Comments (11)

• Steven Kane

  What is really at issue here is the notion of a "one size fits all" government, which is what we have now, in the form of the federal and state governments. Problems of eminent domain arise from the fact that the federal and state governments have jurisdiction over a huge amount of area. If one is born in that area and one is raised in that area it is often costly for one to move to an area outside of that jurisdiction.

  Walter Block talked about this when he mentioned that the government is not a club, because if you born in and you reside in the area known as the United States, you are bound by federal law whether you signed a contract to be under that law or not. Since the federal and state governments have jurisdiction over such vast amounts of area, they justify eminent domain with roads that they claim help interstate commerce and so on, infringing upon the rights of citizens to refuse sale.

  My solution to this problem is micro-statism. Instead of having governments that have jurisdiction over huge areas with this "one size government fits all" mentality, why not have government only at the municipality level?

  With micro-statism the cost of moving to change one's system of government would be mitigated by the short distance of travel. One could choose a micro-state that had the laws and rules that they wanted. After moving to a particular micro-state the citizen would sign a contract legally binding them to the rules of that particular micro-state.

  This would turn the state into the condominium complex that Block discussed in his debate. The interstate highway system would be built through voluntary contracts that the micro-states would make between themselves, and would be funded by the micro-states that wanted to have access to those highways. As for eminent domain, it would be a part of the contracts that are signed by the citizens of the micro-states.

  Another aspect of micro-states is that they would offer MUCH more competition for businesses in terms of tax rates. The micro-states with the lowest tax burdens and regulations would get the most business. As it is now, there are basically only 50 competitors for business under the watchful eye of the federal government.

  A business that needs to be in California, for instance is stuck with california regulations and taxes. Imagine though, if there were hundreds of micro-states within California all competing for business, businesses within the state would be able to select a micro-state with a much lower tax rate and lower regulations.

  Published: May 18, 2004 3:17 AM

• Dirk Friedrich

  I would rather like to be a micro state of my own. I do not know of many things that I could not be able to deal with individually. However, if time or knowledge do not allow myself to pay attention to things like somebody planning to buy a right of way on my property I could very well associate with my like-minded neighbors and form a corporation whose purpose it is to do just that. I contribute my land to this corporation and get dividends in exchange.
  

  Published: May 18, 2004 6:59 AM

• Neil Block

  The original, prescribed form of the US government was one that relied mainly on local and county government as the dominant forces in everyday life. As de Tocqueville noted, citizens of each locality in the mid-1800s took a strong interest in local politics because they were able to more effectively voice their opinion in an area with smaller population.

  The state and federal governments were meant to be unwavering and not easily influenced by the will and whims of the people, a situation feared by Publius. This effectively created a competitive environment between and among cities to attract the best persons and commerce to their localities. Unfortunately, we have today an overreaching federal government that refuses to stay out of local and state politics and precludes sovereign rule at the "micro" level.

  Published: May 18, 2004 8:39 AM

• Jaime R. Purcell

  u. S. A. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
  To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And

  Even a flawed document as the uSAC seems to agree with the idea of micro-statism. If I read the above clause properly the Central government cannot purchase property within a State without the consent of that State. And I am not aware that the States in 1787 through subsequent amendment delegated to the Central government the authority of Eminent Domain. Of course, following the uSAC is moot since 1861.

  http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm
  (Link)

  http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm
  (Link)
  

  Published: May 18, 2004 1:11 PM

• Tracy Saboe

  Epstein makes an example of landowners drilling, and everybody drills the as much as possible, because if you have more then 5 people they won't be able to figure out property rights for it.

  But he forgets that oil drillers had systems of property rights for the oil under the ground that they had developed.

  Tracy

  Published: May 18, 2004 4:20 PM

• Tracy Saboe

  I also noticed toward the end that Epstein was making ad populum and ad hominum arguments. Epstein also needs to read "Free MArket Environmentalism."

  Tracy
  

  Published: May 18, 2004 4:54 PM

• David Heinrich

  First, thanks to the Mises Institute and those who worked to get this debate online. It is a very interesting exchange. Also, I was not aware that Hoppe was pronounced "Hoppee"; I had been mentally pronouncing it liket he word "hop", with a little emphasis on an e at the end.

  The only problem with that debate is that it didn't last long enough. When we have debates, they should last untThis brings me toil one person decides to call it quits (the other person can continue to go on after that, but then it is no longer a debate).

  In any case, I think Block got the better of Epstein. A few points to consider:

  (1) Epstein draws attention to the distinction between Iraq and the US. In Iraq, there is total government. In the US, there is more limited government. Of course, I would rather live in the US than Iraq; of course, Block and Epstein, and everyone else that I can imagine, would also prefer such. However, Block argues that the US is better in spite of, not because of, the State characteristic. If I have to live under a mafia lord, I'd rather live under one who's lazy, stupid, and lax than one who's brilliant, exacting, and meticulous. However, that does not alter the wrongness.

  This relates to some of Hoppe's excellent paper's on history and State's. See:

  Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. JLS. 9(2):79-93.
  http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

  The Political Economy of Monarchy and Democracy, and the Idea of a Natural Order. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. JLS. 11(2):94-121.
  http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_3.pdf

  Something of interest to me is Epstein's vs. Block's definition of homesteading. According to Epstein, when I farm out a square acre of land, I own everything from a conical going to inwards towards the center of the Earth, and outwards in the vast abyss of space. Block argues that we only only what we actually homestead. Block, however, points out that when if I were to dig a meter beneath someone elses' property, causing their property to collapse, I had initiated aggression against them. The argument here is that my mining so close beneath their property directly caused their property to cave in: thus, I initiated aggression against them. If my actions cause the destruction of someone elses' property, then I've initiated aggression against them.

  I agree with that. However, a few potential cases puzzle me. Let's say Block homesteads a plot of land to farm on. I then build a platform 500 meters high above his land, using supports from the surrounding land, effectively completely blocking out the sun and rendering all of his land in complete darkness. All of his crops die. What is to be said of that? What if, given some advanced future state of technology*, it was possible for someone to completely cover the sun with panels that absorbed and stored all of it's energy, rendering the Earth in total and complete blackness? What of that?

  These examples also seem to fit, I argue, under the initiation of aggression.

  Epstein made an intentially humorous remark that he suggested we fence off a large plot of land, call it "Block-haven", and allow Block and everyone else who believes as he does to go there and set up anarcho-capitalism, and then a number of years later, we'd open up the gates and drag out the bodies. Well, I would call Epstein on that challenge, and I'd argue that a civilized society would emerge. As Epstein points out, David Friedman only points to one example of anarcho-capitalism -- Ancient Iceland; however, there is another, even better example -- Ancient Ireland; and a third, though less exceptional, example, the not so Wild Wild West.

  This brings me to an interesting ideas, which is cruise ships. The Queen Elizabeth II has been built, and it is enormous -- 400 meters (1200 feet) long, and some 20 or more stories high. It is literally a floating hotel. When the ship sets sail to the middle of the ocean, is there any State? No. Yet, chaos does not break out. In fact, cruise ships tend to be some of the most civilized places on Earth, which brings me to an idea.

  Perhaps an interesting route to anarcho-capitalism is through many permanently at-sail cruise ships.

  * See The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps. Savage, Marshall T.
  http://tinyurl.com/2ggz9

  Published: May 18, 2004 7:43 PM

• Johan Ridenfeldt

  States David Heinrich:

  Something of interest to me is Epstein's vs. Block's definition of homesteading. According to Epstein, when I farm out a square acre of land, I own everything from a conical going to inwards towards the center of the Earth, and outwards in the vast abyss of space. Block argues that we only only what we actually homestead. Block, however, points out that when if I were to dig a meter beneath someone elses' property, causing their property to collapse, I had initiated aggression against them. The argument here is that my mining so close beneath their property directly caused their property to cave in: thus, I initiated aggression against them. If my actions cause the destruction of someone elses' property, then I've initiated aggression against them.

  I agree with that. However, a few potential cases puzzle me. Let's say Block homesteads a plot of land to farm on. I then build a platform 500 meters high above his land, using supports from the surrounding land, effectively completely blocking out the sun and rendering all of his land in complete darkness. All of his crops die. What is to be said of that? What if, given some advanced future state of technology*, it was possible for someone to completely cover the sun with panels that absorbed and stored all of it's energy, rendering the Earth in total and complete blackness? What of that?

  These examples also seem to fit, I argue, under the initiation of aggression.

  [———]

  * See The Millennial Project: Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps. Savage, Marshall T.
  http://tinyurl.com/2ggz9

  
  Dear Mr. Heinrich,

  Actually, Professor Block has already addressed this subject; see, e. g., Walter Block & Matthew Block, “Roads, Bridges, Sunlight, and Private Property Rights� (online HTML document), Journal des économistes et des études humaines: Bilingual Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. VII, nos. 2–3 (June–September 1996): 351–362, and Walter Block, “Roads, Bridges, Sunlight, and Private Property: Reply to Tullock� (online HTML document), Journal des économistes et des études humaines: Bilingual Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. VIII, nos. 2–3 (June–September 1998): 315–326.

  
  Yours respectfully in Liberty,

  Johan Ridenfeldt

  Published: May 19, 2004 7:26 AM

• Otto Drachen

  Also, I was not aware that Hoppe was pronounced "Hoppee"; I had been mentally pronouncing it liket he word "hop", with a little emphasis on an e at the end.

  The correct pronunciation is HAW-puh.

  Perhaps an interesting route to anarcho-capitalism is through many permanently at-sail cruise ships.

  Such a ship already exists. It is called the freedom ship. www.freedomship.com

  Published: May 19, 2004 11:20 AM

• David Heinrich

  Dear Mr. Ridenfeldt,

  Thank you so much for the references to Block's papers discussing the issue I raised. They are very interesting, and do much to answer the questions I put forth.

  Dear Mr. Drachen,

  Thank you very much for the link to the Freedom Shipo. However, this does not appear to be an attempt to create a libertarian society afloat at sea, judging from the ship's FAQ (http://www.freedomship.com/freedomship/FAQ/FAQ.shtml):

  As is the case for every sea vessel, Freedom Ship will be subject to international maritime law and the laws of the country whose flag it flies. It will operate under the same rules and regulations as a cruise ship. The Freedom Ship community will adhere strictly to established international legal principles. There is no intent to establish a new world-view or legal system in any manner or degree...

  The Freedom Ship community has not been conceived as a tax haven. While the community itself will levy no taxes, citizens of countries such as the USA would not realize any income tax savings by residing in or running businesses in the community, at least at the federal level, since American citizens are taxed on their worldwide income. USA citizens living abroad are given tax deductions, but not if they reside on a ship. Citizens of certain other countries may realize tax savings by residing in or running businesses in the Freedom Ship community, as they would by residing in or running businesses in any country outside their own. Nonetheless, that is not one of the reasons the project was conceived.

  This seems like a far cry from creating a libertarian society to me, though life on-board this ship certainly would be freer than anywhere else in the world:
  1. The ship would need to fly no flag, and renounce belonging to any nation.
     
     
  2. It would have to adhere -- not to arbitrary and unjust "world rules" -- but to the libertarian principles of non-aggression, homesteading, and privitization.
     
     
  3. While not necessarily having to function as a tax haven, it would have to at the very least not offer any institutionalized assistance to State's trying to rob it's passengers of the money they rightfully own via "taxes". This is not as big a problem, since one can renounce one's citizenship. However, such is not a perfect solution, as many nations (like the US) have the temerity to tax citizens after they've renounced their citizenship (I read this on a Mises.org article, but don't have the reference at hand).

  Sincerely,

  David J. Heinrich

  Published: May 19, 2004 1:01 PM

• Brian Nickerson

  I think this was an excellent discussion, it did go a bit downhill near the end as most discussions will, and unfortunately Block didn't counter the 'some isolated village in Iceland' argument directly which was a shame. Granted, on the floor most would not have done so well, but that's another topic entirely.

  I enjoyed Epstein's thoughtful observation, but he made the same mistake that many economists and intellectuals make in attempting to counter arguments by the Austrian or Anarcho-Capitalist modes: They argue utility, Austrian or other An-Caps argue morality. That is, it doesn't matter if I'm made fabulously rich, what is criminal is still criminal, whether I initiate crimes that benefit me, or I'm one of many victims abused, and by some proxy (public works, for example) I actually profit from that crime. To the An-Cap position, this is irrelevant. All that matters is that it was against my consent.

  I don't consider myself an Austrian or a believer in Anarcho Capitalism orthodoxically, but I do believe in Liberty, and I do hate the state. Essentially I'm still on the intellectual road, but with liberty as the only guidepost I've managed to knock a few teeth out of a number of ideas, without using any formalized intellectual systems at that.

  Published: August 29, 2006 3:33 PM