Does the right of secession render any law or agreement
arbitrary? Couldn't one secede from any law or agreement, from business
dealings to murder, and just claim they are seceding?
- How would
agreements or contracts be enforced in a voluntary society without resorting to
duress?
- Is the idea of
"rule of law" applicable to a voluntary society?
Secession can be a confusing topic, one that is generally made even more confusing when made too abstract. Secession could be understood a few different ways:
I. Right to withdraw from a union, confederation, or other forms of government.
II. "...withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity." (Wiki)
III. The right and ability to vote with your feet.
Secession, in terms of the above definitions, is clear to understand. But what about in regards to laws, agreements, pacts, and so forth? We can answer this but first we have to understand the nature of the agreements referenced. What kind of agreements are we discussing? What are these pacts? What form of law do we mean here? I'll briefly discuss these to clear up the topic of secession.
Secession may apply to agreements and pacts but this depends on the context. What kind of agreements and pacts do we mean? Agreement, here, can only really mean something like a treaty or a contract. A pact in this instance would have to refer to a kind of formalized agreement or formalized treaty between two entities. Other definitions of the words wouldn't apply to secession (you can't secede from harmony or consensus, nor from a state of density), so let's focus on the context that does apply. The question at the root of this, based on context, is this: can one exercise the right of secession in regards to treaties, contracts, and legally binding agreements? The answer is yes. Treaties and pacts don't remove the sovereign quality of a group\nation\state through the act of signing it. I will explain more of this below, for sake of clarity. The only issue we have to consider is whether or not a contract or legal agreement details consequences for a breech in contract. If such consequences were agreed upon, then they would likely be legally binding. If they were draconian in nature, it is highly unlikely such a contract would be signed voluntarily and as such this concern is a non-issue.
Does secession apply to law and the rule of law? Certainly. The confusing part about this issue is the form of law enforcement in a voluntary society. In a voluntary society, there would be no monopoly on violence. As such, market forces would lead to the production of private security and law enforcement. Going hand-in-hand with that, we would see that different areas and different clients would naturally prefer to hire security agents to enforce specific laws. Many of the laws, especially those involving victimless crime, that we see today would probably not be enforced and instead would be relegated to housing contracts and housing agreements. Murder, on the other hand, is not a crime that would likely vanish due to its very basic nature (it's ubiquitous in its prohibition across many time-periods and regions). And even if a murder took place in a no-man's land, the insurers and private security forces of the murdered would likely still pursue the murderer regardless. Lastly we must consider the very likely scenario of outlawry. If a person did kill another and then attempted to "secede" from an area where it was illegal (which, again, would likely be almost everywhere), it would likely be the case that such individuals would become outlaws and would find themselves outside the protection of others, and would likely become prey themselves.
Going back to the discussion of contracts and treaties, we need to understand the underlying principle at work. What is the principle, the mechanism, that allows for secession? The right of secession is that, a human right. It doesn't emanate from pieces of paper, nor does it emanate from agreements between people. Human rights, regardless of how you explain their principle source, are an inherent quality in humans. As such, you cannot sign away your own rights and this includes the right of secession. Whatever the nature of the treaty or agreement of political union signed by parties involved, it cannot erase a human right. For that reason, we cannot logically defend the argument that a binding union of sovereign parties can destroy the essential human rights of said parties.
♠
The question of rule of law in a voluntary society is one that I covered before. However I will take this moment to discuss it a bit more here. Agreements and contracts would be enforced through competing courts of law. Accordingly we would see different forms of enforcement depending on the violation at hand. Violations of contract, as opposed to violations of law, would likely have differing forms of enforcement in comparison to, say, rape or murder. And it is important to see a distinction between contract violations and actual law breaking.
Take this scenario as an example. Let's say that in a city, there is no law about smoking. Despite this, a business could have its employees agree, under contract, not to smoke on the job. A violation of this contractual agreement wouldn't be a violation of law, since there is no law against it. The business would then punish the employee either through write-up, firing, or a fine. In general, I am highly suspect of the idea that private insurers of security would have victimless crimes be illegal, since its clientele would have to pay for law enforcement and coverage themselves. We would likely see a huge amount of variation in the laws in regions, and people would self-segregate based on lifestyle.
Laws, on the other hand, would have to be enforced through the agents of private security companies. Hans-Hermann Hoppe suggests that these would likely be insurance companies, due to the nature of their industry. In such a scenario, people and places would have different companies offering different forms of security coverage and apprehension. While they may employ violence, there is nothing anti-libertarian about this. Violence in defense of self or others is not the creation of aggression; it is a response to aggression. So the rule of law would apply to voluntary societies, but we should expect to see a great diversity in how law enforcement would manifest.
♠
For more on these topics, please see my past post which contains multiple links describing and exploring the topic of private law:
Private Law Enforcement: The Two Farms Revisited
Additionally check out these links:
Nationalism and Secession by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy - The God That Failed
Secession can be a confusing topic, one that is generally made even more confusing when made too abstract. Secession could be understood a few different ways:
I. Right to withdraw from a union, confederation, or other forms of government.
II. "...withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity." (Wiki)
III. The right and ability to vote with your feet.
Secession, in terms of the above definitions, is clear to understand. But what about in regards to laws, agreements, pacts, and so forth? We can answer this but first we have to understand the nature of the agreements referenced. What kind of agreements are we discussing? What are these pacts? What form of law do we mean here? I'll briefly discuss these to clear up the topic of secession.
Secession may apply to agreements and pacts but this depends on the context. What kind of agreements and pacts do we mean? Agreement, here, can only really mean something like a treaty or a contract. A pact in this instance would have to refer to a kind of formalized agreement or formalized treaty between two entities. Other definitions of the words wouldn't apply to secession (you can't secede from harmony or consensus, nor from a state of density), so let's focus on the context that does apply. The question at the root of this, based on context, is this: can one exercise the right of secession in regards to treaties, contracts, and legally binding agreements? The answer is yes. Treaties and pacts don't remove the sovereign quality of a group\nation\state through the act of signing it. I will explain more of this below, for sake of clarity. The only issue we have to consider is whether or not a contract or legal agreement details consequences for a breech in contract. If such consequences were agreed upon, then they would likely be legally binding. If they were draconian in nature, it is highly unlikely such a contract would be signed voluntarily and as such this concern is a non-issue.
Does secession apply to law and the rule of law? Certainly. The confusing part about this issue is the form of law enforcement in a voluntary society. In a voluntary society, there would be no monopoly on violence. As such, market forces would lead to the production of private security and law enforcement. Going hand-in-hand with that, we would see that different areas and different clients would naturally prefer to hire security agents to enforce specific laws. Many of the laws, especially those involving victimless crime, that we see today would probably not be enforced and instead would be relegated to housing contracts and housing agreements. Murder, on the other hand, is not a crime that would likely vanish due to its very basic nature (it's ubiquitous in its prohibition across many time-periods and regions). And even if a murder took place in a no-man's land, the insurers and private security forces of the murdered would likely still pursue the murderer regardless. Lastly we must consider the very likely scenario of outlawry. If a person did kill another and then attempted to "secede" from an area where it was illegal (which, again, would likely be almost everywhere), it would likely be the case that such individuals would become outlaws and would find themselves outside the protection of others, and would likely become prey themselves.
Going back to the discussion of contracts and treaties, we need to understand the underlying principle at work. What is the principle, the mechanism, that allows for secession? The right of secession is that, a human right. It doesn't emanate from pieces of paper, nor does it emanate from agreements between people. Human rights, regardless of how you explain their principle source, are an inherent quality in humans. As such, you cannot sign away your own rights and this includes the right of secession. Whatever the nature of the treaty or agreement of political union signed by parties involved, it cannot erase a human right. For that reason, we cannot logically defend the argument that a binding union of sovereign parties can destroy the essential human rights of said parties.
♠
The question of rule of law in a voluntary society is one that I covered before. However I will take this moment to discuss it a bit more here. Agreements and contracts would be enforced through competing courts of law. Accordingly we would see different forms of enforcement depending on the violation at hand. Violations of contract, as opposed to violations of law, would likely have differing forms of enforcement in comparison to, say, rape or murder. And it is important to see a distinction between contract violations and actual law breaking.
Take this scenario as an example. Let's say that in a city, there is no law about smoking. Despite this, a business could have its employees agree, under contract, not to smoke on the job. A violation of this contractual agreement wouldn't be a violation of law, since there is no law against it. The business would then punish the employee either through write-up, firing, or a fine. In general, I am highly suspect of the idea that private insurers of security would have victimless crimes be illegal, since its clientele would have to pay for law enforcement and coverage themselves. We would likely see a huge amount of variation in the laws in regions, and people would self-segregate based on lifestyle.
Laws, on the other hand, would have to be enforced through the agents of private security companies. Hans-Hermann Hoppe suggests that these would likely be insurance companies, due to the nature of their industry. In such a scenario, people and places would have different companies offering different forms of security coverage and apprehension. While they may employ violence, there is nothing anti-libertarian about this. Violence in defense of self or others is not the creation of aggression; it is a response to aggression. So the rule of law would apply to voluntary societies, but we should expect to see a great diversity in how law enforcement would manifest.
♠
Private Law Enforcement: The Two Farms Revisited
Additionally check out these links:
Nationalism and Secession by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Democracy - The God That Failed
No comments:
Post a Comment