All those areas in question need to be decentralized. Russia, Ukraine, Crimea, everywhere. The people of Crimea will supposedly have a referendum as to whether to “belong” to the Ukraine or to Russia, and the majority may want return to being slaves of the Russian regime, or the majority may want to be slaves of the Ukrainian regime. That is their choice, apparently.
But what if the minority doesn’t want to “belong” to either one? “You guys go join the government masters, but let me live my life in my own way, stop robbing me and expropriating my labor and just leave me alone,” is what the minority might say. Well, if you believe that individuals have a right to self-ownership and self-determination then that is what those in the minority should be allowed to have (even if the majority are a bunch of self-sacrificing, masochistic sheeple and like being the property of the “authority” criminals).
All these countries, cities, towns, they should all decentralize and let local people govern themselves. How would that be possible? Who would defend them from foreign aggression? It’s all a matter of private property, private property rights, and the right to defend it. Defense and security has been in the hands of central planners over there, and over here, and as we know now, that does not work. It is as inherently flawed and destructive as central planning in any other endeavor.
As I wrote in my article on police socialism, “government bureaucrats have stolen from the people their ability to provide their own security, by making such attempts artificially unlawful and through disarmament schemes weakening the people’s abilities to physically defend and protect themselves when their lives and property are threatened.” Government bureaucrats (police and military) also run a scam in which they seize private wealth to fund their own defense equipment purchases which the civilian population are not allowed to possess. That’s nuts. Those police and military will eventually use that stolen loot and stolen property to target and inflict harm against the people, as we have been seeing now, as a result of central planning. And thus in disarming the people, the bureaucrats have weakened and disabled the people’s ability to exercise their right to defend themselves (such as when neo-Nazis take control of the Ukrainian ruling apparatus or when Russian troops invade the Crimean neighborhoods), the right to self-defense which is the people’s right to have, as Naomi Wolf very astutely observed recently at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum.
The Crimean people should exercise their right to live their lives neither obligated to nor subservient of Russian bureaucrats or Ukrainian bureaucrats, but independently, based on self-ownership and private property. The entire region (including every part of Russia, the Ukraine, but also Europe, the U.S., etc.) needs to be completely decentralized, down to being independent and locally controlled cities, and then independent and locally controlled neighborhoods, and households even. (See Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed.)
Now, I checked to see how much private property and private property rights exist in Crimea, and it appears that while they do have a right to land “ownership,” it seems to be land which has or had been distributed by the bureaucrats of Ukraine based on this, that, and the other thing, typical statist communist central planning and all that. But certainly not having anything to do with homesteading or voluntary contracts.
In the .pdf linked from this page titled, Housing, Land and Property in Crimea, it notes
Right to Land as a Constitutional Principle in Ukraine
Article 14 of Ukraine’s Constitution reads: ‘The land shall be the principal national asset subject to special protection by the State. The right to own land shall be guaranteed. This right shall be acquired and implemented by citizens, legal entities, and the State in strict conformity with the law.’ The most important piece of legislation relating to this right is the Land Code of 2001, which establishes a legal framework governing land rights. Article 121 of the Land Code explicitly grants citizens of the Ukraine the right to be allocated land for certain specified purposes:
Norms of the Gratis Conveyance of Land Plots to Individuals
1. Citizens of the Ukraine shall be eligible for the free of charge obtainment of land plots from the state or community-owned lands of the following sizes:
a) for keeping farmer homestead-in accordance with the size of the land share apportioned to members of agricultural enterprises located on the territory of a village, town or city council, where the farmer homestead is located. If several agricultural enterprises are located on the territory of a village, town or city council, the size of the land share shall be determined as the average size over the enterprises in question. If there are no agricultural enterprises on the territory of a village, town or city council, the size of the land share shall be determined as the average size for the district as a whole;
b) for personal farming purposes – not more than 2.0 hectares;
c) for horticultural purposes – not more than 0.12 hectares;
d) for construction and maintenance of a dwelling house, ancillary buildings and structures in villages – not more than 0.25 hectares; in towns-not more than 0.15 hectares; in cities-not more than 0.10 hectares;
e) for individual dacha construction – not more than 0.10 hectares;
f) for individual garage construction – not more than 0.01 hectares.
2. The size of land plots handed over free of charge to an individual for personal farming purposes may be increased in case of the obtainment of the land share in kind (on site).
The Ukrainian legislation therefore recognises the possibility to obtain (state duty to grant) the land plots free of charge in an administrative way upon the citizen’s request within the above mentioned surface area limits. The procedure envisaged by the Land Code (Article 126) requires that any entitlement and the right to the permanent use shall be confirmed with State deeds.
And it goes on from there. I can see why there’s so much chaos in Crimea. The people are still subjects of the whims of government bureaucrats who have no legitimate authority to possess such lands to be “distributed” by them. Since the early ’90s, the clinging bureaucrats and their cronies have been both incompetently and corruptly mismanaging and misappropriating the lands, and there have been issues with the return of Crimean Tatars and others who were deported by the hundreds of thousands in 1944. That they didn’t go to Murray Rothbard for instructions on what to do in the ’90s is a good reason why things went wrong.
Relevant here, in my opinion, is what Murray Rothbard wrote in How and How Not to Desocialize, among other things:
It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: “all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!” This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by “mixing one’s labor with the soil” or with other unowned resources.
Desocialization is a process of depriving the government of its existing “ownership” or control, and devolving it upon private individuals. In a sense, abolishing government ownership of assets puts them immediately and implicitly into an unowned status, out of which previous homesteading can quickly convert them into private ownership. The homestead principle asserts that these assets are to devolve, not upon the general abstract public as in the handout principle, but upon those who have actually worked upon these resources: that is, their respective workers, peasants, and managers. Of course, these rights are to be genuinely private; that is, land to individual peasants, while capital goods or factories go to workers in the form of private, negotiable shares. Ownership is not to be granted to collectives or cooperatives or workers or peasants holistically, which would only bring back the ills of socialism in a decentralized and chaotic syndicalist form.
Rothbard also notes: “Fire the bureaucracy”! (And that goes for Washington, too!)
And as far as decentralization, in this video, Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains the advantages of small states and the dangers of centralization. I’ve posted this video many times now, but here I will just link to it.