The various libertarian / anarchist plans to create a free state in space, on a boat, in a US State (The Free State Project), in Antarctica, or anywhere else are flawed in that they are still, to some extent, influenced by the statist concept of territoriality. The goal of freedom-lovers should not be the creation of a free state, but of free people. 

There exist today private armies, which serve to rescue those at high risk of kidnapping from their kidnappers, should such an inopportune event befall them. Since anarchists consider wrongful jailing for victimless offenses as morally equivalent to kidnapping, I suggest this as a starting point. An existing company could be purchased or a new one formed, which could at first cater to well-heeled world travelers (as it would at first be somewhat expensive.) I suggest the name "Mutual Defense Company" and will use it though the rest of this article. 

When a client is kidnapped (arrested) on drug, smuggling, prostitution, anti-trust, or other non-crime charges, Mutual Defense would issue a statement of intent to rescue said client to the local and national press. They would first attempt to negotiate terms of release, just as governments today might do (as when an American is arrested in Thailand and asks the embassy for help.) If negotiations failed, a rescue attempt might be made, which should have a good chance of success against what should be, in most cases, the local law enforcement of second- or third-world countries. This is exactly what Bush is intending to do in case of American GI's facing charges at the World Court. Of course, the chance of getting the client killed would have to be balanced against the punishment faced, and the client's wishes would have been discussed when the policy was signed. 

I base Mutual Defense's high chance of success on the following analysis. I do not claim to be a military or law-enforcement expert of any kind, so a more thorough analysis would be welcomed. At any time, Mutual Defense would have multiple clients kidnapped by a particular state. Although the state would know of Mutual Defense's intent to rescue every one of those clients, they would never know which client would be rescued when. Therefore, if Mutual Defense possessed only a modest force on the order of 100-1000 soldiers, the state would have to have that many "protecting" each client at all times. Mutual Defense's soldiers would also be equipped and trained at a minimum to the level of US Special Forces, making them a very imposing force relative to the local law enforcement, or even third-world military they would be expected to face. Each operation would be carefully planned and only executed if the chance of success was acceptable according to the client's stated wishes. Other local clients could be paid to act as field operatives if they wanted to help out a fellow "citizen." 

The operation could also negotiate for release of clients who have committed actual crimes against others. A payoff could be offered to the victim and/or to bribe local officials, in exchange for immediate release. Mutual Defense would be repaid by the client on pre-arranged terms. In this case it would be immoral to use force to secure the client's release, but it still offers a better option than an uncompensated victim and a client rotting in jail.

The next step would be to get Mutual Defense recognized as a government by other governments. Clients could renounce their citizenships and carry a Mutual Defense passport and driver's license. It would certainly be less embarrassing for the government to agree to expatriate a client, as is done to those holding diplomatic immunity today, than to have the client rescued from a jail in the middle of their country. The differences between Mutual Defense and governments would be: 

1. Mutual Defense would be based solely on voluntary contractual agreements,

2. Mutual Defense would claim no particular "Territory" as its own,

3. Mutual Defense would not claim clients' children as its own,

4. Mutual Defense would not enforce any laws except its own contracts. 

Mutual Defense could set up "Embassies" in any country, which would actually be field offices, just as insurance companies like State Farm have offices in every town. These offices would be, like many embassies, a safe haven for clients, sufficiently defended to hold off local law-enforcement until reinforcements and transport arrive. 

The turnover point, when freedom from states would be almost reachable, would be when first-world countries began to recognize Mutual Defense as a government, and allowing clients to live and work within the country. At that point, anyone expecting to be on the wrong end of a victimless crime law enforcement action would have a strong incentive to become a client. The economy of scale, and lower cost of enforcement at that point should make policies affordable for all, and certainly cheaper than jail time. 

I believe that setting up a free state is setting up for failure. It is a lot more difficult to defend territory than to defend individuals. Aggressive states have taken over well-defended territories before, and it will happen again. A state can nuke an adjacent free state; it can not very well nuke a smattering of sovereign individuals who work, live, and play alongside its citizens every day. A free state cannot be hidden from view; a free individual can. A free state may corrupt from within; a company serving scattered collection of sovereign individuals will not, because it does not have a captive audience.

September 19, 2001

discuss this article in the forum!