This will be more of an ordinary comment on the article “My question to libertarianism ...”. (read it at https://telegra.ph/Moj-vopros-k-libertarianstvu-05-30) by one of the subscribers of our Telegram channel. I'm doing this because I've been asked to tell you what I think about what it says. But in addition to my comments, I would like to present my theory of how a libertarian and cosmopolitan society can function together.
“Libertarianism is a very interesting way of organizing society. Of course, the world would most likely be a better place, such a libertarian (ed. libertarian) separation of jurisdictions and communities would achieve unrealistic freedom and high levels of happiness on Earth everywhere. But such a separation could slow down general scientific progress, for example. And then a legitimate question arises, on which the impact of libertarianism on society depends: what about world associations?
Will there be any?”
Most likely, by world associations we can mean world (or international, supranational) organizations, various associations and unions, I take it.
Of course there will be such associations. But it is more accurate to say that world associations have long existed (although they represent something different, of a different nature, not quite like what we will discuss below). But let us first distinguish the terms we will use here so that there is no confusion.
A world association is an association of different communes all over the world into one structure (organization, union), which are close in some principles. Probably, there must be some set of rules by which such an association functions and by which it is determined whether some commune should be in it. But it probably cannot have its own jurisdiction, which applies to all those who are members of the association. After all, the world association consists of similar but different communes that already have their own jurisdictions. But this is only my personal suggestion; I could well have misunderstood something.
A commune is an association of people who are close in some way (political, religious, life in general) in one group on a certain territory, where there are their own rules and laws. That is, there is a jurisdiction under which all the people in the commune live. But, by the way, this is not quite a panarchy, because here there is a territorial principle, and there is an extraterritorial one.
But we have gone a bit off topic....
“If so, then joining there would be voluntary, most likely. In such a case, the right to withdraw should be free. Consequently, the obligations will not always be respected, because if the conditions are unfavorable for a particular community, it will simply withdraw. So, it will violate the principle of this organization, accepted by a certain group of communities, and if this principle follows the principle of non-aggression, then the withdrawn community will violate it, which means that it will simply perish. Hence, adherence to the non-aggression principle would be coercive, aggressive, and this is contrary to libertarianism.”
I'm not quite sure what there is to contradict the principles of libertarianism here. I can just give some case that could happen under such a system to explain the principle of freedom of association to our readers.
Let's say there is a world socialist association. It includes absolutely different communes all over the world, where people live under the socialist system. In these communes live, understandably, convinced socialists. They can live there if they accept all the rules and laws that are established there. Therefore, they are obliged to obey them, otherwise a person will not be accepted there. But if, after a person has been admitted to a socialist commune, he starts telling everyone that market relations are very good, he will be expelled from the commune. And in general, he can leave the commune himself, if, for example, after a while he realized that his views have changed. And depending on his new views, he joins another commune. This is called freedom of association in its purest form.
But if by some miracle (let's just do this thought experiment) many people in a socialist commune (which is in a socialist world association) changed their views to capitalist ones, and after a general decision changed the principles, rules and laws of the commune, then obviously it should leave the socialist world association (if it doesn't, it will be expelled) and join the capitalist association (but it is unlikely to be a direct association of exclusively people who favor capitalism. Perhaps they can join a social-liberal or social-democratic association).
So there is no aggression or coercion. Quite in the spirit of libertarianism and its NAP.
“If not, then in that case no scientific progress can be possible, for there will be no community agreement as such for the purpose of development. And no jurisdiction can do it alone. And, for example, if there is not something like the UN, there will be no universally accepted conventions, for example, on the rights of the child (I will mention this legal act below). Consequently, human rights will be violated in some communities, and this is contrary to libertarianism. If respect for these rights is mandatory, then the situation from the paragraph above will be repeated, where non-compliance with certain organizational obligations is reduced to violence".
But everything is not limited to world associations. There can be as many as there are. Dozens, maybe hundreds. And they are all disconnected and independent of each other. So there must be something else besides them. That something must be a unifying factor that will regulate the relationship between the different jurisdictions and resolve issues of a global nature. Below, after all my comments, I will write more about how such a system could actually be organized. I think it is useless to duplicate the information, but I will write in general terms, more related to what is written above.
Of course it will be possible to adopt various conventions that will cover many spheres of life. It is also necessary to create some bodies that will monitor violations or fulfillment of what is written in those conventions, because some communes may well violate them. But such regulation does not lead to violence, as one might assume, for example in trying to fulfill certain rules. It works like this: if one person commits any action directed against another person (that is, anything that can harm him in any way: violation of his rights (and this includes not adopting conventions to protect any rights), restriction of freedom, aggression, coercion, various influences), he is put in prison. And if we are talking about a more progressive society, prisons should have normal living conditions. After all, we are trying to re-educate a person, not to bury him for decades in a damp and dirty cell with a terrible diet. Obviously, with such conditions, there is no way to re-educate a person.
And here we come to exactly the same conclusion as at the end of my last comment. Namely, by seating or removing certain individuals from office (who may not be the last person in some commune) who do not accept universal and universal conventions for the protection of human rights and violate them, which badly affects the quality of life of the people living in that commune, then there is no violence, because we are simply restricting their powers so that they cannot degrade the overall quality of life.
“Oh, and I have another important question for libertarians. What is their attitude towards world organizations, do they recognize them?
I'll give you a great example: The Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by all UN members (and there are almost all the countries of the world). In the preamble (introduction) of this legal act there are such lines:
... the child should be fully prepared for independent life in society and educated in the ideals enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and especially in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity.
If libertarians recognize this, however, the question arises. Is not the obligation to raise a child in the spirit of certain agreed ideals a restriction of liberty? If a community rejects these principles, will it not be followed by violence against that community in order to recognize this rule? Once again, the principles of libertarianism are violated".
It is clear that not all libertarians and especially not all people fully recognize global organizations and their various conventions. But such organizations have their own ideological component, which, in their opinion, is the best and suitable, if not for all, then for the majority of people on the planet. But with their ideals of universal brotherhood, freedom and equality they can only cause negative reactions in societies of traditionalist and conservative way of life. And we should also realize that this is their scenario of happiness, but we can have the exact opposite scenario, but we should not impose our interests and ideals on them, one of the ways to live.
But here is the catch: if their “scenario of happiness” is based on killing or oppressing people who are different from them, organizing terrorist acts, creating worse living conditions, then it is worth thinking about and taking action, because this is not one of the scenarios of happiness and options for creating a happy life, but the most common problems with the head.
That is, we must be able to distinguish between all this and recognize the cover of violence and brutality as a “traditional way of life”.
That is why all conventions should be drafted not according to the principles and political position of the organization that issues them, but according to the principles described above. It turns out that human upbringing should take place not in the way the UN has written, but taking into account the place of upbringing and education, taking into account the way of life in that society, the personal preferences of the individual, and with a clear condemnation of any kind of violence, aggression, and respect for people of different opinions or positions, generally different from them. Everything that hinders the life of every human being on earth must be condemned. This is universal.
“But since they don't recognize these kinds of organizations, therefore they don't recognize the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, therefore they turn a blind eye to discrimination against children. But that's inhumane, isn't it? It allows the violation of human rights and freedoms. And without world organizations it is quite difficult to prevent possible major military conflicts between communities, but this is a topic for a whole separate article...”.
But I still think that they will not be able to recognize a convention. We are talking about a different system, where people will think differently, clearly more progressive than our contemporaries. Even the most ardent conservative will notice in time that not recognizing a convention on the rights of the child can somehow affect his son's life. And he will not be the only one. And the will of the people, especially under the system we are talking about, cannot be suppressed.
That's why the various conventions protecting human rights will be adopted by all communes. It's a matter of time.
In general, I think that such discussions about the future world order, which cover not the abstract unification of the Earth, which is unclear how it will be realized, but concrete problems that can really appear. Now, when we will not live to see the system we are discussing, we must think out solutions in advance to the problems that may appear then. We must do mental experiments, discuss and build theories.
And now I would like to provide you with a possible model, according to which a cosmopolitan world order can function on the principles of libertarianism.
We can take the system of world federalism as a basis, but the libertarian model will be more decentralized (i.e. there will be communes instead of states).
So, in world federalism, the national republics make their own policies (but if those policies lead to some bad consequences, global bodies intervene), and the world government deals with global issues. We can modify this system somewhat. Instead of national republics, we can have territorial communes operating on libertarian NAP principles. But in addition to them, there are world associations and extraterritorial communes, jurisdictions (panarchical model). In this case, a person is periodically in both territorial and extraterritorial communes. This can happen in the following way: a person living in a commune goes beyond its borders, but he is subject not to the laws of the commune where he is, but to the jurisdiction of his commune. And it works the other way around: people subject to extraterritorial jurisdictions can come together in the same territory to live in a commune.
Territorial and extraterritorial communes of the same orientation all over the world can unite in a world association to improve their living conditions and cooperate.
World associations should agree among themselves to solve more global issues, if this is required.
There are various world bodies that deal with global issues and regulate relations between communes, jurisdictions and world associations. These instances are: world parliament, inter-jurisdictional court (court for regulating relations between people from different jurisdictions), inter-jurisdictional police and so on.
Their powers: they deal with world affairs, but do not interfere in the affairs of communes at the local level. But there is an exception: if human rights are violated in a commune and such conditions are created that a person lives there badly, then in such a case the world authorities can intervene in their affairs to create good conditions for living there.
At the global level, there is also a set of rules that all people must obey, regardless of their affiliation with a jurisdiction. It is important to note that there will be only universal rules suitable for all people (like no killing, no robbery, respect for other people). That is, these rules will not be based on any ideology.
Thus, we looked at the cosmopolitan system with libertarian principles from different angles. This is a topic that almost no one talks about, even in the English-speaking segment. But here, this article presents a coordinately new system that no one has comprehensively covered before. That is why you and I can continue to develop this topic, to discuss it, to propose something new, to compile and describe in more detail one of the most progressive political models.