The Achilles’ heel of territorial communities

Bitarch’s Column

Mikhail Svetov and many other libertarians often propose the model of territorial communities. These are, in essence, ordinary states (or federal subjects) with a territorial monopoly, but created “from scratch” by a group of settlers who share certain values.

Besides the obvious drawbacks of a state with a territorial monopoly, there is another very important problem in this model that, for some reason, is not publicized. The essence of it is that the values of the founding generation may not be passed down to descendants (this is practically guaranteed to happen, if not in the second generation, then in the fifth). Even when a small number of people in this community deviate from the founders’ values, the community government will have to take them into account, diluting the ideological integrity of the original project and turning the community into an ordinary modern state.

Don’t believe it will happen? Look at the history of the USA! There, too, the colonies were initially settled on religious and ideological principles. Modern states have preserved practically nothing of this, having turned into the same kind of centralized state that the colonists once fled from in Europe.

Ancap-chan’s Comment

Over time, any social associations—whether states, communities, enterprises, political parties, or interest clubs—either collapse or change beyond recognition, preserving at best their name. Transience in time can be called the Achilles’ heel of any entity existing in time, and territorial communities do not stand out from the general background. It is enough for the community’s founders that this community exists for some time and serves the interests of its members to a greater extent than the surrounding environment; and if in the future those born into this community find another environment more to their liking—well, so be it, and there is no reason to decide for the descendants, as they are surely not any stupider.

The community occupies a territory

If new children are held by force in the community and outsiders are not allowed in as a rule, how to ensure the children’s right to get the hell out of there?

What actions can the bad side take to keep them, acting according to ancap, and what can the good side do?

анонимный вопрос

I’ll start by saying that, of course, any group of people can already go into the wilderness and live there, without any contact with outsiders. Amazonia, the Andaman Islands, Papua — there are enough places, in general. If society in some part of the world evolves into ancap, such isolated communities will be left alone even more so, on the rights of exotic fauna that can be filmed with a drone, but it’s better not to venture toward them personally.

It’s a different matter when your community has regular trade relations with the outside world. Here, you can’t pass off as exotic fauna, because let’s recall East Berlin: even very complex fortifications did not allow for the complete elimination of emigration. If there is any communication with the outside world, the isolation regime is already broken, and the more thoroughly one tries to observe it, the sweeter the forbidden fruit. People will flee your isolated community by any means necessary, and gradually the whole world will learn about the customs that prevail inside. Then, the depressurization of the community is simply a matter of time. More and more companies will refuse to deal with you as long as you restrict emigration, and you will have to make compromises, like the USSR did regarding the Jewish question. Gradually, there will be no one left to maintain your sanctuary, and it will collapse from within — too many of its residents will want access to the outside.

Of course, I do not exclude that there will be individual special operations, where in response to a plea for help from the sanctuary, a group of volunteers from the Mainland will pinpointedly rescue a couple of children. This will certainly have a PR effect, but I believe that the main mechanism for the collapse of a community with closed borders involved in trade with the outside world will still be the increase of internal contradictions.

You get the idea…