"The exercise of authority over the same area by two States is a contradiction"
About this Quote
Authority hates competition, and Tucker’s line exposes why: sovereignty can’t share a ZIP code without turning into a turf war. “The same area” is doing the heavy lifting here. He’s not debating abstract legitimacy; he’s pointing at the lived absurdity of overlapping governments, where two sets of lawmakers, tax collectors, and police claim final say over the same streets. For Tucker, that’s not pluralism. It’s a logical dead-end that reveals authority as a monopoly posing as order.
The intent is anarchist precision. Tucker, a leading American individualist anarchist, is writing in the shadow of the post-Civil War consolidation of federal power, the rise of corporate capitalism, and a legal culture increasingly comfortable with centralized enforcement. His broader project treats the State less as a neutral referee and more as a franchise: exclusive jurisdiction backed by force. If two “States” can’t coherently occupy the same territory, then statehood isn’t a moral status, it’s a claim of exclusivity. The subtext: the State’s defining feature is not governance but the suppression of rivals.
The rhetorical move is deceptively simple: a syllogism masquerading as common sense. By calling dual authority a “contradiction,” Tucker smuggles in a bigger indictment: all political authority rests on the same contradiction, because it insists on being singular, final, and noncompetitive, even while people’s real loyalties, economies, and communities overlap messily. In a world of federations, treaties, and layered jurisdictions, Tucker’s provocation lands as both critique and challenge: if authority needs monopoly to function, what does that say about its legitimacy?
The intent is anarchist precision. Tucker, a leading American individualist anarchist, is writing in the shadow of the post-Civil War consolidation of federal power, the rise of corporate capitalism, and a legal culture increasingly comfortable with centralized enforcement. His broader project treats the State less as a neutral referee and more as a franchise: exclusive jurisdiction backed by force. If two “States” can’t coherently occupy the same territory, then statehood isn’t a moral status, it’s a claim of exclusivity. The subtext: the State’s defining feature is not governance but the suppression of rivals.
The rhetorical move is deceptively simple: a syllogism masquerading as common sense. By calling dual authority a “contradiction,” Tucker smuggles in a bigger indictment: all political authority rests on the same contradiction, because it insists on being singular, final, and noncompetitive, even while people’s real loyalties, economies, and communities overlap messily. In a world of federations, treaties, and layered jurisdictions, Tucker’s provocation lands as both critique and challenge: if authority needs monopoly to function, what does that say about its legitimacy?
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Benjamin
Add to List
