I see join point James, and it is certainly the case that for every intent and purpose of today claiming that todays governments are consent based is insane. But this should be read in the context of a anarchy vs. minarchy debate. I still see a potential contradiction in the follow paragrafs:
First the definition:
"I propose the following as a reasonable definition of government: A government is an association
of individuals that formally identifies, enforces, and adjudicates the laws governing a
given jurisdiction ."
Sure today, the law is both perverted in its identification, enforcement and adjudication. That is not the question. The question is, does it have to be so.
He thinks the weberian 'monopoly of violence' definition is a the heart of the anachist idea of goventment as just per definition a violation of rights, when this is arguably begging the question. But he goes on to argue that governments does not have a monopoly, there are other institutions who can intervene (international, neighbours etc.). How is this essentially different from the strongest defence agency in town who claims the legitimacy and wields power to enforce the law they have sold to their customers under consent. If someone has a different defence agency, then some of the defence legislation will potentially differ from company to company. I haven't read it in detail, but as I have had explained this is what robert nozick's is considering in greater detail in 'Anarchy, State, and utopia'. (correct me if im wrong) How is the strongest defenc agency not going to have the upper hand and potentially final say in disagreements?
"In fact, the common concept of “national sovereignty” refers to nothing more than the attribute of
strength. It is the ability to defend one's arbitrary fiat assessment of a given situation using force that
creates the perception of sovereignty, but that kind of sovereignty exists as perception only, it is a
mirage and a myth compared to true sovereignty. Any anarchist “defense agency” with the same
measure of strength as a given government would appear to have exactly the same “sovereignty” as
that government. Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world."
But what of the defence agency? He argued that before we have a good conception of rights we have no way of knowing if the 'defence agency' is breaking them.
"Curious questions emerge from the semantic anarchist definitions. If consent is violated by an
“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. This
last fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for the
formerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switch
upon the first violation of consent? If the government makes restitution does it magically switch back
to being anarchy again? Or maybe it gets transformed by a declaration of sovereignty? If so, then what
if the formerly “anarchic system of law” that had existed (say) for a hundred years without competing
governments adds a law prohibiting them? Is it now instantaneously transformed from being anarchy
to being government even though by all appearances everything seems the same as it was the day
before the law? These questions underscore an inherent instability in the semantic anarchist's concept
of anarchy which is caused by combining facts that belong in opposite categories."
"And what about those facts isolated by the traditional concept of anarchy? Why does the anarchist
implicitly insist that it is unimportant to identify a “state of nature” condition where men have not yet
created a formal system whereby one can know whether or not one's actions will result in being left
free to pursue further action, or whether one's action will result in being attacked and thrown into jail?"
"These questions are of course rhetorical; they demonstrate in themselves that the semantic anarchist's
definitions are fatally flawed."
Is there a (potential) argument here? If not, please show why not?
Good day to you all
