THE FEDERATION OF SCATTERS

This work gives answers the questions, in what degree the monopolism of the State to its territory is reasonable, and what could take its place.

Questions about main. Democracy at a helm

   State authorities like their wards to support, all as one, their wise decisions. The idylls have not once fallen in ecstasy wherever rulers have occurred to be especially great and sage.
   Sometimes it has happened, however, that the bliss of the authorities has yet been disturbed by few nonconformists disseminating embroilments in the devoted souls. For this the authorities have treated them worse than the allegiant ones: giving them to lions for lacerating, making from them alive torches or curing multiply them particularly by labor.
   Yet, dissidents, as a species, have remained until now, and the most permissive States tolerate their expatiations.
   Democracy, if she is at a helm, also listens to them for a State ship could maneuver between Scylla and Charybdis of the world market and win its battles.
   It will good, however, to ask, what will the democracy do, if exactly half of its people votes for turning the wheel clockwise, whereas the others, which, we can see, are just as much as the firsts, votes for the rotation of the helm, on the contrary, counterclockwise?
   There is another question. Why must the Wells' blind majority enjoy the right to have blind the sighted others only because they lives on the same territory?
   It is possible to find answers these questions by researching the relationship of the State to its territory.
   Let us begin with the State.

On imperfections of State rule

   State power is mostly accepted as something necessary but imperfect one. All approve that positive reached with its help. However, being potentially boundless, it is completely responsible also for the rest that happens in States (barring may be natural disasters) including the following:
   - wars interstate and civil;
   - the existence of the dictatorships;
   - the decays of economies;
   - the ecological catastrophes;
   - poverty, high death rate, the degeneration of populations; and
   - all the other.
   The humanity has paid for the imperfections of State rule by millions of lives and person-lives of working time consumed in vain.
   However, why the rule is imperfect?

The monopoly of State *

   The activity of a State is nothing else as providing some services to its people: laws making, control their executing, management, etc. Traditionally, the State is a monopolist at providing such services. Therefore, it, as any monopolist, renders the services of half-dead quality.
   Besides, absolute power under monopolism is always corrupted one. Serving, to a certain extent, for interests of the folk majority**, officials, to say - some of them, since the first State in history emerged, have perfectly remembered their own interests in taking bribes, snatching pieces of State budget and many other alike.
   These interests are fully satisfied only under State monopolism. Monopoly, as one of its determinations goes, is a permit to steal money infinitely.

   *The reasonings on the monopolism relate more to unitary States.
   **After elections, the majority is represented by rulers, thus in the text the optimistic words: "majority", "State" could be replaced the more exact, but alas, pessimistic word - "rulers".

Slavery

   States, as true monopolists, aim not only to render some services, but also to spread their management to all, who are on their territories, transforming them to their own slaves.
   This becomes possible, firstly, because after elections of State authorities, they get the mandate of absolute power from democracy, i.e. from the people's majority. In the second, a State, thanks to its monopoly, is super-inert; it expresses the past time and gravitates to the social forms of the long ago past days, most of all to the slavery.
   Let us consider this slavery taking, as an example, an individual discontented with "its" State.
   First of all the State gives him the full right to keep his discontent in his internal world, i.e. to become an animal, only the nonpolitical one. What the consequences of the exterior obedience for both the individual and the State, we shall not consider here.
   If the individual chooses struggle against the State being democratic, he ought to remember he will struggle with the people's majority. The legal forms of his struggle are limited by elucidatory work with the population, for instance, through mass media. The results of such efforts could be generalized by the Russian proverb: "And the cat Vasyka listens, but eats".
   In the others cases, his struggle is taken by the State as a crime.
   If the individual wants to move from his State to another, being better on his opinion, then either his "native" State does this impossible, as an example, recall, at least, the German Democratic Republic, or the desired State, as a rule, does the same.
   These are the most probable variants of the slave dependency, which have until now existed for individuals discontented with the States they live. The total population of the world is about 6 billion. If the individuals are from one-sixth to third of it, then there are from one to two billions of them.

Territory monopoly

   Thus, the majority of those who are discontented with their State have been forced to stay on its territory, to be the captives of both the State and its territory, whereupon the State gets a sweet opportunity to exploit them.
   By the present time, the world has come to the point when any individuals, in general, do not have any rights to own a territory without a State. Either they are supposed, like incorporeal creations, to need not any territory, or to be obliged to live only upon a State. Without States, their existence is not stipulated.
   Though the Declaration of Human Rights fixed a human right to abandon the territory of a State, there is not an absolute right to take up on the territory of another State; consequently, the right to abandon a territory is reduced to the right to leave for Antarctica.
   On the territory of its residence a minority is also refused in the right to change the jurisdiction of its State into the jurisdiction of another State, the right is again given only to the majority. *
   A State wages fight for "its" territory against separatists even when there are thousands of those who would like to get a part of it for own State, although their desires to own the territory, where they live, are wholly natural. It does not matter, if those thousands are a nation, although not large one. All the more so, if they are only like-minded men. It seems that buying a land would allow them to fetch away from the services foisting by the State. In reality, any sold land remains a land of the State and all its laws continue to act there. Thus, the rights of a State-territory turn out to be greater than human rights.
   And so, to live under the laws of another State, in accordance with his own opinions, an individual must unavoidably move on the territory of the desired State, though only few ones succeed in such moving now. To put it otherwise, the fact that an individual lives on a territory binds him to subject his existence for the benefit of the majority of the residents of the territory.
   A citizen, however, need not to be saddened about all that, for he retains a certain liberty, that is, the rights to participate in elections and to live, unless where he wants, but inevitably under a democracy.

   *The future generations will hardly be able to understand, why an individual, in our age, was refused in the right to live under the jurisdiction he wanted, and that eclectic method by which our States embodied such wishes - democracy.

Elections

The monopolism of a State would be acceptable, if its public officials were ideal ones, and all the people of the State acknowledged that. Just elections have been designed to detect such figures in democratic States. During elections the ideal images of the necessary statesmen keeping in the heads of the folk try to materialize in the real candidates; after the elections, their physical bodies remain real, of course, but without, quite often, will to personify those images as well as to realize their election promises.
If chosen figures turn out to be indeed good for the majority of the voters, they hardly will be the same for the rest voted against them. People are different - some likes one, others - other, but democracy imposes the choice made by the majority upon all the population of the State-territory.

Democracy: enforcement and inefficacy

   The word "democracy" origins, as it well known, from the two Ancient Greek words meaning the power of people.
   Democracy realizes itself in making decisions being obligatory for all the people of the State. The decisions are made by voting. * Then those, who voted against, are forced to behave in accordance with the will of the majority, more exactly, of new rulers. Consequently, democracy provides liberty only for a majority, rulers, and enforcement for the others. The opinions of the majority get the status of laws, but opposition to the opinions is proclaimed as something illegal, criminal.
   If a minority is allowed to have its own representatives in State organs, then most often they get the possibility just to inform on their opinions, so as decisions are all the same made by a voting again. In the "best" case, when antagonistic groups are equal quantitativly, the activity of such organs turns out to be contradictory and inefficient. A remarkable example of similar organs is famous in Russia, the swan, cancer, and pike pulling the cart in different directions.

   *Here and farther, the notion of democracy is taken as the rule of people majority's representatives determined by a voting.

The antagonism of social groups

   In a country going from a way of production to another, the antagonism of social groups is absolutely inevitable, and compromises are absolutely impossible. Quite often, the opposition of the groups develops to a civil war with the mass extermination of enemies. The society loses its productive forces, and winners, instead of the future, fall into the past, i.e. instead of the expected, more progressive way of production it is installed an antediluvian one, which has to be depicted as the very bright future.
   How societies with single opinions develop successfully, as well the progress of those ones split by antagonism is slowed.
   The gap between successful societies and panhandle ones, busied with the question, "Whether shall we go an unique way?", constantly broadens; and obstinacy in selfwrecking evokes thoughts about clinic-psychiatric variants of the development of the exceptional societies.
   So far from the contradictions are economically removed on market, after elections with small superiority, the above-mentioned helm is simultaneously torn in different directions in the atmosphere of political fights slipping to a civil war. When the schooner is soon stranded, few ones can distinguish the services of the State from robbery: it invites its businessmen to deliver in State bins more than a hundred percentages of their income, or collects taxes on the wages unpaid by it itself. However, all this is done for commonwealth, of course, especially for the good of the folk's servants.

Surmounting of democracy

   What democracy, on which ones speak that it is the best thought up by humanity, could be turn into? Actually, humanity has thought up something better, namely: money and market, preferring them to all the forms of forcing. Since, democracy, as we have seen, is a form of forcing, then it must also turn into economical relations.
   If there were antagonistic social groups on different territories, each on its own, then their relations of antagonism would turn into just commodity-money exchange between them. Still, how could this be done?
   In the past, given unoccupied territories, non-contents were abandoning a territory, voluntarily or forcibly, and established on a new territory their own State, as it was in America, for example. Nowadays, when there is nowhere to resettle, for all the territories are occupied the existing States, with an exclusion - the same Antarctica, moreover, they are quite often occupied in the same manner as a dog in the manger does, minorities practice the bloody methods of separatism.
   Yet, what hinders several States to coexist on the same territory simultaneously?

A scattered State

   Any federative State is a form of transition from a unitary State to a federation consisted from the States that we shall name as scatters. *
   In an old federative State, the idea of the scatters is limited, so to speak, by the frontiers of the territories of states. Inside a state there is the same democracy based on compromises and forcing. Although the federation gives an individual the possibility to choice a state from the federative set, but any from them, all the same, is torn up logically. Besides, the individual is obliged to move on a new place of abode in order to realize his choice. Here any state yet exists on a not separated territory.
   To overcome the monopolism of the State, democracy, as the laws of the majority, the suppression of the minority, and to get economical efficiency, the folk's majority, rulers should realize, it will be better if a state exists on scattered and changing territories, i.e. exists as a scatter, than on a not separated one. In other words, it will be more reasonable if a truth is determined by market but not by a voting. Of course, ones can set prices by a voting, expressing their red-hot desires, but alas, in this world there is the very stubborn thing - market.
   If instead of a unitary State, on its territory, several scatters arises, then its monopoly will be converted into their competition, whereas an individual will get the possibility to live under the jurisdiction of a scatter chosen by him without his migration on another territory.
   Up to now, a territory have been controlled by a State, in a scatter's federation all the parts of its territory, on the contrary, will be really controlled by all the inhabitants of the territory.
   Until now, an individual with different opinions have suppressed, as that democracy have required, them for the benefit of the majority; in the new federation he will realize them in an scatter chosen by him just for his own benefit.
   As to economical efficiency, robbery is known to be the base of the monopolistic State. The monopoly possession of a vast territory, that is, the arbitrary privilege gotten, as a rule, by a robbery committed by the State in the past, and in the present being robbery committing by it, i.e. its rulers, to its citizens, is an anachronism having nothing in common with free market.
   The privilege to possess the territory is often reduced to the doubtful right to live basically off its natural resources, the labor of slaves, and to remain, as long as possible, savages isolating themselves, and that is worse, the minority, from the world market and economical efficiency.
   So an old State, and a state, has had a not separated territory with torn up sense; the territory of a scatter is strewed inside a federation, whereas any part of the territory represents a sound sense.
   Only at the first glance scatters seem like something new. Actually, they are very ancient and widespread phenomena. For instance, at the beginning of the millennium the Christians offered the absolutely new set of the laws and the social institutions, adding to the existing States their own one, later on partly assimilated by the firsts. The second example is the criminal State being on the territory of each State with its own laws, management bodies, its hierarchy.

   *A first step to the scatter could become a scattered free trade zone.

Enforcement replaced by money-market relations

   Each of scatters can have the attributes of the traditional State: own money, police, courts, and so on, as well as choose for itself a mode of production: slavery, feudalism, capitalism, communism, etc. *, which differ from each other mainly on the bulk of withdrawals for the scatter and the scope of personal freedom.
   Commodities and services producing by each scatter are offered on the common market of their federation. Thereby enforcement, which is the essence of democracy, is transformed into money relations, i.e. into payments for commodities and services. Such way, market will have replaced democracy.

   *Of course, the relations of slavery are here limited. The individual has wanted to become a slave can cease to be him any time choosing another citizenship. That is not like the unavoidable services of the democratic states, rendering for their captives.

A choice of citizenship

   Let us get back to the individuals that without any choice have been forced to obey the laws of a former State, which has gotten them as its citizens after their births on its territory.
   In the new federation, an individual can choose a scatter suiting him best, one of several ones. Upon that, he isn't required to resettle on the territory of the chosen scatter, on the contrary, his place of abode, if it is his personal property, of course, falls under the jurisdiction of his new scatter.
   Elections, which in traditional States are too overvalued, in a scatters' federation, lose their accidental character. On the one hand, this randomness is conditioned by several years passing from elections until next ones during which even unfit personages remain at their posts, on the other hand, quite often, by choosing, so to speak, pigs in a poke.
   In the new federation, for its people, it arises a possibility of another choice, the choice of a citizenship and no room stays for the randomnicity. In first, anytime one can renounce his citizenship and obtain another. In the second, such chooses can occur not in the several years once but as many times as it is necessary for the individual.

Stability

   A scatters' federation is much stabler than its monopolistic ancestors are. If the division of authorities on legislative, judicial and executive ones does power stabler, how stabler more divided power could be.
   Besides, inwardly each of scatters, there are minimal contradictions, since each individual have chosen himself a scatter entirely willingly.
   Together with the monopoly possession of a vast territory disappears also the fight for territories, since land becomes an object of purchase-sale in reality, but not a subject of robbery even if it's of the highest order, i.e. committing by a State.
   Moreover, scatters' stability is higher because they develops in accordance with the requests of market only, but not in accordance with the practice of deciding the most complex esoteric questions like these: "Who is culpable more?" or "How long black holes will be feeded via the top-ranking pockets?".
   The contradictions of interstate relations*, being mainly market, economical relations, are eliminated by the migration of people from unsuccessful scatters to prosper ones. Probably, that for this, they need not to overcome refined em/immigration laws. If a scatter knows that any its rash step immediately to cause the immigration of its citizens, i.e. its weakening, then it will be compelled to become a competitive one or, otherwise, to disappear.
   It is difficult even to imagine, who could, in these conditions, usurp power, whereas in the States-monopolists it have already practically always been usurped.

   *On the "virtual" frontiers of scatters, it will appear a host of problems of their interaction, the problems of interstate relations. These problems could not apparently be solved by a scatter. Higher level laws, hence federal laws and interstate organs will be required for this. Thus, scatters will be needed to confederate in a federation - the stablest entity.

One territory of the planet

   Yet, it will have taken a lot of time while the frontiers of States will have disappeared, and the States will have turned into abstractions with scattered territories.
   Before that, the following nonviolent method of the conquest of alien territories will probably arise. In history, territories have sometimes been attached to other States by means their populations' self-determinations, so it is nothing dramatic in that a certain State will begin to attach separate persons wanted this to itself, the persons living on alien territories, giving them its particular citizenship, for instance, without the right to migrate on its territory, however, placing them under its jurisdiction, whereas the State giving them its territory for the residence to cease to place them under its own laws, barring federal ones. Such a form differs from that considered earlier, since a federation here is additionally formed by the State of an outer territory.
   The isolation of a State has seemed to be a good until a certain time, whereupon the other States pay a high price for the "good". The mixing of States-scatters does not need similar expenses. We have also seen, how the "good" is big, when different groups coexist in the State in the framework of democracy, and that market, abolishing the democracy, reduces expenses of the coexistence of the groups.

The State as a join-stock company

   Since a State busies itself with nothing other, but providing of services for its people, it would do this better, if it existed as the most developed economic form - a join-stock company.
   A state, being such a company, would shuck off the bad habits of parasitism and squandermania. Citizens of the State-join-stock company could be its shareholders qualifying for the vote in accordance with the costs of their shares. * In the case, the whole State power would be presented only by hired staff: a president, a board of directors, managers, etc.
   It has been above admitted the necessity of federal authorities, interstate organs. The organs, in the same way, could be a join-stock company in which separate States to be shareholders.

   *In this case, the relations of democracy will be turned into economical ones inside a scatter.

   In the conclusion, it should be noted that, that earlier has been forcibly united, the State-monopolist, becomes a federation of scatters, a collective organ of different social groups. Their antagonism has existed in the former State turns into their competition on market.

   written by April 6, 1998