24A005 States' Rights by Jim Davies, 1/30/2024

Does a State have a right to defend itself and so continue existing?

The phrase in the title is often used to refer to the rights of member states in the American Union relative to those of the Federal Government, and that might be an interesting topic for another day; but no, here let's consider whether, when menaced by a foreign power, any state or country or government has the right to defend itself by waging war.

Individual, real people certainly do: for we have by nature a right to life. That's the fundamental reality; we are alive, so each of us is entitled to own, operate and preserve that life. And because each of us is so entitled, none of us has any right to over-rule anyone else's self-ownership right, ie to force our will upon his, or to attack him in any way.

That's "none" absolutely, regardless of what badges or licenses or titles someone may have in hand; he has no, zero, zilch of a right to make you do his will instead of your own. Yet governments never do anything other than thrust their wills down our throats; they govern. It's what the word means. So governments (states) have no right whatever to exist or to continue in existence. Their whole nature is to deny other people's rights, in part or whole. It's what they do.

That incidentally is what makes the Declaration of Independence so nonsensical. It correctly points out that we all enjoy a right to life, but then, incredibly, goes on to say that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted..." Fox, hen house? The right is absolute, so needs no "securing."

Thus, the analogy between a human being and a state is false; we each have the right to defend our lives, but a state has none at all to defend its "life."

But wait, say some: not all of us are strong and healthy enough to battle enemies and may wish to hire someone else to do it for us under contract. Fair enough; and in the coming Zero Government Society there may indeed be such things as defense companies offering just such a service. So by extension, why should not a State or government fulfill that function?

The reason is that no government has ever, or will ever, submit itself to the terms of a contract; for that would make those terms superior to itself and so it would no longer be a government. The state is not a participant in the market; it arrogantly claims to be above the market, over-ruling market choices at will. It cannot have it both ways, it's one or the other.

In the ZGS there may be defense companies, but in my view there need not be. The simplest way it will be able to protect itself from foreign invaders will be what's called the "porcupine defense." Every person will be free to own firearms of his choice, and that fact will powerfully deter any potential invader from arriving. And if he does arrive, nobody will work for him and anyone may (and will) use his agents as targets day and night. Occupation will prove to be a dead loss.

So, again, states have no right to exist or to prolong their existence. Accordingly, they have no right to wage war - defensively or otherwise.

While awaiting the ZGS (and finding one friend a year to take the TOLFA course and so quit his government job) states will continue to fight each other and it may be that we shall favor one or the other as being the less culpable. For example, I favor Russia over Ukraine, for the latter's friends have menaced Russia for over 30 years and its President said, in 2022, "Enough!" But each time I say so I try to remember to say Russia has as much right to defend itself as any other State - and sometimes make clear that that extent is actually zero.