ISIS holds territories in various (not only adjacent) countries of the world, successfully defends them against global armies thanks to mass armament, couldn’t care less about non-recognition, does not hinder the sale of drugs, and has many supporters worldwide. Of course, its internal structure is far from progressive ideas (especially for women), but on the other hand, joining it is relatively voluntary. Can ISIS be considered a successful simple example of an ETJ? Could something similar arise with more acceptable ideas, but just as strong in terms of self-defense and readiness for expansion?
Nezaputka
The Islamic State, of course, is not entirely an ETJ. People join the ranks of its army voluntarily, but the civilian population can easily come under this jurisdiction through direct territorial seizures or mechanisms like racketeering. It is more like a lucky nomadic bandit who attempted to become stationary.
The Islamic State has two main factors for success: a passionary ideology and a huge support base. Libertarians can boast only the first, but not the second. Moreover, an ideology glorifying market success is unlikely to demonstrate greater ruthlessness among its adepts than an ideology glorifying war with all infidels.
A radical ideology on its own, without broad support, is inherently unable to provide success; therefore, the fact of wide acceptance of the idea around which an extraterritorial contractual jurisdiction is built is precisely what is important. Libertarians still have a long way to go to popularize their ideas to the level of Islam, of course.
On the other hand, the whole point of the ETJ idea is not to impose one’s ideology on everyone and anyone, but simply to push for freedom of association: Islamists do their Islamist thing, feminists do their feminist thing, and at most they scoff at each other, but do not engage in armed clashes. How realistic is it to ensure mass public support for the very idea of peaceful demarcation? In principle, there is currently a global trend toward the collapse of empires, an increase in the number of recognized states, a multiplication of unrecognized states, the appearance of various strange gray zones, and so on.
The idea of successful self-defense of a community of like-minded people is very attractive, and in conditions where empires demonstrate serious military inefficiency, it practically begs to be implemented. So I really do not rule out that in the muddy waters of current wars, numerous groups will appear ready to defend the right to live by their own rules. But they will have to act very unobtrusively, without loud political declarations, by demonstrating to state representatives that it is better not to notice such guys—it is more beneficial for both health and prosperity.
In short, I believe more in mafia methods in the service of market interests than in direct war and more than in peaceful lobbying of laws, as in some Honduras. Strictly speaking, I have no certainty that market ETJs do not already exist today. They quite possibly could, and even be quite numerous, but those not involved in the process do not need to know about it.
