Bitarch’s Column
Critics of libertarianism often express the idea that libertarians (both ancaps and minarchists) are very similar to Marxists. In Marx’s teaching, the base (economic relations) plays a decisive role in the development of society, while the superstructure (culture, religion, morality) merely follows it and has no particular influence. This is often said by right-wing nationalists and conservatives; for example, Olgerd Semyonov in his stream criticizes libertarianism precisely from these positions.
Whatever one may say, there is a grain of truth in this criticism. Human behavior is not determined exclusively by economic incentives. German Sterligov is unlikely to want to sell his bread to a gay person, even if the latter is willing to pay a “cosmic” price for this obviously overpriced product. Similarly, a believing Christian would not serve in the Swedish army for any amount of money if he were asked to participate in a hypothetical Swedish war against Nigeria, launched to support LGBT rights in the latter. This is also seen as a weakness of ancap and minarchism—an ideologically cohesive opponent may have a strong advantage in a war against an economically motivated libertarian army. Of course, this would only happen if they gained possession of modern high-tech weaponry. But, as we know, even the “barmaleis” from a certain well-known banned organization learned how to manufacture UAVs. Technology, although slowly, inevitably flows to “backward” peoples.
But identity does not have to be territorial. Under panarchy, when there is a free choice of the set of rules by which a person will live within an ECU, extraterritorial identity (the sense of belonging to one’s ECU) will be even stronger than the national identity (the sense of belonging to one’s ethno-territorial nation-state) so beloved by right-wing conservatives.
A good example is the history of pillarization in the Netherlands (Holland). At the beginning of the 20th century, Abraham Kuyper and his religious-conservative party “ARP” (Anti-Revolutionary Party) came to power, and they began to implement the ideology of “sphere sovereignty.” The goal of the reform was to stop the growing influence of leftist ideas by dividing society into so-called pillars (English: “pillar”, Dutch: “zuilen”). In terms understandable to us, a minarchist state was created where almost all state functions, except for the security functions, were transferred to the pillars (which could be called proto-ECUs). The pillars were completely extraterritorial and included people with specific political-religious views. There were four: Catholic, Protestant, Social-Democratic, and Liberal. Each of them had its own schools, trade unions (which regulated labor relations at the time), media, and healthcare system. Confederations of entrepreneurs were also included among them.
After World War II, leftist forces devoted enormous resources to the depillarization of Dutch society. Given the high popularity of ideas of equality in the post-war period and rapid economic growth, the functions of the pillars gradually shifted to the central government, and society began to unify. Nevertheless, remnants of pillarization exist in the Netherlands to this day. The sense of belonging to one’s political-religious group could not be completely destroyed, no matter how hard the social democrats and euro-liberals tried.
What conclusions can be drawn from all this? First—under panarchy, it is very likely that there will be a division of ECUs based on political-religious-cultural principles. People will feel a real belonging to their group and a willingness to defend it not only for money. Second—no matter in what form minarchism exists, it will eventually lead back to a “big state.” Even “panarchic minarchism” proved unstable. If Abraham Kuyper had gone further, transferring the security functions to the pillars and thereby fully completing the transformation of the state into a full-fledged panarchy, leftist forces would not have been able to impose uniform values on the entire society again.
Commentary by Ancap-chan
As far as I understand from the provided Wikipedia article, pillarization was undermined not only from above, through the desire of politicians to expand into new electoral groups, but also from below, since far from everyone wished to live in a strictly segregated society where you study at the school of your pillar, spend your leisure time within your pillar, and even make daily purchases within the same pillar. Then two compatriots accidentally meet, for example, abroad, and are surprised to discover that people in neighboring pillars are also human, and then, for example, an inter-pillar marriage occurs, and that is where the problems arise.
And delegating security functions to the pillars would not have helped. During the Second World War, resistance to the Nazis was pillarized. I would not be surprised if service to the Reich was also pillarized. The erosion of extraterritorial identities occurred not because of the forced absorption of some by others, but because of the weakening of contradictions in society that no longer required the maintenance of strict, permanent internal boundaries. Now, by the way, pillarization may find a second wind, as a powerful Muslim pillar is already de facto operating in these countries, just not formally organized at an official level.
In general, the idea of panarchy is indeed quite organic for Europe with its rich experience of religious wars—that is, wars between specifically extraterritorial identities. Russia has no such experience. Although, for instance, in Dagestan, some rudiments of pillarization are present—too many nationalities on a tiny patch of land with a high population density. As for the prospects of living peacefully in neighboring jurisdictions with those who, for example, are nostalgic for the USSR, that personally seems unlikely to me. Although recent debates between a nationalist and a communist moderated by a libertarian show that at least some semblance of dialogue is beginning.
So I would summarize more simply: do not stop people from finding ways to live peacefully with each other, and they will pleasantly surprise you.
P.S. Bitarch disagrees with a number of points in my commentary and intends to release an article on the doctrine of deterrence soon, where the issue of mutual coercion to peaceful coexistence will be examined in more detail.
