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.

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.

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

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

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. http://www.freedomship.com

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.