ISIS poseded territories in different (not only adjacent) countries of the world, successfully defends them from world armies thanks to mass armament, doesn’t care about non-recognition, does not hinder the sale of drugs, and has many supporters across the globe. 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 voluntarily join the ranks of its army, but the civilian population can easily fall under this jurisdiction through direct territorial seizures or mechanisms like racketeering. Rather, it is a lucky nomadic bandit who attempted to become stationary.
The Islamic State has two main success factors: a passionary ideology and a huge support base. Libertarians can boast only the first, but not the second. And an ideology glorifying market success is unlikely to demonstrate greater ruthlessness of its adepts than an ideology glorifying war with all infidels.
Radical ideology by itself, without broad support, certainly cannot guarantee success; therefore, the fact of wide acceptance of the idea, around which the extraterritorial contractual jurisdiction is built, is what matters. Libertarians still have a lot of work to do 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 merely to force freedom of association: Islamists get their Islamism, feminists get their feminism, and they can at most scoff at each other, but not engage in armed conflicts. How realistic is it to ensure mass public support specifically for the 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 the number 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 for implementation. So I really do not exclude that in the murky 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 folks, as it is more beneficial for both health and well-being.
In short, I believe more in mafia methods in the service of market interests than in direct war and more than in the 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 who are not involved in the process do not need to know about it.
