Fluid Identities and Institutional Evolution
Arnold Kling points to audio of a lecture by Ben Powell on Somalia’s experience with statelessness. As Claudia Williamson argued in her guest post for secession week, when we compare statelessness with the relevant counterfactual of predatory government, anarchy seems to perform well.
One of the more interesting aspects of Somalia’s statelessness, from the competitive government perspective we take here at LaTNB, is the role of flexible clan identities. As Arnold puts it, “there is competitive virtual government, in the sense that you choose your legal system by choosing a clan, and clans are not geographically based.”
I think this is a key historical example of competition among social institutions in action. In a 2008 paper [ungated working paper] Powell and coauthors Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh describe the situation:
Although the interpretation of the law stems from clan elders, the clans are not de facto governments. Throughout all of Somalia upon becoming an adult, individuals are free to choose new insurance groups and elders.
They are allowed either to form a new insurance group with themselves as head or join an already established group, provided it will accept them. As described by Besteman (1996a,p.124),
Movement between Somali clans is not only possible but it is particularly widespread in the populous south. People switch clan affiliation for protection, for marriage, for grazing or land rights, for labor, for political reasons – or for other personal reasons. The process of affiliating with a clan other than the one into which a person was born is quick and easy in the south, and not necessarily permanent. Some clans, especially those in the south, may have more members who are adopted than members who are descended from the purported founding ancestor.
The individual clans and insurance groups are not geographic monopolies. As Little (p.48) notes, “In no way does the geographic distribution of clans and sub-clans correlate with neatly defined territorial boundaries… drought and migration blur the relationship between clan and space.”
While local cleric courts became the dominant source of law in some regions, and Qur’anic law is traditionally applied to marriage and inheritance, the common law of Xeer and the accompanying elder dispute resolution and insurance groups are the main source of law in Somalia.
Somalia is not the only case of flexible group affiliation stimulating social evolution. In The Art of Not Being Governed (a fascinating book for many reasons), James C. Scott suggests that flexible identities were key to avoiding centralized government control.
The tremendous linguistic and ethnic fluidity in the hills is itself a crucial social resource for adapting to changing constellations of power, inasmuch as it facilitates remarkable feats of identity shape-shifting. Zomians are not as a rule only linguistically and ethnically amphibious; they are, in their strong inclination to follow charismatic figures who arise among them, capable of nearly instantaneous social change, abandoning their fields and houses to join or form a new community at the behest of a trusted prophet. Their capacity to “turn on a dime” represents the ultimate in escape social structure.
Another example is the flexible nature of tribal identities of the New Zealand Maori. The politically most important descent groups in traditional Maori society were the hapu (“sub-tribe‟), iwi (“tribe”). Hapu often acted together militarily and economically – collectively producing food and sharing resources – while iwi links were weaker but often formed the basis of military coalitions.
While these groups were based on descent and therefore not infinitely malleable, the multiple levels of affiliation which could be claimed by individuals on a bi-lineal basis (trace lineage to a common ancestor on either side and you’re in!) meant that Maori were free to affiliate with a tribal group suited to their needs. An individual couldn’t choose to affiliate with just any hapu or iwi, but normally had a range of options. Loyalties could be switched over time and it wasn’t unusual for a person to spend different parts of their life in different hapu while claiming simultaneous membership of multiple iwi.
The flexibility of Maori identity groups led to interesting outcomes with the arrival of Europeans to New Zealand. Foreign contact brought new ideas, technologies, ways of life. One important change came from the introduction of the musket into Maori warfare, which made larger forces more effective. This increased the scale of political organization, with long-term alliances and multiple hapu living in and around fortified villages becoming more common. Individuals preferred larger groupings, and the power of choice ensured they got them.
Later, mostly in the latter part of the twentieth century following mass urbanization, a new pan-Maori national identity began to emerge. This has facilitated moderately successful attempts to reclaim certain customary rights to land and resources which were seized by the British during colonization. A pan-Maori identity was better suited to western-style politics, and the power of choice ensured that such an identity emerged.
In short, European contact altered the costs and benefits to individuals of different forms of social organization, generally making large groups more desirable. The fluidity of Maori identity – as is the case in Somalia and the Zomia – allowed social structure to respond to these changes. Indeed, the case of the Maori seems to show that the individual power of exit from politically relevant identity groups has produced undirected improvement and innovation in social structure.
Competition makes everything better, including tribal organization.
Dystopia in 2018: McNation State Nightmares
Dis Magazine looks into their hip crystal ball and for the next decade, this is what they foresee:
Branching out will become big for corporations, with many moving on to government and unapologetic colonialism. For example, McDonald’s will own an island (and later, in the following decade, become a nation-state). Perhaps it already does and its self-governance will leak to the media during this decade. Many indigenous peoples will succumb to the American cuisine chain, populating its many McNational facilities, where they will work for unfair wages, but with free nationwide health care. The most impact this will have upon culture in America will be the phenomenon of the “McDonald’s accent”. This form of English conversational dialect will swiftly find a niche in hip hop lyrics and also internet chat script.
Ranting about a McDonald’s driven decrescendo seems so…1999. Couldn’t they have picked a Google or some other relevant company? It’s also more evidence for that strange asymmetry lodged in the human psyche–a reluctance to impart nefarious intentions to government officials, while inveterately assuming it of corporate executives. No Logo, yes, but what about No Flag? Don’t governments already possess many of the vices listed in this catalogue? I’d love to know why their officials are immune to barbarous self-interest. Even Robin Hanson’s econ students share this bias. He says that despite a semester on public choice, they still tended to see politicians as less selfish and and less corrupt than businessmen.
Anyway…see you on the happy meal Seastead, where I’ll be eating my unregulated super-sized fish filet.
Hacking Virtual Sovereignty through Indian Sovereignty
Sean Tevis, Congressional Candidate and website designer, suggests a clever hack: using the precedent of American Indian sovereignty – a unique category between states and federal government – to attempt to create virtual sovereignty in the US, and the first target would be health care:
The movement hinges on Congress’ ability to make separate law for separate nations within the United States — American Indian nations. On the same principle, Tevis means to construct a virtual health-care nation to allow those wanting a public option access to it without mandating insurance for those who’d rather stick with the status quo.
Sounds much like Arnold’s Virtual Federalism, a more flexible version of Robin Hanson’s Municipalizing Medicine. While ideas like this are still relatively fringe, they are getting less and less so every year as the existing system shows its brittleness and inability to deal with changes in demographics, health technology, and the ever decreasing ratio of net producers to those on the dole. I believe that it is far too early for the state to have decayed to the point where it will allow this kind of flexibility – it has too much power to be willing to cede any – but the number of these kinds of movements and the degree of backlash they create will be important barometers over the coming years.
And, hell, maybe US FEDGOV will actually allow something like this to happen, restoring competition for government services, and breaking up the sclerosis. I’d be very surprised, but also very delighted.
The comic explaining the movement is great:


Technologies of Control and Liberation
Patri has often made the point that new technologies have a greater impact on society than attempts to reform rules. This is what seasteading is all about: the development of a new technology to unleash the power of decentralized innovation in the market for governance.
In an introduction to the new Persian edition of his novel Little Brother, Cory Doctorow makes the case for technology as a disruptive force. Some technologies facilitate repression; others, liberation. The relative power of the individual and the state fluctuates as new technologies are developed. Doctorow begins by telling the story of his grandparents’ escape from the Soviet Union to Canada:
They left because the Stalinist program was a nightmarish marriage of totalitarianism and technology. There have always been repressive governments that declared that they had absolute dominion over their citizens’ lives. But without technology, the state’s power was always constrained to what could practically be accomplished: a state can only employ so many secret policemen before everyone is spying on everyone else, and no one is keeping the trains running, no one is harvesting the fields, no one is making sure the lights stay on.
But technology multiplies the secret policeman’s power. With wiretaps, hidden cameras, powerful databases and data-mining, the state is able to turn every snitch into a superman, whose ears can hear sounds from across the nation, whose eyes can be everywhere.
That was the disastrous nature of Stalinism: the authoritarian urge, coupled with technology to realize it.
He goes on to describe the rise of technologies of liberation:
And then the citizens of the Soviet Union dismantled their society with technology. Old technology was inadequate: typewriters could be uniquely identified based on the idiosyncrasies of their keys; printing presses were huge and hard to disguise; tube radios were bulky and easily detected. But new technologies – computers, electric typewriters, fax machines, miniature radios – made it possible to fly under the surveillance state’s radar.
The liberating power of technology, however, is offset by new tools of control:
But technology disrupts. Even as technology was liberating a generation, another generation was finding in it an oppressor.
By the time I was leaving university, high school students were discovering that their schools were using technology to spy on every click, every IM, every email. Little kids discovered that their parents could install software on their phones that used the in-built GPS to track their every step, like a paroled felon wearing an ankle-cuff.
The arms-race between technologies of control and technologies of freedom seems likely to continue forever to some extent. The key question is whether one will come to dominate in the long run. Seasteading, it seems to me, has the potential to fundamentally change this dynamic: if the power of exit is guaranteed by the laws of physics – it’s easier to move large objects in water than in land – states will have less reason to develop technologies to control citizens. The hard problem for seasteading, though, is whether it can get off the ground before existing governments decide they don’t like the competition.
Hat tip: Charles Johnson.
Disney’s Private City
Disney World is often cited as a real-world proprietary community. The fact that what is essentially a private, for-profit city can provide high-quality public services should warm the heart of any fan of competitive government, especially those with a plan for getting from here to there.
I’ve not previously seen any detailed analyses of how the Disney World’s private government operates, though, so I was thrilled to see a new report from Arin Greenwood of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Privatize American Cities? Learning Lessons from Disney’s Experiment with “Private” Government:
Walt Disney World sits on of 25,000 acres in Central Florida governed and managed by an essentially “private” government—the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID). RCID levies taxes on its residents, devises and enforces building codes, handles waste management and fre protection, issues bonds to finance infrastructure projects, and performs many other functions ordinarily performed by local governments.
Greenwood points out that the publicly-managed areas of Florida suffered large losses during the 2004 hurricane, while Disney World escaped relatively unscathed. She argues that this is due to the area’s private government: the flexibility of RCID combined with Disney’s long-term interest in its property creates the right incentives to prepare for hurricanes. In contrast, the public government of Florida creates perverse incentives for the construction of buildings in unsafe locations.
Ray Maxwell says that a number of factors contributed to Disney’s low hurricane damage—all structures are built to code, for example, and anything that could fy in the wind is tied down before the winds pick up. Well-planned on-site wetlands protection (which helps to absorb flood waters) and advanced drainage systems also contribute to this successful damage mitigation.
The success of private governments in particular ventures can, of course, serve as model for general-purpose government:
As Florida’s legislators look for politically feasible ways to save wetlands, save money, and keep Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance Corporation and Catastrophe Fund solvent, Disney’s Reedy Creek Improvement District offers a compelling—though not uncontroversial—example of how private government can help reduce taxpayers’ burden in paying for storm mitigation, while giving fexibility and control to private landowners. If the experiment does not work, the private government can always be dissolved.
Indeed! It’s nice to see a beltway free-market organization thinking innovatively and structurally about governance.
Link Archipelago
- In 1965, Detroit was the fourth largest American city. Today it is a necropolis full of rust belt roustabouts. This 1965 short film was created to pitch Detroit to the Olympic Committee as a host site for the 1968 games. In retrospect, the film is full of delicious tragic irony. My favorite lines, about four minutes in, “A new renaissance is changing the face of the city. This renaissance, seen everywhere, is the direct result of considered planning. The applied skills of planners, idea men, organizers, builders.”
- Idea man Matt Ridley at TED on When Ideas Have Sex. A good summary and presentation of his book, The Rational Optimist.
- Niall Ferguson forecasts U.S. fiscal doom on CNN.
- The San Francisco Chronicle: The Bay Area Needs to Act Like a City State. “If the Bay Area were to secede from California, it would instantly become the world’s 25th largest economy, ahead of Austria, Taiwan, Greece and Denmark.”
- Alabama Secessionists in Forbes: “Does the United States have the right number of states? Should we have more?”
- Nullification Should Be Taken Seriously
- A “How To Buy a Private Island” Knol.
Sunday Video Veg-time: Patri’s Mises Brazil Talk
Forget Sunday cartoons and surfing YouTube for videos of cats and toddlers doing funny things. It’s time to light up your mind with seasteading & structural activism:
I gave this talk at the first Mises Brazil conference earlier this year, to 200+ people. They gave me a long time slot, so rather than the short introductory talk I give to audiences like TEDx, I got to include a bunch of structural activism discussion as well as just seasteading. This is the longest and most-recent talk video available for seasteading, so…enjoy!
Subtitled in Portuguesa
The Mitch Daniels Desert Island Book Set
A Five Books interview with Indiana governor Mitch Daniels is ricocheting around the libertarian blog roll. Daniels, a potential Republican POTUS nominee, has set some liberty-loving hearts a flutter by signaling his cred with The Road to Serfdom, Free to Choose, Charles Murray’s What It Means to Be a Libertarian, Virginia Postrel’s The Future and Its Enemies and Mancur Olson’s The Rise and Decline of Nations. (On top of that, the interview was conducted by Jonathan Rauch, author of Government’s End, an astute application of Olson’s theories to late 20th century U.S. politics.)
The fluency Daniels has with many of the ideas discussed in these books is unusual for a politician, and that should be approved of, but for me, his knowledge of Olson’s thesis stands out. What’s even more interesting is seeing him struggle with its implications:
Daniels: Olson has got a little bit of a pessimistic view. He makes it sound almost inevitable that free societies will become encrusted with these interest groups that form. It’s not sufficiently in anybody’s interest to oppose them, and because the cost they impose or diffuse over everybody, you need some sort of calamity to wipe them away if you really want growth to happen, if you really want the upward mobility of less fortunate individuals, which I think should be our highest priority.
Rauch: Olson’s thesis is that the gradual accumulation of perks carved out for special interests gradually saps the dynamism of economies and societies, leading to their decline if you don’t work very, very hard and constantly to try and counter those effects…
Daniels: Yes, and when I went to the shelf and pulled the book down – it had been years since I had – it reminded me how dense the thing is. It’s a very scholarly work but it leads one to ask – since we’d rather not have a war or an earthquake or an epidemic that wipes out these structures – what allows the green shoots of economic growth and mobility to happen again, what can be done to if not eliminate, at least minimise, the stultifying effects?…It was some of the books on this list that helped me to see that the real reactionary movements in a country like ours are what we call the left. These really are the forces of status quo: they may travel under different banners or masquerade as something else but these are the folks who are more often than not trying to freeze in place arrangements that worked well for the ‘ins’. So Olson shows you how that happens, Postrel shows you how this happens, Hayek shows you how this happens.
Almost inevitable! Indeed. The distasteful nut is that as a governor and even as a president, there’s not much a player like Daniels can do to scrape off the encrusted dead weight of special interest barnacles. But don’t hate the incapacity of the player, hate the stultifying game. If Olson sets the trap, thinking meta is the way out.
Innovation and dynamism atrophy only for a single closed economy. Impregnable barriers to entry are the bulwarks of the vested degenerate. But if we were to have a set of open and fragmented competing economies and polities–a system of competing systems–then the resulting diversity, pluralism and independence will prevent the establishment from clogging the line of progress. We’ve called this political creative destruction “Bloodless Instability“, but the idea is as old as David Hume:
That nothing is more favourable to the rise of politeness and learning, than a number of neighbouring and independent states, connected together by commerce and policy. The emulation, which naturally arises among those neighbouring states, is an obvious source of improvement: But what I would chiefly insist on is the stop, which such limited territories give both to power and to authority…
But the divisions into small states are favourable to learning, by stopping the progress of authority as well as that of power. Reputation is often as great a fascination upon men as sovereignty, and is equally destructive to the freedom of thought and examination. But where a number of neighbouring states have a great intercourse of arts and commerce, their mutual jealousy keeps them from receiving too lightly the law from each other, in matters of taste and of reasoning, and makes them examine every work of art with the greatest care and accuracy. The contagion of popular opinion spreads not so easily from one place to another. It readily receives a check in some state or other, where it concurs not with the prevailing prejudices. And nothing but nature and reason, or, at least, what bears them a strong resemblance, can force its way through all obstacles, and unite the most rival nations into an esteem and admiration of it.
At the Long Now Foundation, Paul Romer asked, “What if there were no new countries?” Olson’s answer is long-term economic and political stagnation. To rise from this muck, we need an entrepreneurial system in governance. We need the number of nation-states to increase over the next few decades. Peaceful secession, seasteading, Free Cities, Charter Cities, and other approaches to the entrepreneurial creation of new sovereignties…I would be shocked, and I mean impressed, if a POTUS candidate advocated for these. If Daniels embraces it, even a skeptic like me might pull a lever.
This guest post is by Rachel Mathers, a West Virginia University Economics PhD. It is a follow up to Claudia Williamson’s post from last week, “Let Fake States Fail,” which was part of our Culture and Secession series.
Though development projects are often lauded as critical for improving human welfare and alleviating human suffering, one nuance of development goals that must be addressed is the relevant alternatives to the proposed project. One such alternative, infrequently considered as a realistic option, is letting failing states fail rather than attempting to fix them. In spite of the best intentions on the part of foreign aid agencies and their counterparts, what is best for human well-being may be no intervention at all, especially in cases where a predatory government rules, making outside aid subject to confiscation by a corrupt and malicious government. In such cases, instead of helping those worse off, outside “fixes” fund a government that perpetuates the problems aid is intended to fix.
Christopher Coyne and Matt Ryan describe this scenario in an aptly titled paper: “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?” They note that “a consideration of the world’s worst dictators indicates that world leaders, even while publicly condemning these dictators’ gross violation of basic civil, human, and political rights, have been generous with foreign aid…[that] allows these dictators to consolidate their positions, remain in power, and sustain their brutal and corrupt methods.” Sudan’s al-Bashir and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe are two of the most notorious examples they cite. When foreign aid is filtered through governments known to violate the basic human rights of their citizens, why should we expect these governments to act any differently? This is akin to doling out money to the school bully to purchase band-aids for his victims.
In spite of the conundrum associated with allocating aid to corrupt governments in the hopes of increasing the welfare of those worse off, we must consider what is achievable through such aid in order to compare the trade-off between letting weak states fail and propping them up with foreign funds. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the proponents of the Millennium Development Goals, argues that increasing the income in these states will allow them to invest in better institutions and infrastructure comparable with governments that respect human rights. However, when outside investments are made in a country currently under corrupt rulership, what incentive do these rulers have to divert funds into such institutions that would, ultimately, strip them of some of their power?
Conversely, what would happen if we refused to give aid to governments that abuse human rights? Given that we expect expropriation by the government to be the norm, it may be the case that the corrupt government is made much worse off by the lack of foreign aid than those we were intending to help with the aid. In fact, without outside aid, a government that continually robs its citizens and violates their rights will soon find that there is nothing left to plunder and no means by which to extract further rents from its citizens. In other words, the government will crumble from a lack of resources. While anarchy may, at first consideration, seem like an unstable alternative, it can be a welcome change in countries with better informal institutions than formal institutions.
For example, if local customs are founded on trust and mutual respect, even if only within like groups, these cultural norms will yield more prosperity than the formal institutions perpetuated by an authoritarian dictator who usurps power and income. Even small-scale trade between neighbors is better for human welfare than the alternative. Relying on these informal institutions that foster trade, one can envision a more hopeful outlook for the future of these societies than the outlook faced under the former corrupt government. Somalia, as pointed out in Claudia Williamson’s blog post and in Peter Leeson’s work, is one current example of a country where no central government is better than the central government that existed before. In other words, given the relative trade-off between a stable but corrupt government or no government at all, there are cases in which the latter proves to be the better choice.
Independence Day Round Up
Happy 4th, folks! It is time for the closing ceremonies of Secession Week 2010. Enough theoretical contemplation. Break out the spirits. Turn up the music. And stride out into the irresistibly lurid carnival of America with a little Dionysian yea-saying. As Patri says, let us take inspiration from the Declaration of Independence to grow bolder in our aspirations:
Nowadays the theoretical morality and practical advantages of replacing despotism with democratic self-government are widely recognized. Those who throw off the chains of tyranny are following a well-trodden path to a known destination. But someone had to take that first bold step into the unknown, guided by their vision of a just society and frustration with existing systems. Without such pioneers, the world would be doomed to endlessly retread the same weary paths, ignorant of the greener pastures that might lie ahead.
Change always provokes defensiveness and suspicion from entrenched power structures and the human mental bias towards stasis. But it would have been a terrible loss for humanity if America’s founders had resigned themselves to the status quo of monarchical tyranny. As it would be for us today to resign ourselves to the status quo of terrestrial democracy. So on this July 4th, let us pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor that we will not make the same mistake.
Now, in case you missed any day of these festivities, let’s recap our musings:
- Monday: Introduction, Independence is Better Than Secession
- Tuesday: The Size of Nations
- Wednesday: Culture and Secession
- Thursday: Economic Secession
- Friday: Federalism and Secession
And around the internets, others have been developing the theme. Check’em out:
- A Radical Thought Experiment
- Black Market Secession
- The Real Meaning of July 4th
- Nobody Actually Agrees with the Declaration of Independence Anymore
- Third Palmetto Republic: The Many Benefits of Secession
- Pennsylvanians, The Case for Secession
- Disallowance of Secession is Endorsement of Slavery
- Celebrating the Independence of America
- It was a civil war within a common polity
- Declaration of Singularity
- Happy Secession Day!
And if you didn’t catch last year’s secession week, there’s lots of great content:
- Monday – Secession Goes Mainstream, Intro To Secession
- Tuesday – American Secession & Independence Movements
- Wednesday – Secession vs. Revolution
- Thursday – Federalism (Secession Lite!)
- Friday – Non-Territorial Government: Secede Without Leaving
- Saturday – American Revolution, Declaration of Independence
Speaking of independence and all that, nothing says “I love liberty” more than grown men stuffing their bellies with real pork:
Thanks for tuning in this year! Many thanks to all our contributors. You’re brilliant. Keep us in mind next year, when the event will return, bigger and better. Until then!


