The first essay of this series was the introduction to “Neo-Voluntaryism” which asserts that the only logical and useful form of the NAP is one which allows for preemptive force as long as such an action meets a certain criteria. This criteria must be consistent, applicable to all forms of human action, and must also not lead to further aggression.
It must also be sufficient in preventing aggression (for example, swapping out the first criterion with “all individuals must be wearing the color purple” would lead to aggression upon individuals who choose to wear the color purple, and many crimes would go unsolved as people who did not wear the color purple would be off the hook. My criteria, I believe, is the only one that can sufficiently deal with conflicts without aggressing upon innocents). The second essay dealt with questions of human nature and war. There it was determined that human nature is tribal, and occasionally violent. Therefore war is a part of life that must be embraced instead of rejected and ignored. This essay, which will be the final one of this series, will be my solution to conflict and aggression, and a method of achieving and maintaining a free society in accordance with the NAP.
In his 2001 book Democracy the God that Failed, libertarian philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe expresses his belief that in a true private property based society covenants would emerge as like minded individuals came together to form mutually beneficial relationships. This was originally proposed by award winning philosopher Robert Nozick in his 1974 book Anarchy, State and Utopia. He believed voluntary communities would be created based around a court of law (as they are inherently monopolistic in nature). This concept has been even further expanded upon by a small online blogger and author Insula Qui in his blog series On Libertarianism and Statecraft where he uses the concept of the “demand for the state” and the cost of property to explain why humans naturally gravitate towards communities and tribes for their mutual benefit. In accordance with the principle of voluntary association these property based covenants are completely justified. Under such a system, due to the natural diversity of humans*, there would be many different communities. All these communities would have one thing in common: the incentive to help maintain the existence of the voluntary order.
Commonalities often lead to alliances. There is is no reason to believe this commonality wouldn’t lead to an alliance or confederation of some sort in my hypothetical situation. It would be mutually beneficial for all parties involved to form an alliance based on the principle of voluntary association. Thus it can be reasonably predicted that an alliance between the many communities would arise.
Due to the amount of different communities with different values and cultures that would exist, there would possibly be minor conflict. However, this diversity would likely serve more as a check on power and a very strong defence against corruption. If a bigger community attempts to seek more power than it deserves it would be stopped by the vast majority of people who would be harmed by their overreach. If a smaller community tried it would be even less of a threat.
It is important to remember this alliance is not functionally a state in any way. It would be completely voluntary to participate and be involved with. If there ended up being corruption it would be of interest for the majority of communities to leave such an alliance and to form a new one. It would be regulated by the sheer amount of competition. There would be no leaders within such an alliance. There would only be representatives of their communities will. Making decisions would possibly be determined by a sort of court with a nonpartisan “judge”. It may be run in a sort of democratic way. Whatever system is the most efficient would arise (this is not the case with the state as there is no competition and incentive to remain efficient due to its coercive and monopolistic nature which forbids disassociation). This would not lead to the failure we see in modern democracies, as the votes wouldn’t allow for any force against innocent individuals to be used. Every community would understand this is a dangerous thing to allow, and if it did happen many communities would likely leave the alliance. All decisions would be held accountable as no one person would be making them.
There would be no sense of duty or “national pride” in this alliance as there would be no nation. Simply like minded individuals agreeing to create a justice system based on mutual benefit. They would happily leave if it became a burden or a threat. There would be no leaders to worship, only individuals making a decision to participate and combat mutual threts when/if they arise.
The decisions would be made simply to enforce the NAP and to deal with legitimate threts. There would be no regulation of people’s lives as there would be no legislators. There would only be the people and the weapons provided together to launch an attack on aggressors who would be threts to the communities existences. If one community (probably not even apart of the alliance) decided it was going to expand its rule and use coercion to implement its values, the alliance would use the sheer amount of people and armes at their disposal (assuming enough people agreed the threat was indeed legitimate) and the aggressors would be stopped.
In conclusion, in a voluntary order an alliance as the one described in this essay would most likely form. It would be monopolistic if it is efficient and provides security and assurance to all the members involved. It would be the opposite if it is inefficient and harmful. The alliance may end up existing only symbolically. It would still likely exist as a true force to be reckoned with, although mostly just there to disincentivize aggressive behaviour. All the predictions in this essay were determined by considering the incentives of each person benefiting from their freedom in a voluntary society. I would like to further emphasize that this alliance would not be a centralized authority in any way. Any corruption would lead to a decrease in its value which would ultimately lead to its demise or reform. Thus, this alliance would simply be yet another voluntary contract based on promoting freedom in the face of danger. No one community would hold sway over another. No majority would ever agree to the usage of unjust force, as it would be a threat to the very existence of the majorities freedom. If one did end up becoming centralized and corrupt it would quickly lose value and would shrink itself, while other alliances were formed to stop that one. Examining these basic incentives logically leads to the situation I have described in this essay. I believe this is not something that ought to happen in a libertarian order, I believe it inevitably will.
*by this I mean identity, ideology, values, culture, interests, beliefs, and etc