On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I think the whole concept of enclaves is outdated.
> Now that people can become a member of more and more different
> societies easier than ever, why would we need to ditch the
> traditional state in favor of "private enclaves"?
The question becomes, what are the benefits and costs of remaining under the jurisdiction of a specific state.
If my "state" wants me to go to Mars to fight against the libertarian "Free Mars" people, I may have a problem with that. If my state wants to use my taxes to criminalize the consumption of drugs by informed adults, I may have a problem with that as well (since I view it as the falling under the jurisdiction of natural selection).
It isn't the problem of joining more societies that is important, it is the problem of assuring that other societies (governments, SPAM mail distributors, Telemarketers, etc.) do not have rights over you that is the problem. It is the problem of an individual asserting that an external party has no "claim" over his income, behavior, time (e.g. for jury duty), etc. without his prior informed consent (i.e. contractual agreement).
If the external parties do not try to impose their perspectives without your contractual agreement then there is no need for enclaves. However, I doubt that will occur anytime soon.