Freedom of Movement

Here is the situation:

Some time in the future the world has fragmented into a series of small, peaceful, free-trading city-states after a period of anarchy. Each city-state was created as a voluntary, intentional community to which all original members assented. After some time has passed, those original members have children and when those children reach the age of majority, they do not consent to their condition.

I think it's clear that, if those states are justified either because they are intentional or because they (by their intentional nature) better represent the preferences of their members, that the children must be allowed to leave in order for that justification to hold. However, if all other states do not allow immigration (perhaps because of xenophobia brought on by the period of anarchy) , then it does not particularly matter that they can leave because there is no place to go.

More importantly, it is also not apparent to me that states would seek to take advantage of immigration. Whatever advantage that would confer wouldn't appear important without also making presumptions about unfree trade, transaction costs or arguing for significant aggregation externalities. Since the states are not war-prone, military might doesn't really benefit them and thus there is no reason to pursue a "juggernaut strategy" of absorbing a large population in order to provide military readiness.

This seems to be a significant problem with anarcho-capitalism (the states are consistent with it because of their description as intentional) that the justification for anarcho-capitalism requires freedom of movement between intentional communities who have, prima facie, a right to prevent such movement. It's problematic to me because I generally tend to approach anarcho-capitalism in my views.

Share this