Comments on: Statism in Libertarian Thinking http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/05/statism-in-libertarian-thinking-2/ Austro-Anarchist Libertarian Legal Theory Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:06:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: D Frank Robinson http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/05/statism-in-libertarian-thinking-2/comment-page-1/#comment-362 D Frank Robinson Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:04:29 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1327#comment-362 How do minarchists reconcile the necessity for a final authority with the right of secession? If a six person state has one person as a final authority which four people accept, does the sixth person retain the right to secede? If each person has an recognized unalienable right to secession, then is one person the smallest possible minarchy or is it anarchy? I confess I am unable to make a logical distinction unless one arbitrarily sets a minimum number of persons for a 'legitimate' secession. Hence, minarchists must arbitrarily deny any right of secession or concede their system must include at least one element that is arbitrary and irrational. From this position, if taken, there are only two logically pure positions: a) one universal "final authority" state with ONE monarch or b) each person is a final authority, i.e. anarchist - everyone is a 'monarch'. In the latter situation where each person is a monarch perhaps royal wars would be much less destructive and contained. This system would seem a real practical advantage for all other non-belligerent monarchs. I welcome an explanation of the flaw in my reasoning. How do minarchists reconcile the necessity for a final authority with the right of secession? If a six person state has one person as a final authority which four people accept, does the sixth person retain the right to secede? If each person has an recognized unalienable right to secession, then is one person the smallest possible minarchy or is it anarchy? I confess I am unable to make a logical distinction unless one arbitrarily sets a minimum number of persons for a ‘legitimate’ secession. Hence, minarchists must arbitrarily deny any right of secession or concede their system must include at least one element that is arbitrary and irrational. From this position, if taken, there are only two logically pure positions: a) one universal “final authority” state with ONE monarch or b) each person is a final authority, i.e. anarchist – everyone is a ‘monarch’.

In the latter situation where each person is a monarch perhaps royal wars would be much less destructive and contained. This system would seem a real practical advantage for all other non-belligerent monarchs.

I welcome an explanation of the flaw in my reasoning.

]]> By: Neverfox http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/07/05/statism-in-libertarian-thinking-2/comment-page-1/#comment-347 Neverfox Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:00:51 +0000 http://www.stephankinsella.com/?p=1327#comment-347 Well played, Stephan. Well played, Stephan.

]]>