Lord Finbarr's Reign & the Anarchists

Devin asks a series of thoughtful questions at his place.

Let me respond first by citing Property Rights Theory. The justification for the ownership of property relies (from locke) on enough (unimproved) resources being left for others. The situation wherein there is NO unoccupied land (a natural resource) that may be homesteaded constitutes a situation where property rights (in land) are themselves suspect.

Devin provides 4 scenarios and asks about justice, property rights, and authority.

Simply...the state of affairs wherein all occupiable land is owned constitutes unjustness. There is no obligation to take seriously the ownership claim of unimproved land of states, if the foundation for property rights in natural resources (there is enough left for others) is not fulfilled.

So, much like Devin, I find his 4 situations identical morally in most aspects...but some I find implausible.

I do not, for instance, find it plausible that any situation in which there are 1/2 million independent sovereign "states", that the fief-holder has any appreciable power. Folks leave, and other lords, needing their own citizenry, are massively incented to protect their own citizens against hte depredations of other lords. Sign what you want, but long-term employment contracts are unenforceable. Cartel failure mode runs wild here...and folks with any reasonable amount of skill (=wealth=power) can even buy themselves an independent (smaller) fiefdom that is not subject to any lord, which further exacerbates the problem.

Similarly, I find the notion of a just realm in a 2-state model laughable. The more power a state has to force it's citizens...the less ability a citizen has to exit, the more power the state uses. At least as importantly, the odds of Lord Finbarr IV the evil younger brother having enlisted the aid of more mercenary elements in the realm to eliminate his kind older brother rise rapidly to p=1. We have many models of exit-prevention in world history. They all suck for the populace, and rock for the ruler.

I furthermore find Noblesse Oblige to be nothing more than a lovely story that Rulers use to justify all sorts of crap via self-serving fictions.

One's obligations to one who has you threatened with physical force are precisely zero. You should, however, lie, sign falsities, and say whatever you need to to stay alive. But agreements under duress are not binding under any sane code.

As to rulers...their moral obligation is to stop trying to rule people. Anything apart is a justification for using force against others to get what they want.