A "just revolution" theory


  I take anarchy to mean "no government." I have the impression that you believe (and feel free to correct me if I'm using inaccurate wording) that government by definition necessarily involves systemic initiation of force, and therefore any system which would prohibit systemic initiation of force would amount to anarchy. This may be a central point of disagreement, as I believe it's possible to have government generally based on non-initiation of force.

  Once you accept the general principle of a right to self-determination and political secession, as I do, I find it very difficult to come up with a reasonable argument against allowing individual secession, although it does seem to come very close to resulting in anarchy.

  Regarding what I consider one of the only initiations of force which would might require a libertarian government to compromise its principles, the apparent necessity of bringing accused persons to trial, I recently heard it suggested that force should not be employed in this instance, but rather people who refused to appear for trial would forfeit government's protections, so that if their rights were otherwise violated, government would take no action to protect them. This would appear to amount to allowing individual secession, yet a government would still exist, so it would not consider the situation to be anarchy.

  Another problem area for a libertarian government would be maintaining a monopoly as government for some specific area. Clearly the above arrangement would allow such a monopoly to be slowly undermined. I'm not sure I have a problem with that; my intuitive sense is that few people besides force-initiating outlaws who refused to be accountable to society for their actions would wish to secede from such a government, and if they did, that it would be an indication that the system wasn't working very well and therefore the moves toward secession could constitute a positive development.

  While we're engaged in this conversation, here are some questions for you. Wouldn't the kind of platform you've been advocating in which the LP would self-identify as always seeking more liberty (direction-oriented rather than destination-oriented) also imply things like allowing individual secession and not forcing people to trial, but do so without the virtue of spelling these things out as desirable goals, therefore making it likely that many people would ignore the platform's implications and be intellectually inconsistent in settling for various government force-initiations while claiming to stand by the platform? How would they be less incoherent in your view, than those who simultaneously defend the Non-Aggression Principle and support limited government? If a direction-oriented approach does imply support for what you see as anarchist views, why is that in your view less objectionable than what you contend is the 2004 platform's implicit advocacy of anarchy?

  Is the EcoLibertarian site yours, by the way? I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but it's very well-written and contains important points I do agree with, like consideration of other species and geo-libertarian ideas about land, that many libertarians ignore. I would be interested to see a full list of your websites, as you seem to have a lot of stuff out there.

  The Platform Committee's Self-Determination plank...