Rothbard’s essay reintroduces “nation” into libertarian thought, which he says has too often treated only individuals and states as real units. The collapse of communism and Yugoslavia reveals not a new pathology but the return of suppressed nationalities. The “nation-state” is therefore the problem: its hyphen masks the difference between coercive territorial rule and inherited communities of language, religion, memory, and place.
The genuine nation, or nationality, has made a dramatic reappearance on the world stage.
The first section distinguishes nationality from statehood without turning the nation into a mystical collective subject. Persons enter markets, but they are born into families, languages, cultures, neighborhoods, and histories. Nationality is partly objective and partly subjective, a variable “constellation” that may include ethnicity, religion, language, or shared historical consciousness. Modern European powers, on this account, are not natural nations but imperial constructions: English, Castilian, Parisian, and Russian centers extended power over peripheries whose aspirations were never fully absorbed.
The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state
The second section attacks Wilsonian collective security as the foreign-policy form of this confusion. The analogy between a criminal aggressor and an invading state assumes that State B owns its entire territory as justly as a person owns his body or house. Rothbard’s central objection is that state boundaries usually arise from conquest, dynastic bargaining, or diplomacy over the heads of inhabitants. Territorial integrity thus freezes contingencies and calls them justice.
It is absurd to designate every nation-state, with its self-proclaimed boundary as it exists at any one time, as somehow right and sacrosanct
Bosnia and the invented Ruritania/Fredonia example show how “aggression” can hide prior annexation or oppression. Rothbard is not endorsing every separatist claim; he is denying automatic moral deference to existing borders. The essay’s 1990s setting is crucial, but its relevance is broader: it warns that international-police rhetoric often defends cartographic accidents rather than consent.
The constructive argument is secession. A just boundary, for Rothbard, is one that approximates the consent associated with private property. National groups should be free to leave coercive states and affiliate with other states willing to receive them. He also rejects the liberal commonplace that borders are unimportant. Even minimal governments decide the language of courts, school classes, street signs, and public records; jurisdiction can therefore sustain or erode a culture.
every group, every nationality, should be allowed to secede from any nation-state and to join any other nation-state that agrees to have it.
The essay then radicalizes decentralization through the anarcho-capitalist model, offered less as immediate advocacy than as a heuristic for present disputes. If every square foot were privately owned, public territory would no longer be a centralized channel for imposing uniform access, settlement, or norms. This reframes immigration. Rothbard argues that open borders under state ownership of roads and public land are not simply freedom, but a compulsory opening imposed on local proprietors and communities.
a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all.
The same model governs enclaves, citizenship, and voting. Mixed territories should be decomposed further—town by town, parish by parish, even neighborhood by neighborhood—while contractual access rights would handle exclaves such as Nagorno-Karabakh or urban enclaves in Belfast. Birthright citizenship appears to him as another statist mechanism that confers political claims without consent. Voting, likewise, should not be treated as the supreme political good; in private clubs, corporations, and contractual neighborhoods, governance rights derive from ownership, agreement, or membership, and dissatisfied persons can exit.
the voting process should be considered trivial and unimportant at best, and never a “right,” apart from a possible mechanism stemming from a consensual contract.
Rothbard’s core conceptual moves are thus to detach nation from state, detach borders from justice, replace territorial integrity with secession, and subordinate democracy to contract and exit. The conclusion is not merely administrative decentralization but the “decomposition” of centralized sovereignty into nationalities, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations. The promised result is a lower-stakes politics: less state power, less social conflict, and more space for consent.
This work was divided into 8 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 8 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian