Father of Siberian Democracy

I understand little about football, and among international sports organizations, I am more or less familiar only with the Practical Shooting Confederation, but that is not particularly fundamental. In any case, all such organizations are created to promote certain types of sports or other activities (some GreenPeace or Red Cross are organizations of the same sort, although they have nothing to do with sports).

The task of such organizations is to simplify interaction between local teams, clubs, and similar units, to develop uniform rules, organize competitions, and so on. They are funded by participant fees, donations, the sale of advertising, merchandise, and the like. In short, states are not required for their activities at all.

How does state participation in the activities of such organizations manifest? Well, for sports, it is the existence of national teams, national championships, and so on. If there are no states, then instead there will be some competitions within a conditional red league, green league, purple league, and so on — and then a final battle for some, hm, rainbow cup.

Various Olympic Games now officially host events not in countries, but in specific cities; thus, it will be municipalities, or even private owners of stadiums and hotels, who will compete for this right, rather than states.

For some “Doctors Without Borders,” borders, as is easy to understand from the name, only get in the way. The same can be said about other international associations of activists — their opportunities will increase significantly upon the abolition of the concept of “state sovereignty.”

Consortia like W3C and their likes already operate as if there are no states, or, in the worst case, are forced to somehow adapt to their presence, and they will not weep over their loss.

In short, I cannot imagine a situation in which any current non-governmental international association would be unable to continue its activities practically without changes under ancap.