More stateless zones? The result

In the past several decades, the West, led in insane directions by the idiots we Americans let infest the District of Columbia, has created several parts of the world which were once nations. Or at least had most of the attributes of nations, as we recognize them. In the place of states ruled by governments, what resulted was a stateless zone.

We are talking about some of the cesspits of the modern world: Somalia, Libya, much of Iraq (Mesopotamia), and now Syria. One might be tempted to include much of Mexico and Columbia in that list. Still others might go back to the 1990s and add the former Yugoslavia to that sad parade. And South Sudan. Right now, we see people in Syria (and the surrounding area) who are falling into that pitiful condition.

Now, as libertarians, we are tempted to say that doing without a state is (or can be) a good thing: we know that millions of people in the last 6000 years or have lived in stateless areas. Most of the AmerInd people who lived in what is today Canada and the States did so. (The Anisazi, the Mound Builders, the Iroquois Confederacy, and a few other entities are rare exceptions over five millennia.)

There are other examples in the past. Much of Africa was in that state, perhaps for centuries after the collapse of the major empires in and south of the Sahara. Places like southern Africa (such as modern Numidia and Botswana) may have been that way for centuries. And in the aftermath of WW2, and even WW1, there were many places in Europe and Asia which were stateless zones at least briefly. Large portions of eastern Europe, including large parts of the Soviet Union and what became its satellites had no effective state for several years. Despite the efforts of Stalin. In China and nearby areas of Asia, there were similar zones even while both Mao and Chaing sought to regain/gain control of the entire empire, after the collapse and withdrawal of the Imperial Japanese forces.

But replacing the state – whether “omnipotent” or not – with nothing at all requires a certain level of maturity and a high degree of (what Mama Liberty taught) self-government. That self-government might be on a family or tribal level, or some form of religious congregations, or built on something like L Neil Smith advocated: a non- or zero-aggression pact and a covenant in which the vast majority of people agree – if not totally unanimously – on the simple idea that “my rights end where your nose begins” (and vice versa, of course).

What is a stateless zone? It is a place where either no “government” exists and attempts to enforce its power (often claiming a monopoly of the use of force) or where there are many “governments” claiming that power and monopoly which are unable to enforce that. Whether those governments are “republics” or “democracies” or dictatorships/monarchies or oligarchies or even confederations is not critical.

But there is more to it, especially in the last half-century. The current and recent stateless zones did not develop solely due to internal collapse and conflict. They were triggered and instigated by outside forces. As we point out in the opening, it is the West that has largely been the instigator in all these areas. The governments that went away (resulting in the stateless condition) were, we understand, pretty nasty. More evil than most governments: not just tyrannies but incredibly brutal (if we believe the propaganda, at least). Assad’s rule is the most recent. But we can look at Saddam, at Kaddafi, Barre and Mahdi Ali of Somalia, and others: cruel, mega-terrorists, and hyper-predatory.

But what followed, a period in each country or region not just of warlords or competing governments, but of chaos and wholesale butchery and literal and symbolic orgies of abuse and destruction. Often only after the pulling down of the strongman dictator had also resulted in a drawn out and bloody period, making the post-fall situation even worse.

The West’s interventions have not been the root cause, but we submit they have been a major factor in the total disaster which resulted: their example is disgusting. Not only do those in the collapsing country see that “might makes right.” They also must see the West has the idea that to “enforce” so-called international law means that they are above the law and do not need to follow it. That is for the weak, not the strong. For the poor, not the wealthy nations. Even though the wealth expended in their interventions is stolen from their own people – and future generations.

The short-term outcome of the West’s cruel arrogance is the stateless zones, in which only the law of the wild animals exists. Such chaos is not a likely birthplace of true, beneficial statelessness in which anarchy exists, and people are no long ruled by predators and parasites. Rather it is likely to lead to more years – and decades – of warlords vying for power and wealth, of normal people condemned to tyranny and robbed blindly. And very likely, the rise of a single, very powerful tyrant and oppressor: whether a monarch (dictator) or a political cabal imposing some flavor of socialism and a sadly-welcome totalitarian state.

READ MORE