As lovers of liberty, we are often considered “liberals” or increasingly “classical liberals,” (Like so many other English words, the meaning of “liberalism” has been warped. (One reason that TPOL does not use “liberal” very often and refers to those so labeled instead as “regressive.”)) We avoid the word “progressive” because those who are called that are not advocating progress but the opposite.) The definitions of (classical) liberalism vary but in general mean respect for individual freedom, minarchist government, and peaceful foreign relations.

(We here at TPOL are on the fringe of liberalism. We freely admit that, because we are anarchists who reject even what is usually described as “minarchist governing” – we believe in little or no mandatory human government. Why? Because no human, mandatory, human government can meet the essential requirement of godly human living called the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Which is at the heart of the “zero aggression principle” (ZAP) and fundamentals for any rational person.)

Great liberal thinkers, such as Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, have recognized that human societies flourish when certain conditions exist. First, do individuals possess equality under the law as it is applied? Secondly, are all individuals allowed to pursue their goals freely? Third, are these freedoms restricted only by respect for other people’s rights? Classical liberal thinkers believe that there is a role for government. Provided that the government safeguards this free society by protecting persons and their property (from both violent attack and from fraud) without taking away liberty.

(Again, we here at TPOL believe that any human government ultimately decays into a government that is the source both of violent attacks on persons and property, as well as initiating and protecting fraud against persons and their property. And that defense from violent attack and from fraud does not require mandatory human government, but instead peaceful and voluntary cooperation including mutual defense and aid. We admit this is an idealistic stance and may never be achieved in this life, but still strive to accomplish that. We also recognize and accept that a peaceful anarchy, even of a moral and polite society, can decay. After all, we are humans. Perfection is a goal never achieved, except by the grace of the Creator.)

True (classical) liberals believe that international relations can work similarly. Nations interact most fruitfully when they meet in a spirit of mutual respect, acknowledging one another’s dignity and freedom. Differences come when one or more nations do not respect one another and freedom and liberty. Again, it is essential to recognize that both freedoms and liberties are limited by the Golden Rule. Even in a world where everyone – every nation and society – physically is closer than that neighbor 40 or 50 miles away was for most of human history, this is possible.

So, we must ask ourselves, can empires exist in these circumstances, even if we accept the minarchist idea of government? First, though, let us ask: have any empires ever existed under such conditions? (Minarchist at least: is empire even possible in any way in an anarchist world?)

Of course, just what is an empire? No, it is not just a matter of “I know it when I see it.” Oxford defines it as “an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.”

Neat! That could describe a lot of places and times in history. Indeed, the United States, under both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787, meet that definition. Even if the actual word was not applied. It implies government at many levels, of course, and there is the connotation “empire” has. Empire requires “a single supreme authority” but that does not necessarily have to be a single person. Or an oligarchy, for that matter. No Senate, no triumvirate, no politburo. Of course, we usually find that to be called something like a confederation or a commonwealth.

And in fact, there is no reason that the single supreme authority be human. (No, we are not pushing for Skynet or some other SF horror.) It can be a document, a covenant.

But whatever makes an empire, there is one key point: it organization must be one in which participation – membership, cooperation, and acceptance of the rules is voluntary. Including an essential element: the power to secede must be retained by each society or nation within that empire or commonwealth. And ultimately, the power to secede must be retained by individuals. People. You and me. And even that mean guy or conniving gal next door.

(Keep in mind that even with an absolute right to secede, either in place or by moving, does not mean that there are not prices to be paid for doing so. Shunning and excommunication for an individual or family: loss of privileges of trade and intercourse (in the socio-political, not physical way) when we are talking communities and societies. Those who secede must very carefully count the cost.)

Based on those criteria, the closest we seem to have come to a peaceful and free (and liberty-loving) empire is … nothing in recorded human history. As many libertarians have commented, all the human empires, from Nimrod’s and Hammurabi’s right down to that of modern China, Russia, and the American FedGov, are immoral and unable to be acceptable to lovers of liberty.

That doesn’t mean it is not possible. Indeed, some historical organizations have come close – at least for part of their existence. Switzerland comes to mind. As does the British Commonwealth (not\the Empire). It does not even have to be de jure – it can be de facto.

Again, something to think about: can an imperium be truly libertarian and virtually anarchistic? What do you think?