From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Sep 06 1999 - 00:09:49 MDT
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I think the whole concept of enclaves is outdated.
>
> Now that people can become a member of more and more different
> societies easier than ever, why would we need to ditch the
> traditional state in favor of "private enclaves"?
The question becomes, what are the benefits and costs of
remaining under the jurisdiction of a specific state.
If my "state" wants me to go to Mars to fight against
the libertarian "Free Mars" people, I may have a problem
with that. If my state wants to use my taxes to criminalize
the consumption of drugs by informed adults, I may have
a problem with that as well (since I view it as the
falling under the jurisdiction of natural selection).
It isn't the problem of joining more societies that is
important, it is the problem of assuring that other
societies (governments, SPAM mail distributors,
Telemarketers, etc.) do not have rights over you
that is the problem. It is the problem of an
individual asserting that an external party has
no "claim" over his income, behavior, time (e.g.
for jury duty), etc. without his prior informed consent
(i.e. contractual agreement).
If the external parties do not try to impose their
perspectives without your contractual agreement then
there is no need for enclaves. However, I doubt
that will occur anytime soon.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:02 MST