By: Michael Otsuka

Michael Otsuka — Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:34:44 +0000

Thanks very much, Chris, once again, for your comments. You’re right that I don’t completely sign on to the voluntarist claim that consent is a necessary condition of legitimate political authority. Nevertheless, I think we each have a stringent right not to be subject to political authority without our own consent. It follows that only extreme practical necessity would legitimize political authority in the absence of consent. The following analogy might be useful: I have a right not to have my kidney removed without my consent (and also, incidentally, a right to transfer my kidney with my consent). There are, however, extreme circumstances in which it would be legitimate to remove my kidney without my consent (e.g., that’s the only way to prevent some disease from killing millions). I don’t think one’s right not to be subject to political authority without one’s consent is as stringent as one’s right not to have one’s kidney removed without one’s consent. Nevertheless, I think it a stringent right which places serious limits on what the state may legitimately do. I think actual states systematically violate this right. It doesn’t, however, follow, that we are entitled to suddenly all stop obeying the laws of actual states, since the ensuing anarchy would be worse than states which violate this right. Nevertheless, states which take our rights seriously must transform themselves into much more voluntarist organizations in the longer term.

By: Maureen

Maureen — Sun, 07 Dec 2003 04:30:36 +0000

Why does The State, as in “how many welfare benefits you’ll get”, have to be geographically defined? Personally, I’m interested in a solution where citizens can choose different individual “public welfare plans”, much as people choose between various health care plans. Each little “plan group” would have different regulatory commissions that would put their stamps of approval on stuff—for example, Nicky’s Goat and Rat Shack couldn’t be closed down for business per se if it were infected with rats, but the absence of any of the regulatory boards’ approval stamps (and since we’re talking about many different groups with many different standards, most halfway decent places should be able to get ), along with a nice big sign stating that the place had rejected for approval by groups X, Y, and Z, would deter everyone from going there. Meanwhile Wal-Mart would have a “seal of approval” by the Paleoconservative Labor Board, but would have a big red X from the Leftish Labor Board, the Human Rights Labor Board, the Civil Libertarians, etc.

Comments on: Libertarianism without inequality (5)

By: Michael Otsuka

By: Maureen