“Anyone deprived of his liberty or aggressed against can appoint agents to act on his behalf to protect his rights. These agents would not be aggressing against a third party without cause, for they are agents of the principal acting in self-defence. If this were the case, it would be justified in the Federation of Liberty for many of those whose rights have been violated to be rescued from communities or persons guilty of aggression against others. But this does not resolve the problem of what happens to those who are unable to appoint agents to act for them. Even in a world of entrepreneurial would-be agents looking for principals needing to be freed, such potential agents have no right to demand that those they suspect of violating rights allow them to inspect their premises or their records. Such would-be agents may not use force to gain access to knowledge of rights violations, or to gain knowledge of the wishes of people who might want to employ their services. Or at least, not in a society like the Federation of Liberty. For it does not condone the initiation of the use or threat of physical force against the person or property of anyone. Yet, perversely, this turns out to be a society in which many people end up being free to use force.”

The problem with this construction is that in the Federation of Liberty it must be that deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law are by definition permissible. Laws currently exist and are well established which prohibit ‘unlawful confinement.’ No appeal to the deprivation of rights to minors can be used to support a notion of the denial of liberty to those who have reached an age of majority.

There cannot be two laws, one for the general population and a second law for the members of a separate group. The rules of the separate group may not be ‘laws.’

There may be only one authoritative law…the law of liberty. In contrast to this there are demands today for the parallel imposition of Shariah law. The anti-libertarian associations which might exist in this state must all be voluntary, permitting their members to repudiate the group and leave.

Secondly, the Union of Liberty is described in the following manner:

“For in the Union of Liberty, associations not founded on the consent of the governed may not operate. This means that certain kinds of associations or communities cannot exist, for the only legitimate associations are voluntary associations. Associations or communities not founded on the principle of voluntary association cannot have a place in the Union of Liberty.”

The problem with this construction is that the Union of Liberty prohibits free association.

Governments are instituted among men to secure liberty, not rights. The power of the state may not be used to enforce any positive value other that the inalienable liberty of every individual. The nature of values are such that any value which is elevated above the moral value of liberty (e.g. unity, security, health, wealth, or virtue), carries with it the concomitant potential destruction of liberty.

I must disagree with this conclusion:

“Alas, as I see it, no other construction of libertarianism is possible. The two alternatives described here occupy all the available conceptual space; and there is no third way…”

One either holds liberty as the preeminent value or one does not. Both of these constructions, the Federation of Liberty and the Union of Liberty strike me as straw men.

I am a Sovereign State. I understand that I live within “occupied territory”. I also understand I must be vigilant against intrusion by even non-government criminals (although those are the easy kind with which to contend). I would welcome Sovereigns to move in next door and across the alley. But I also recognize there is no possible way for me to make any attempt to coerce them to become Voluntarists or Stateless through any kind of force of arms or any other means.

They might, by seeing and desiring my freedom. And they might not. If I flaunt my freedom too flamboyantly they might even make overt attempts to “show me” by making me see I really wasn’t as “sovereign” as I bragged. They might even have the power to manipulate me into being cross-wise with employees of civil government.

Walk quietly. Cary a big stick. Regards,

Samarami

The aggression issue, above almost all others, has been the biggest thorn in my side when contemplating different libertarian societal constructs. I have no doubt that the aggression cited by geoih would be one inevitable by-product of a federation, but I also have no doubt that the very libertarian principles that provide the breeding grounds for this also offer possible solutions. I therefore think geoih’s conclusion of “…a Union that has an unattainable goal of Federation.” as “the best you [we] can hope for” is unduly pessimistic. I think that a federation with an occasional sub-union when necessary to counter aggression is a more realistic view. Allow me to explain:

First, I did not interpret anything from the subject article which implied that a federated construct is or would be BASED on a premise of none aggression between communities. I think that such aggression would be an inevitable by-product of any society that allows true freedom of association. The benefit to a federation in this regard though, is that any aggression could only come from a sub-union of likeminded individuals / communities vice under the pseudo sanction of a central authority as would be possible (even likely) in a union.

Just as freedom of association allows for such an aggressive community, it also allows for important checks against such behavior. This is not to imply that some aggression by a well organized community would not be successful initially, from the perspective of the aggressor, but at some point in the aggressors’ “campaign” an association of communities and individuals would stand up to, or be so obviously prepared to meet, such aggressive force that further aggression would be dissuaded or defeated, and either way, effectively halted.

There are other, maybe less obvious measures available to those individuals and communities that suffer from any initial “success” by the aggressor community; subversion and revolt. We of libertarian mind believe strongly in the power of ideas. The ideas that “absorbed” individuals (I think abducted seems more apt) would invariably spread throughout the aggressor community would have an eroding effect on the machinery of empire and quite possibly provide a force multiplier to any exterior, defensive force. These methods are also consistent with the idea of defensive force, since the abducted (by definition) have been taken and are being held against their will, and as such any force applied by them to regain and ensure their freedom would be appropriate.

Tom Sullivan

I found myself taking the “Federation of Liberty” tack in the argument – the effort to save these girls must be made through non-coercive persuasion, not government. Outsiders who care would take this education upon their shoulders, somehow connecting with these girls and talking them into leaving.

The person was exasperated with my argument though, kind of like “is that the best your system you can do?” This jives with Kukathas’s conclusion favoring the “federation of liberty”:

“The choice is not, in the end, a happy one. But philosophical choices often are of this nature, since
theory frequently leads us to reductios which are, if not absurd, unhappy or repugnant.”