Yuyutsu,

And is it possible that states in South America need to have more, not less, widespread and effective security measures across their respective countries, while safeguarding the civil rights of all their populations ?

Except, of course, those who do not wish to be part of the country, and who therefore have no rights in it, not even the right to be protected from 'armed robbers' ?

Travelling to South America soon, Yuyutsu ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Very much so for your first two questions, no for the third.

The primary function of a state is to protect its citizens, I never suggested that they should stop doing so.

Of course you need to protect your people against those who threaten to harm them, but assume for example a peaceful monastery up the hill whose only wish is to be left alone so they can pray and meditate - you have no need to protect against them.

Indeed, those who do not wish to belong to a state should not be protected by it (unless of course some mutual agreement is reached between both parties). I could suggest that those monks/nuns should better defend themselves, but whether they do is really up to them.

Yuyutsu,

" ..... assume for example a peaceful monastery up the hill whose only wish is to be left alone so they can pray and meditate - you have no need to protect against them."

Of course, they are still entitled. I don't know what you mean by 'to protect against them'. Even if they are left alone, as they would be, they are still entitled to the protection of any government of the territory they are living in. There must be many, many people in any country who want 'to be left alone' but are still entitled to be protected.

This would not put any obligation on them to actively take part in any of the affairs of the State. They would be free no to do so. As long a they are not harming anybody else, they are entitled to protection. Check out Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper's principles of positive and negative freedom, and of open and closed societies.

Joe

Dear Joe,

As it stands, Australia does not subscribe to the libertarian ideal you present: it is not currently possible to live in the Australian continent, yet be left alone. I wonder whether you can name any country which at present does subscribe to it.

But let's for a moment assume that the state of Rylvania does not interfere with the people who live within its borders and only wish to be left alone, but does protect everyone within its borders unconditionally:

Do you consider it fair for the willing citizens of Rylvania to have to take arms and risk their lives in order to protect those monks who wouldn't contribute or lift a finger to help protect themselves?

Worse, what if the monks are pacifist who believe in turning the other cheek and that by allowing themselves to be protected they incur sin?

Or what if the monks performed human-sacrifices, annually slaughtering one of them (who lovingly accepts) on the altar? Would Rylvania remain indifferent?
(note the similarity with the question of euthanasia!)

Or what for example if two such monasteries traded with each other, using their own currency, buying and selling raw milk and dog's meat (or the meat of the above-mentioned sacrificed monk)? Would it still be fair for other Rylvanians to pay taxes to keep the police-force to protect the monks while the monks pay no taxes?

Or let's say a whole village on the border of Rylvania unanimously agrees to join the neighbouring Unnkulia (hey, it just almost happened in Crimea, although that was not completely unanimous) - should Rylvania still be obliged to protect this village?

Libertarianism is fine, but so is democracy, so is socialism, so is monarchy, so is aristocracy, so is every other system of governance that is accepted by the people it governs. What we therefore need is states whose borders (if any) are defined by the properties belonging to its willing citizens rather than by arbitrary or battle-lines. What regime those states have, I am open-minded about and leave it entirely to the wishes of their citizens.

Yuyutsu,

Pacifists are also protected: even if there were conscription, they may be exempted. No, nobody has to come to anybody else's aid, but most, I think, would.

Most people have the intelligence to realise that, if they use the roads or hospitals or any other public facilities, or if their kids use the schools, then they can rightly be expected to contribute in some way, financially if they can.

As for your ridiculous example of human sacrifice, the 'victim' would have the right to be protected, not to be killed. Or is that the sort of micro-society that you would prefer ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

I fully agree that if people want to use the services of a state then they should contribute/pay for them. Put simply, you can't eat the cake and have it too.

It is great when someone wants to come to somebody else's help so long as the "helpee" actually wants to be helped. The classic example is of the boy-scout escorting an elderly lady across the road when she didn't want to be on the other side to begin with.

Yes, the just-example of human sacrifice looks ridiculous and foreign from Western perspective, but the vast majority of Westerners do support the similar act of euthanasia, having in common that one person kills another with their blessings, so there is no victim. While some religions value sacrifice, the Western culture values the easing of physical suffering: one may try to peacefully convince, but one may not dictate to others what others should value.

To conclude, states should offer a social contract, then individuals are to decide whether they take it or leave it - or they could instead offer a counter-contract which the state too could accept or reject. Obviously, those who do not accept the contract will not be entitled to roads, hospitals, schools, or even state-protection against robbers - what's fair is fair.

It is to be expected that individuals would not insist and accept minor restrictions if the benefits of citizenship outweigh them, but it is also to be expected that individuals will reject any such contract that does not assure their ability to maintain those practices (both observances and avoidances) that are most sacred/dear/valuable for them.

When a state is unable to ensure what is most sacred/dear/valuable for everyone, the result is likely to be several smaller states/nations. However, most benefits of the bigger state can still be achieved through international agreements between the smaller states.