold only have agreed upon value as a medium of trade, just like fiat money. Precious metals have no value of themselves, unlike a milch cow (which was the backing of Celtic money in the old "pre-Christian" days) or a pound of potatoes.

[Doug]

DOUG
The "world passport" is not always accepted.

http://www.slate.com/id/2138567/
=============
Can you really use a "world passport" for international travel?

Yes, but it depends on where you're going. According to the World Service Authority—the Washington-based organization that issues world passports—more than 150 countries have accepted the document at least once. Six more countries have provided the WSA with a formal letter of recognition of the world passport, most recently Tanzania in 1995. (The others to grant it official status are Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Togo, and Zambia. Two of those countries have since written to say they've changed their minds.)

It's still a crapshoot when you travel with nothing but a world passport. Your chances of success will likely depend on the whim (or ignorance) of the schlub working customs at your destination. With this in mind, the WSA doesn't guarantee that any country will accept the document, and it even offers a specific warning about countries where the passport "almost never" works: Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States.

===================

[Hogeye]

Silver or gold only have agreed upon value as a medium of trade, just like fiat money.

Silver and gold and potatos and salt and cattle have value based on an amalgamation of people's subjective opinion of marginal utility and relative scarcity. This is called the Subjective Theory of Value (as opposed to medieval intrinsic value theories such as the Labor Theory of Value and other "just price" doctrines.) What makes fiat money different is that it is based on the command of authorities rather than free choices and evaluations. Gold and silver for millenium have been valued for their metallic properties, and used in jewelry and (in modern times) as an electric conductor. There's some gold in your computer, cell-phone, and many electronic devices.

The "world passport" is not always accepted.

Right. I'm just happy you concede that other entities besides States can produce them. Not all statist passports are honored by all States, either. Historically, passports were used by people whose States were at war to vouch that the person is a non-combatant. That was back when warring rulers were pretty much irrelevant to normal people, and their trade and travel. I.e. when wars were considered personal disputes between rulers. They have, unfortunately, evolved into travel-permission papers required by States.

I copied definitions of "state" from an online dictionary in my post - none of the definitions fit yours.

Right. As I said, you'll have to look at the technical definitions of sociologists, or read that seminal Max Weber paper I linked to. There's no sense in arguing over a definition. I offered the Weberian definition so you could understand what I was talking about. I've been pretty careful is making my definitions explicit - even to the extent of specifying "Weberian State" and "Nockian government" in threads where I use the term. If you want to understand what anarchists mean, you have to understand their terms. It would of course be invalid to criticize an anarchist claim by substituting a totally different meaning for terms they use. (That happens a lot; one guy insisted that "anarchism" means "chaos", and proceeded to criticize chaos thinking he was refuting political anarchism! Others, particularly those with a legal background, insist that "anarchism" means "anomie" - no law - and think they're criticizing anarchism.)

"Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order." - Pierre Proudhon

[Doug]

Historically, passports were used by people whose States were at war to vouch that the person is a non-combatant. That was back when warring rulers were pretty much irrelevant to normal people, and their trade and travel. I.e. when wars were considered personal disputes between rulers. They have, unfortunately, evolved into travel-permission papers required by States.

DOUG
And if you were in an anarchist community, you would allow people who want to kill anarchists to travel in and out of your community freely?

[Dardedar]

Darrel> Dishonest, criminally forged passports.

HOGEYE
I guess you wouldn't like this passport either then:

DAR
Is that a dishonest criminally forged passport that lets you lie about where you were born etc? If it is, then yes, I wouldn't like it because it would make a mockery of the legitimacy of passports and if passports were allowed to made in such a way as a matter of course, all passports would become invalid and meaningless (hint: this is true of many aspects of anarchism. It can only momentarily live parasitically upon nearby successful "statist" societies). If it isn't, then it isn't relevant to the point I was making.

DOUG quoted:
The "world passport" is not always accepted...

...the WSA doesn't guarantee that any country will accept the document, and it even offers a specific warning about countries where the passport "almost never" works: Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, and the United States.

DAR
Why would I want a passport that never works when you try to go to these, most successful, countries? It seems to play on the ignorance of border agents. Here is a part from Doug's article that he didn't quote:

"The passport didn't always work, and Davis found himself in jail dozens of times. He's also been convicted of fraud for selling the world passport, and some have accused the WSA of making money off of refugees or would-be emigrants."

D.

[Hogeye]

The WSA passport is an honest competitor to statist passports. Other products are forgeries of statist permission papers.

I wouldn't like it [forged statist passports] because it would make a mockery of the legitimacy of passports and if passports were allowed to made in such a way as a matter of course, all passports would become invalid and meaningless.

Yes! Isn't that wonderful! We can undermine the rulers' attempt to violate freedom of travel not to mention the ruler's legitimacy by supporting counterfeit passports. I fully support such resistance to oppression. Just as I support forging green cards, rent receipts, etc. to help the immigrants oppressed and discriminated against by the State.

Why would I want a passport that never works when you try to go to these, most successful, countries?

Good question. You write as if I endorsed this WSA product. In fact, I was simply pointing out the possibility of non-statist passports. If you want to travel in this currently State-dominated world, you probably need to use State-funded roads, submit to searches by State-employed thugs, and have a state-issued travel-permission document - a passport. Still, there are things you can do to reduce statist sway. E.g. High-end PTs use the "Four Flag" strategy. They have a passport from a different State than the one that tries to tax, hold their wealth in a third State, and live in a fourth. That makes it extremely difficult for the protection-racket State #1 to tax you, regulate you, or to steal your assets.

If you were in an anarchist community, you would allow people who want to kill anarchists to travel in and out of your community freely?

That, of course, would be up to the property owners. Instead of decrees by far-away politicians, it would likely be handled in familiar ways we already see, such as "authorized personnel only" in certain areas, building passes, gated communities, etc. Road companies are unlikely to allow drunks to drive on their roads, hotels are unlikely to let known assassins hang out in their lobbies, etc. The feudal notion that the State owns everything (and subjects only use it by permission) would be replaced by allodial property. Anti-immigrant xenophobes could not use the State to aggress against immigrants coming onto someone's property with that owner's permission. No more discrimination based on imaginary statist borders. The only valid borders are private property lines.

[Dardedar]

I wouldn't like it [Dishonest, criminally forged passports] because it would make a mockery of the legitimacy of passports and if passports were allowed to made in such a way as a matter of course, all passports would become invalid and meaningless.

HOGEYE
Yes! Isn't that wonderful! We can undermine the rulers' attempt to violate freedom of travel not to mention the ruler's legitimacy by supporting counterfeit passports.

DAR
It doesn't violate any "freedom of travel" to require people to have a passport that does not contain dishonest, false information. I am learning that truth really doesn't matter much in your imaginary dog eat dog anarchist scenarios.

D.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Interesting that one of the purposes of creating the United States in the first place was to end the need to stop, identify oneself, and pay toll at the border of every little fiefdom between point A and point B.

[Hogeye]

If a government uses aggression to prevent someone from using a house, hotel, road, plane, etc. which they have the owner's permission to use, then that government is violating freedom of travel. A statist passport is intended to do just that. It replaces voluntary social interaction with govt force. In effect, it is a paper bestowing govt permission for someone to travel.

It doesn't violate any "freedom of travel" to require people to have a passport that does not contain dishonest...

True, if you require it for your own property. A hotel or airline company does not violate rights if it requires a passport (credit card, photo ID...). However, if someone or some organization forcibly prevents people from passing to other people's property (and is not acting as an agent of the property owners), then that person or org is initiating force, i.e. violating rights. This is a straightforward application of the NAP (non-aggression principle.) E.g. If Tyson's invites Mexicans to work in Tyson's chicken plants, the US violates freedom of travel if it prevents Mexicans from traveling to Tysons.

Interesting that one of the purposes of creating the United States in the first place was to end the need to stop, identify oneself, and pay toll at the border of every little fiefdom between point A and point B.

The main purpose of creating a central government was (for the land speculators) to nationalize the western lands so the land companies could be granted land and make a killing, and (for the war script speculators) for the central govt to "assume" the war debt so the speculators could get paid at face value. Getting rid of tolls was just an excuse made by these big govt types. Barbara, can you document that there were "tolls at the border of every little fiefdom between point A and point B?" This sounds like a myth to me.

(Of course, reducing tolls does not require a central State. A free trade pact will do nicely.)

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Here's a snippet I got from UN Wire. I tried to bring over the link to the Washington Post article, but for some reason it wouldn't paste.

"Somalia: Drought a new reason to fight and kill
As drought continues to plague Somalia, rival gangs are fighting and killing each other over precious water resources. The World Food Programme is hiring security personnel to protect villagers picking up water from wells, but gunmen still sometimes force women to hand over their water. The Washington Post (free registration) (4/14)"

A UN rep from the unit that brings in food commented that people are being shot for a glass of water.

[Doug]

If you were in an anarchist community, you would allow people who want to kill anarchists to travel in and out of your community freely?

That, of course, would be up to the property owners. Instead of decrees by far-away politicians, it would likely be handled in familiar ways we already see, such as "authorized personnel only" in certain areas, building passes, gated communities, etc. Road companies are unlikely to allow drunks to drive on their roads, hotels are unlikely to let known assassins hang out in their lobbies, etc...No more discrimination based on imaginary statist borders. The only valid borders are private property lines.

DOUG
How are imaginary personal borders any more valid than imaginary statist borders? At least with the statist ones, more people agree on the borders. Wouldn't that make them even more valid than personal, subjective borders, rather than the other way around, as you suggest?

[Hogeye]

How are imaginary personal borders any more valid than imaginary statist borders?

It's called "property," Doug. Property preceeds State, legal systems, etc. It's been very important since the agricultural revolution. Its validity has to do with necessary conditions for living life as a human.