The Nationalities Question
What national boundaries can be considered as just? There are no just national boundaries per se, writes Murray Rothbard. Real justice can only be founded on the property rights of individuals. If fifty people decided voluntarily to set up an organization for common services or self-defense of their persons and properties in a certain geographical area, then the boundaries of that association, based on the just property rights of the members, will also be just. National boundaries are only just insofar as they are based on voluntary consent and the property rights of their members or citizens. Just national boundaries are, then, at best derivative and not primary. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (6)
Until 1945 a nation required a large army, a large navy, or a unique geographical/physical situation in order to exist in the face of hostile enemies. Since the development of baby nukes and cruise missles this is no longer true. In this century, the USofA has no tactical advantage over the Talaban because we can't use our ultimate weapon and the sane "Stans" can't start an all out war against Israel because they don't want their cities wiped out by Jewish Nukes.
Old saying something to the effect that God created us equal but Col. Sam Colt made it a reality. Well, Albert Einstein has recreated the potential of all nations being equal. Why should MAD only be effective for two nations on this globe.
If the USofA was willing to "put our money where our mouth is," we would issue a couple of nukes mounted on cruise missles to every peaceful nation. I suppose "peaceful" could be defined by not having participated in any invasion in the last ten years.
Published: January 5, 2007 10:53 AM
I agree with you on this one, Billwald! I've opposed the nuclear nonproliferation doctrine on the grounds that it internationalized the liberal vision of gun control.
My solution to Iran's desire for nukes was to give them some good ol' 'merican-made ones. At least they would be good'uns and wouldn't hit Tulsa when they aimed at London. MADD sounds mad, but it worked for half a century against the USSR and should work for us until we have a real working star wars.
Published: January 5, 2007 11:01 AM
London? Tel Aviv.
"Until 1945 a nation required a large army, a large navy, or a unique geographical/physical situation in order to exist in the face of hostile enemies."
Demonstrably not true. Nations persist and are, in fact, defining themselves ever smaller.
Published: January 5, 2007 11:11 AM
Most people think I'm crazy not to mind M.A.D and nuclear proliferation, so maybe you people agreeing with me need to get your heads checked.
Rothbard is correct that all borders are the result of violent seizure. But Kevin Carson replies that all property is also the result of that. To me dickering about "justice" is pointless. There's no oracle to say what's "really" just and people won't agree with any decision. I take the consequentialist view. I don't care if I'm living on land stolen from Neandertals (I'm not actually European, but that's what I'd say if I was), trying to right the wrongs of the past is futile. I just want the government out of my face. I like Rothbard's suggestion of not allowing immigrants the right to vote. That's what the Gulf States do, and if we did the same thing I wouldn't have as much of a problem with immigration. Immigrants don't vote libertarian. I know, I know, native born Americans don't either but they are far more libertarian in their beliefs than immigrants from countries like Mexico.
Published: January 5, 2007 4:34 PM
Rothbard's faith in "internal" self-determination is somewhat misplaced. During such episodes (e.g., the American Revolution), there is PLENTY of coercion of one voter (neighbor) by another, and that's even IF the referendum is: (a) secret ballot; and (b) counted honestly. And the Revolution was not the first, nor the last, instance of such stuff.
Something resembling a micro-secessionist situation has been invented in the areas Israel has occupied on its periphery (West Bank, Gaza). There are roads in the West Bank (and were in Gaza) linking Jewish settlements to Israel that non-Israelis aren't allowed to use. This network severely chops up the areas for non-Jews, who have to cross check-points and are NOT allowed to CROSS these supra-national linking roads at most times.
Makes me wonder how this was handled vis-a-vis the Berlin Corridor 1948-1989. These land-access routes can be MOST inconvenient for BOTH parties to such agreements. Must be like, "When the light turns red, the intersection is Israel." A whole new meaning for traffic signals.
Published: January 5, 2007 8:11 PM
RogerM
When this operable "star wars" system becomes available one would assume it would be distributed to all nations...
Sione
Published: January 7, 2007 2:19 PM