Defense Against Foreign Enemies In An An/Cap Society

[TortoiseDream]

I'm an an-cap myself, but I am debating with myself the implications of having no state and a foreign, state threat. Can a society protect itself?

At first I turn to privatization. Private companies could be hired to protect the citizens; but if there is a company powerful enough to defend against foreign nations, who is to say that this company might not take over the free society when the war is over? Would this not be the case because they would have competition from other, just as powerful companies? What if all of the major companies formed an alliance to enslave all people in the society, thus creating a new state in the post-war era? If this is the case then people would need to fight against tyranny themselves in a Civil War. But isn't this the instability that non-an/caps point to when criticizing an anarchic society?

Private militias seem to puny to defend against a full scale invasion. Am I wrong? You'd need a shit load of them, if it were the case, I guess. Is this the solution, just a shit load of private militias? Or would all we need are a few because our technology would be so, so, so far more advanced than the state's weapons? Like would be have laser guns and liquid armor vs. tanks that can't do shit?

Or do all we need are nukes? What about in the age where there were no nukes, say, during (American) revolutionary times? Then what? Magic?

What are people's thoughts? Can war be avoided altogether somehow (which would be the best solution, of course)?

:confused::confused::confused:

[heavenlyboy34]

I think you're overlooking the fact that the private companies in your scenario rely on private capital (customers' money). Thus, it would make no sense for the companies to kill/imprison their customers. This is vastly different than the State, which can use its tax/welfare/warfare apparatus to hold private citizens hostage.

It's much like how if your phone company killed you, they would stop getting money from you-thus they have incentive to serve you rather than harm you. gtg, but I hope that helps a bit.

[TortoiseDream]

I think you're overlooking the fact that the private companies in your scenario rely on private capital (customers' money). Thus, it would make no sense for the companies to kill/imprison their customers. This is vastly different than the State, which can use its tax/welfare/warfare apparatus to hold private citizens hostage.

It's much like how if your phone company killed you, they would stop getting money from you-thus they have incentive to serve you rather than harm you. gtg, but I hope that helps a bit.

But once they ARE powerful enough, by virtue of mutual consent and exchange with their customers, what is to stop them THEN from turning on the customers and seizing resources by force, just like the state? In other words what is to stop a private defense company from becoming a state, and no longer a private company empowered by free choice of the people?

[Icymudpuppy]

Powerful people, and particularly warlords, desire more power. Any company of mercenaries hired to defend against the foreign aggressor is not going to quietly go back to the small time work it did before the war. It will seek a coup on all the power in the defended area.

History proves this to be true.

The people of Afghanistan have always been rather anarchic. As such, it has always been viewed by foreign states as being an easy conquest, and worth going to war to gain the territory.

During several periods of history, the people of Afghanistan have united against foreign aggressors. The most powerful of those has always taken over the whole territory once the foreigners were sent off.

It then is always a difficult task to depose that powerful regime.

The Taliban is a perfect example of how a powerful mercenary group takes over an anarchic society after repelling a foreign invader.

These militia groups have a tendency to attract radical fundamentalists.

[heavenlyboy34]

But once they ARE powerful enough, by virtue of mutual consent and exchange with their customers, what is to stop them THEN from turning on the customers and seizing resources by force, just like the state?

The knowledge that their income stream would dry up. Unlike the State, such a business could not simply print money. Depending on the business' structure, the business would lose all its stockholders or its customers. Either way, this negative income stream would destroy the business that does injustice to its customers. Also keep in mind that such a company also has to have a viable business plan to even begin-so everyone in the "game" knows generally how the outcome should look.

If the company fails to meet the customers' demands, it goes out of business and the capital therein is reallocated in bankruptcy.:cool: The State, on the other hand, would simply make debt slaves out of the citizenry. :P :mad:

[torchbearer]

The knowledge that their income stream would dry up. Unlike the State, such a business could not simply print money. Depending on the business' structure, the business would lose all its stockholders or its customers. Either way, this negative income stream would destroy the business that does injustice to its customers. Also keep in mind that such a company also has to have a viable business plan to even begin-so everyone in the "game" knows generally how the outcome should look.

If the company fails to meet the customers' demands, it goes out of business and the capital therein is reallocated in bankruptcy.:cool: The State, on the other hand, would simply make debt slaves out of the citizenry. :P :mad:

the guys with the organized, trained, and paid military will get their resources by force. there is no more voting with your money at that point.
that is why I point out, your "private" government is no different than the "public" government.
they both have the same problems and require the same solution.

keep it local. keep it in small units.
if there are larger units like states and fed government, you will have to create a better system the prevents any new legislation by those bodies as their only purpose would be to protect from foreign invasion and enforcement of fraud laws to nuture honest business dealings.

[heavenlyboy34]

Powerful people, and particularly warlords, desire more power. Any company of mercenaries hired to defend against the foreign aggressor is not going to quietly go back to the small time work it did before the war. It will seek a coup on all the power in the defended area.

History proves this to be true.

The people of Afghanistan have always been rather anarchic. As such, it has always been viewed by foreign states as being an easy conquest, and worth going to war to gain the territory.

During several periods of history, the people of Afghanistan have united against foreign aggressors. The most powerful of those has always taken over the whole territory once the foreigners were sent off.

It then is always a difficult task to depose that powerful regime.

The Taliban is a perfect example of how a powerful mercenary group takes over an anarchic society after repelling a foreign invader.

These militia groups have a tendency to attract radical fundamentalists.

The Taliban is more of an example of how U.S. foreign aid is misused. (recall how the CIA funded the chaos in the region in an attempt to disrupt the Soviets, which RP has addressed in some speeches)

[Icymudpuppy]

The Taliban is more of an example of how U.S. foreign aid is misused. (recall how the CIA funded the chaos in the region in an attempt to disrupt the Soviets, which RP has addressed in some speeches)

The Soviets saw an absence of power, so they invaded.

The afghanis hired local mercenary groups to rebel, but couldn't fund the defense themselves.

They sought out and received help from the USA.

The most powerful militia group, the Mujahideen, ousted the Soviets after a long fight, and then took over the country calling themselves the Taliban.

[heavenlyboy34]

the guys with the organized, trained, and paid military will get their resources by force. there is no more voting with your money at that point.
that is why I point out, your "private" government is no different than the "public" government.
they both have the same problems and require the same solution.

keep it local. keep it in small units.
if there are larger units like states and fed government, you will have to create a better system the prevents any new legislation by those bodies as their only purpose would be to protect from foreign invasion and enforcement of fraud laws to nuture honest business dealings.


But you misunderstand-there is a vast difference. The "private" defense agencies would run out of money and whither if it did bad business (as in your scenario), as it lacks the power to tax and inflate. I thought the OP's question implied that a contractual system would be in place. You're asking me to lay out the entire system and society, which can't be done in a few posts (at least not on my schedule). :( Fortunately, there's plenty of literature out there for those who are curious.

[TortoiseDream]

But you misunderstand-there is a vast difference. The "private" defense agencies would run out of money and whither if it did bad business (as in your scenario), as it lacks the power to tax and inflate. I thought the OP's question implied that a contractual system would be in place. You're asking me to lay out the entire system and society, which can't be done in a few posts (at least not on my schedule). :( Fortunately, there's plenty of literature out there for those who are curious.

The only reason the company would need money is so it could exchange it for resources. But if it possess the power, it no longer needs money at all for it can take resources by force. In other words the exchange of gold would be replaced by the exchange of blood. As such there's no more reliance on the citizens, or a stream of income. No longer is there mutual consent, but force.

To everyone else, are you all suggesting that this is a key flaw in anarchism? The failure to prevent itself from foreign attack without turning into a state itself?

[torchbearer]

The only reason the company would need money is so it could exchange it for resources. But if it possess the power, it no longer needs money at all for it can take resources by force. In other words the exchange of gold would be replaced by the exchange of blood. As such there's no more reliance on the citizens, or a stream of income. No longer is there mutual consent, but force.

To everyone else, are you all suggesting that this is a key flaw in anarchism? The failure to prevent itself from foreign attack without turning into a state itself?

everytime I mentioned protection from the mobs- this is what i'm talking about.
It is easier to see when you get to foreign nations attacking you. But there is nothing from keeping one of these private defense firms from going rogue once they have resource control.

[Met Income]

The Soviets saw an absence of power, so they invaded.

The afghanis hired local mercenary groups to rebel, but couldn't fund the defense themselves.

They sought out and received help from the USA.

The most powerful militia group, the Mujahideen, ousted the Soviets after a long fight, and then took over the country calling themselves the Taliban.

These empires invaded and lost. We will too. So we're worried about someone else invading us? Good luck, invaders.

[Met Income]

everytime I mentioned protection from the mobs- this is what i'm talking about.
It is easier to see when you get to foreign nations attacking you. But there is nothing from keeping one of these private defense firms from going rogue once they have resource control.

How long can they go rogue once they run out of money?

[TortoiseDream]

How long can they go rogue once they run out of money?

They won't need money. They now have the choice to take resources by force, which money would normally be used to purchase.

[torchbearer]

How long can they go rogue once they run out of money?

like someone stated earlier, why would you need money if you control the resources?
you need money to buy resources.
In somalia, those band of thugs take their food from those who have it. they will take people's valuables by force when needed.
Your money will be useless to defend you from an organized mafia.

[Met Income]

like someone stated earlier, why would you need money if you control the resources?
you need money to buy resources.
In somalia, those band of thugs take their food from those who have it. they will take people's valuables by force when needed.
Your money will be useless to defend you from an organized mafia.

They're already controlling the resources and stealing from me. I'll take my chances.

Also, the thugs in Somalia are not very bright. Look at what happens when you take ALL of someone's money. They can't generate more money for you. This is why the mafia takes a percentage instead of wiping you out.

[TortoiseDream]

They're already controlling the resources and stealing from me. I'll take my chances.

Also, the thugs in Somalia are not very bright. Look at what happens when you take ALL of someone's money. They can't generate more money for you. This is why the mafia takes a percentage instead of wiping you out.

Money is useless. It's resources that have value. If a defense company has enough power they can bypass the use of money and take resources by force. No need for money.

[Met Income]

Money is useless. It's resources that have value. If a defense company has enough power they can bypass the use of money and take resources by force. No need for money.

Ok, sure. Substitute resources, assets, whatever. My point is, anyone who bleeds you dry is killing the golden goose. If I'm not productive, I'm not useful to anyone, including violent gangs. This is one of the major reasons why slavery ended. You're more valuable when you have satisfactory living conditions.

[TortoiseDream]

Ok, sure. Substitute resources, assets, whatever. My point is, anyone who bleeds you dry is killing the golden goose. If I'm not productive, I'm not useful to anyone, including violent gangs. This is one of the major reasons why slavery ended. You're more valuable when you have satisfactory living conditions.

Try telling that to the state or the gangs. They will rob you blind either way.

[Met Income]

Try telling that to the state or the gangs. They will rob you blind either way.

The state knows this. They are currently bleeding us slowly instead of immediately.

The gangs will never get to the monopolistic level. They aren't smart or organized enough.

[Icymudpuppy]

Also, the thugs in Somalia are not very bright. Look at what happens when you take ALL of someone's money. They can't generate more money for you. This is why the mafia takes a percentage instead of wiping you out.

Sounds like taxation to me. A percentage, eh? Those thugs have the beginnings of a good dictatorship. Give it some time, and they will start calling themselves kings.

[newbitech]

The Soviets saw an absence of power, so they invaded.

The afghanis hired local mercenary groups to rebel, but couldn't fund the defense themselves.

They sought out and received help from the USA.

The most powerful militia group, the Mujahideen, ousted the Soviets after a long fight, and then took over the country calling themselves the Taliban.


Actually, I believe I have some source material on this. I am pretty sure the Taliban kicked out the Mujaheddin. I'll look it up, just a point in fact. Also, I believe the Taliban came from the religious areas of Pakistan and aren't "native" to Afghanistan.

Ok, I will correct myself, the Taliban did originate in Afghanistan. More coming.. here is a good cursory look, I know I had a more authoritative source somewhere in my link library. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-taliban-and-mujahideen/

ah here we go. http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/AFGHAN%20CONFLICT/TALIBAN/intro_kakar.htm

[TortoiseDream]

Are there no an/caps here willing to defend their position?

[newbitech]

Are there no an/caps here willing to defend their position?


Well, I am not an ancap (yet, per se, etc), but I have been doing some fairly heavy research into these types of questions, largely due to the fact that it is hard to get a convincing answer AND so many active passionate liberty lovers tend to embrace this radical theory of government. So.. I'd like to at least discuss how a stateless society could protect itself.

The first thing that really comes up in my mind is something that I read called national self determination. This is from Rothbard. Here is the link http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html

I think it is important to realize that nationalism is a powerful tool for good when defending against an aggressive "state". In order for our fledgling ancap society to defend itself, the culture will need to be cultivated and developed in times of peace. A sort of brother/sisterhood that transcends economic relationships will need to be established, naturally thru free economic interaction. Indeed a focus of leaders and leadership via intellectual development and education. This would need to be a defining role of preservation and most likely develop as the natural role of the "economy" in broader relationship within the culture, language, and land of "society at large".

This would most likely arise from the various secessionist movements that would have succeeded in order to bring about the ancap society in the first place. Yes in peaceful times, the commerce and free market that would arise is the motivation behind the relationships, however the real glue that holds these relationships together happens truly at the individual level. This would mean that each individual would have a sense of "natural ownership", if even a small piece for the culture, the language and the land.

In this way, I believe the professional defense forces that contract for protection in good times, would take it upon themselves to unite under the common kinship, as in the examples cited above, particularly Afghanistan.

The larger issue, which has been brought up is, how are these military forces transitioned back into the role of economic freedom, once it has been established that their professionalism and sense of nationalism (for the good) has succeeded in self-preservation in defense of the culture, language, and land? What I believe would need to happen is a revitalization of the culture. An evolution and focus on the relationship between the individual and the culture.

To a large degree, this delicate balance will need to be preserved in the best of times as well as the worst of times. I think we see this already beginning to occur here in America, albeit somewhat late. Folks have a deep and passionate desire to lift up American culture and celebrate the achievements of the past as well as look forward to achievement in the future.

If anyone is serious about secession and protecting the ancap society from outside aggressors, or rouge defense forces, the time to start building those bonds is NOW. The time to start cultivating a sense of national pride (for the good) is now. Take care of your culture, language, and land now among your individual relationships. The lessons being learned in achieving political and economic sovereignty need to be recorded, celebrated, and integrated into the fabric of our every day lives. The bond between individuals MUST be stronger than the economic bonds. This is the only way to ensure protection from any force vying to become a controlling and dominating FORCE of relationships between individuals.

The true strength of any relationship, whether it is individual/creator, individual/family, family/neighborhood, neighborhood/town, town/state or country is in the desire to care for these relationship as the individual cares for himself/herself. We don't have to wait around for an ancap society to develop, or for "the state" to collapse before we start growing and strengthening these bonds. I truly believe that if we start caring for ourselves better, treating ourselves with integrity, respect, and righteousness, and treating each other in the same way, then our unity will be our strength. This will be more powerful than any weapon. We will survive in the down times (like now) and thrive in the good times.

That is my take on how ancaps will end up defending themselves from these elements. Practical? Only if its practiced.

[Met Income]

Are there no an/caps here willing to defend their position?

I have no idea how a stateless society would work. I'll take my chances on some competition, though. We know what doesn't work - and that's the monopoly of violence that we have now. Morally, it cannot stand, either.

[constituent]

Powerful people, and particularly warlords, desire more power. Any company of mercenaries hired to defend against the foreign aggressor is not going to quietly go back to the small time work it did before the war.

The necessity of self-defense will, imo, lead people to provide protection for themselves. I disagree w/ the an-caps on this. It is taking the overall concept and applying it in this manner which has brought me to the conclusion that Rothbard, while brilliant.... ehhh.. we'll fight this fight another day.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Are there no an/caps here willing to defend their position?

What is there to defend? I do not advocate any social contract is perfect. I have personally stated any absolute social contract is subject to the same flaw. Principles being passed down generation by generation or eternal vigilance as some call it lately. If the NAP is absolute it is subject to the same flaw as the constitution but that is not really the point. I don't know if other people hold my view.

The point though is the worldview. Is the glass half full or half empty? Recognizing you will never eliminate evil, what means promote the most good? This is where people agree that using force does not bring about the most good.

I do not feel there is anything to defend. You correctly cite a weakness of an absolute social contract but I would rather live free than live in fear of a worst case scenario weakness. Please carry on the conversation to flush out the best ideas.

[TortoiseDream]

Well the question now, if everyone agrees that an An/Cap society cannot defend itself from a foreign enemy - either by being defeated by that enemy, or creating a new state within itself in the process - is whether there is an inherently stable society in which man can live?

I agree, 100%, that returning to a state is not a moral nor practical alternative, and would cause more war. Ideally there would be no states, and so there would be no need to defend one's self from a foreign threat other than on a personal basis. However the case that there are no states anywhere in the world is extremely unlikely. So we should remain in anarchy? But then we face the problems I've identified, so.

Is a society of men inherently unstable? Can we really not just get along and live in peace?

[.Tom]

I'm an ancap.

I think an important thing to realize is there isn't really a need for a collective defense since there will be no gun control and everyone will defend their own property.

You can't take over a "nation" where everyone is an individual who will defend themselves and their property.

The only way you can "win" a war is if a state (monopoly on violence over a given territory) admits defeat and in essence forcefully legitimizes this defeat over its subjects.

So without a state, there is no need for a collective defense.

Even in the middle east, the greatest empire military industrial complex (us) can't possibly ever win these wars because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

This just goes to show that the BEST defense of liberty is the most decentralized defense possible, that of the individual defending his property.

[CasualApathy]

I'm an ancap.

I think an important thing to realize is there isn't really a need for a collective defense since there will be no gun control and everyone will defend their own property.

You can't take over a "nation" where everyone is an individual who will defend themselves and their property.

The only way you can "win" a war is if a state (monopoly on violence over a given territory) admits defeat and in essence forcefully legitimizes this defeat over its subjects.

So without a state, there is no need for a collective defense.

Even in the middle east, the greatest empire military industrial complex (us) can't possibly ever win these wars because THEY DON'T WANT US THERE.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

This just goes to show that the BEST defense of liberty is the most decentralized defense possible, that of the individual defending his property.

I would like to know how you and your neighbours are going to defend yourselves from a f'in carrier-fleet with a squadron of bombers. Sure you can try to resist with your puny rifles but I doubt running from bombs and sleeping in ditches makes for a great quality of life.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I would like to know how you and your neighbours are going to defend yourselves from a f'in carrier-fleet with a squadron of bombers. Sure you can try to resist with your puny rifles but I doubt running from bombs and sleeping in ditches makes for a great quality of life.

your basing this on the assumption that an an-cap society would look like what we have now.

[TortoiseDream]

your basing this on the assumption that an an-cap society would look like what we have now.

Well, what would it look like? And as such, how would it defend against the carrier?

[CasualApathy]

I'm basing this on the assumption that an an-cap society would still be surrounded on all sides by what we have now.

The rest of the world doesn't just go away.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Well, what would it look like? And as such, how would it defend against the carrier?

when someone throws a punch.....don't be there.

name me one nation that has ever been taken over without the use of land forces.

[CasualApathy]

when someone throws a punch.....don't be there.

name me one nation that has ever been taken over without the use of land forces.

There would be no "nation" in an an-cap society, right? Can't have it both ways...

[TortoiseDream]

when someone throws a punch.....don't be there.

I don't understand you.


name me one nation that has ever been taken over without the use of land forces.

I think it could be argued that some examples would be the Roman Empire and ours, which are collapsing due to internal forces, not land combatant forces. The Soviet Union, too.

[TortoiseDream]

There would be no "nation" in an an-cap society, right? Can't have it both ways...

But there would be a physical region of stateless space on the earth. We might consider this as a whole, as a society, though (of course) not a nation state. Am I correct?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

There would be no "nation" in an an-cap society, right? Can't have it both ways...

well, no, there wouldn't be a government. But you could define the boundaries by it geographically and/or by the nations around this hypothetical totally an-cap society.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I don't understand you.



I think it could be argued that some examples would be the Roman Empire and ours, which are collapsing due to internal forces, not land combatant forces. The Soviet Union, too.

Rome collapsed due to a number of issues. One being the land invasion of the barbarian hordes.

[TortoiseDream]

Rome collapsed due to a number of issues. One being the land invasion of the barbarian hordes.

Well, yes, but that was only a consequence of the real reason they collapsed - internal conflict.

[CasualApathy]

well, no, there wouldn't be a government. But you could define the boundaries by it geography and/or by the nations around this hypothetical totally an-cap society.

Sure, but then the question about how you would defend yourself and your family still remains. How would small voluntary communities or even individuals protect themselves from an organized army?

[TortoiseDream]

Sure, but then the question about how you would defend yourself and your family still remains. How would small voluntary communities or even individuals protect themselves from an organized army.

Right. It seems it would take some organization on the part of members of our ancap society. But this potentially causes the problems outlined in the first half of this discussion.

Anyone have alternatives?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Well, yes, but that was only a consequence of the real reason they collapsed - internal conflict.

chicken and egg. some of the internal conflict was the result of enemy attacks, etc.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Sure, but then the question about how you would defend yourself and your family still remains. How would small voluntary communities or even individuals protect themselves from an organized army?

if it was a surprise invasion? run. you cannot defeat an enemy you cannot see.

This is what I mean when I say the society would look completely different than what we have now. Right now everything that we do is based on a top down hierarchical pyramid like structure. Our religion, or economy, our government, our business, even our family structures. Living in a suburb is not compatible with an-cap. Neither is living in an apartment. Nor having freeways, large chain grocery stores, and professional sports.

the idea that you could change the way government works without changing life style is silly. Republicanism flourished in the New World because it was on the frontier and thousands of miles away from tyrannical kings. Not to mention a good chunk of the settlers fled there seeking religious freedom. This is a big reason why as the US grows it becomes more like the rest of the world.

[TortoiseDream]

if it was a surprise invasion? run. you cannot defeat an enemy you cannot see.

This is what I mean when I say the society would look completely different than what we have now. Right now everything that we do is based on a top down hierarchical pyramid like structure. Our religion, or economy, our government, our business, even our family structures. Living in a suburb is not compatible with an-cap. Neither is living in an apartment. Nor having freeways, large chain grocery stores, and professional sports.

the idea that you could change the way government works without changing life style is silly. Republicanism flourished in the New World because it was on the frontier and thousands of miles away from tyrannical kings. Not to mention a good chunk of the settlers fled there seeking religious freedom. This is a big reason why as the US grows it becomes more like the rest of the world.

This doesn't sound very convincing. Most likely a war will be over resources. If we run, there's no reason to fight, and the foreign enemy takes (steals) the resources easily.

[CasualApathy]

if it was a surprise invasion? run. you cannot defeat an enemy you cannot see.

This is what I mean when I say the society would look completely different than what we have now. Right now everything that we do is based on a top down hierarchical pyramid like structure. Our religion, or economy, our government, our business, even our family structures. Living in a suburb is not compatible with an-cap. Neither is living in an apartment. Nor having freeways, large chain grocery stores, and professional sports.

the idea that you could change the way government works without changing life style is silly.

I don't think people living close to the borders of potentially hostile nations would appriciate your military strategy of "Run away". The society you describe can not exist if it is unable to protect itself.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I don't think people living close to the borders of potentially hostile nations would appriciate your military strategy of "Run away". The society you describe can not exist if it is unable to protect itself.

this is the risk you take in an an-cap society. Just as when an armed robber enters your house, do you call 911 or get your shotgun? If you aren't armed, you get out.

Like I said, running is acceptable if it is a surprise invasion. If an an-cap society wants to put down roots in a specific geographic location then they will need to take the necessary precautions that come with immobility. Not to mention the responsibility of being immobile.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

This doesn't sound very convincing. Most likely a war will be over resources. If we run, there's no reason to fight, and the foreign enemy takes (steals) the resources easily.

describe in an an-cap society who controls resources

[CasualApathy]

this is the risk you take in an an-cap society. Just as when an armed robber enters your house, do you call 911 or get your shotgun? If you aren't armed, you get out.

Like I said, running is acceptable if it is a surprise invasion. If an an-cap society wants to put down roots in a specific geographic location then they will need to take the necessary precautions that come with immobility. Not to mention the responsibility of being immobile.

Are you kidding me?

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Are you kidding me?

so, ...you disagree? :D

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I don't think people living close to the borders of potentially hostile nations would appriciate your military strategy of "Run away". The society you describe can not exist if it is unable to protect itself.

What society have I described? If you live on the beach, don't be surprised when the ocean takes your house. If you live on the border of a hostile nation, don't be surprised when they take your house.

[CasualApathy]

so, ...you disagree? :D

I'm just being a realist. Your society will not be able to exist unless it can defend itself.

[CasualApathy]

What society have I described? If you live on the beach, don't be surprised when the ocean takes your house. If you live on the border of a hostile nation, don't be surprised when they take your house.

This is hilarious, it truly is!

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I'm just being a realist. Your society will not be able to exist unless it can defend itself.

again, you haven't defined "my society" ( i know i haven't), and you haven't defined "defend".

btw, i'm not an an-cap. I am a Devil's Advocate.

[tremendoustie]

I'm an an-cap myself, but I am debating with myself the implications of having no state and a foreign, state threat. Can a society protect itself?

At first I turn to privatization. Private companies could be hired to protect the citizens; but if there is a company powerful enough to defend against foreign nations, who is to say that this company might not take over the free society when the war is over? Would this not be the case because they would have competition from other, just as powerful companies? What if all of the major companies formed an alliance to enslave all people in the society, thus creating a new state in the post-war era? If this is the case then people would need to fight against tyranny themselves in a Civil War. But isn't this the instability that non-an/caps point to when criticizing an anarchic society?

Private militias seem to puny to defend against a full scale invasion. Am I wrong? You'd need a shit load of them, if it were the case, I guess. Is this the solution, just a shit load of private militias? Or would all we need are a few because our technology would be so, so, so far more advanced than the state's weapons? Like would be have laser guns and liquid armor vs. tanks that can't do shit?

Or do all we need are nukes? What about in the age where there were no nukes, say, during (American) revolutionary times? Then what? Magic?

What are people's thoughts? Can war be avoided altogether somehow (which would be the best solution, of course)?

:confused::confused::confused:


I think there should be local militias, on the city and county levels, which occasionally get together to train at a regional or state level. In case of evasion, they all would work together for defense. I think history has shown that nimble, independent militias are far, far more effective per dollar and man than centrally commanded armies. Observe what the Afghans did to the USSR (using improvised explosives and basic equipment), and are doing to us, or what the U.S. colonist militias did to the British.

U.S. citizens gave over 300 billion to charity last year. A tenth of that, I once calculated, would buy half a million stingers, ten million AKs, and over 3 million RPG-7s. Then, you still have the fact that there are more guns in this country than people to start with.

Think what Afghanistan was to the USSR, but raised to the tenth power. Setting foot on U.S. soil would be suicide.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think there should be local militias, on the city and county levels, which occasionally get together to train at a regional or state level. In case of evasion, they all would work together for defense. I think history has shown that nimble, independent militias are far, far more effective per dollar and man than centrally commanded armies. Observe what the Afghans did to the USSR (using improvised explosives and basic equipment), and are doing to us, or what the U.S. colonist militias did to the British.

U.S. citizens gave over 300 billion to charity last year. A tenth of that, I once calculated, would buy half a million stingers, ten million AKs, and over 3 million RPG-7s. Then, you still have the fact that there are more guns in this country than people to start with.

Think what Afghanistan was to the USSR, but raised to the tenth power. Setting foot on U.S. soil would be suicide.

Whenever I say things like this no one listens. Don't expect it to happen this time either.

Hitler didn't mess with, or invade Switzerland for a reason.

Also in an An-Cap society, weapons would be A LOT cheaper, if for no other reason than the simple fact that anything subsidized is always much much more expensive.

I suspect militia's would have no problem buying a tank, nor would the average person have a problem getting a stinger, or any anti-tank weapons. It would be suicide for any country to invade.

[CasualApathy]

again, you haven't defined "my society" ( i know i haven't), and you haven't defined "defend".

btw, i'm not an an-cap. I am a Devil's Advocate.

Throw out "society" and replace it with "geographical area". The point is the same, you would need a way to defend it.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I think there should be local militias, on the city and county levels, which occasionally get together to train at a regional or state level. In case of evasion, they all would work together for defense. I think history has shown that nimble, independent militias are far, far more effective per dollar and man than centrally commanded armies. Observe what the Afghans did to the USSR (using improvised explosives and basic equipment), and are doing to us, or what the U.S. colonist militias did to the British.

U.S. citizens gave over 300 billion to charity last year. A tenth of that, I once calculated, would buy half a million stingers, ten million AKs, and over 3 million RPG-7s. Then, you still have the fact that there are more guns in this country than people to start with.

Think what Afghanistan was to the USSR, but raised to the tenth power. Setting foot on U.S. soil would be suicide.

exactly. Then the argument was "What if someone parks an aircraft carrier of the coast and starts bombing." Then, in response, the question "Name one nation that has ever been conquered with out the use of land forces." was posed, in which came no significant reply. Then the line of thought degenerated into a "we need governement to protect us" line.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Throw out "society" and replace it with "geographical area". The point is the same, you would need a way to defend it.

agreed, but whose says that "way" is the way we've seen throughout history? bunkers, trenches, and big ass guns...

[CasualApathy]

agreed, but whose says that "way" is the way we've seen throughout history? bunkers, trenches, and big ass guns...

Short of converting the entire human race to your way of thinking you have no other "way".

[tremendoustie]

exactly. Then the argument was "What if someone parks an aircraft carrier of the coast and starts bombing." Then, in response, the question "Name one nation that has ever been conquered with out the use of land forces." was posed, in which came no significant reply. Then the line of thought degenerated into a "we need governement to protect us" line.

If someone parks an aircraft carrier off the coast and starts bombing, we shoot their hundred million dollar planes down with our $40,000 SAMs.

I think there are better approaches, but if people want to contribute to an air force, they're welcome to do so. Heck, chip in for some destroyers and subs too. We can pay for them easily, using just a portion of even the charitable contributions that we made even in the crappy economy we've got.

Take the burden of the federal government out of the picture, reduce taxes to zero, and think about the kind of economy we'd have. Charitable contributions would probably increase by a factor of ten. We could afford the best military on the planet, if we wanted it, and with militias, we'd have pretty much the largest army too -- with no central command/control structure to destroy. And, the fact that we'd be oriented mainly around defense -- not having to worry about remote strike/support, each dollar we spent would buy even more firepower.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

Short of converting the entire human race to your way of thinking you have no other "way".

that's an assumption. and one that cannot be proved nor refuted right now. Therefore, it is a waste of time to discuss it at the moment.

Therefore, we have to assume, in order for the discussion to go forward, that a totally govern-less society will find a way to defend itself. Maybe by defending itself it no longer heeds borders. Maybe it is like water in that it takes whatever shape it is pored into.

[TortoiseDream]

describe in an an-cap society who controls resources

Never did I mention an ancap society that controlled resources. However resources exist in physical space, and are desired by powerful nation states. Oil exists in the ground. Our poor little ancap society might just be over that oil field.

Seems like militias are the way to go.

[CasualApathy]

that's an assumption. and one that cannot be proved nor refuted right now. Therefore, it is a waste of time to discuss it at the moment.

Therefore, we have to assume, in order for the discussion to go forward, that a totally govern-less society will find a way to defend itself. Maybe by defending itself it no longer heeds borders. Maybe it is like water in that it takes whatever shape it is pored into.

Reality is the proof.

You need to be able to defend yourself or you will be enslaved by others. You don't seem to appriciate human nature.

[TortoiseDream]

If someone parks an aircraft carrier off the coast and starts bombing, we shoot their hundred million dollar planes down with our $40,000 SAMs.

I think there are better approaches, but if people want to contribute to an air force, they're welcome to do so. Heck, chip in for some destroyers and subs too. We can pay for them easily, using just a portion of even the charitable contributions that we made even in the crappy economy we've got.

Take the burden of the federal government out of the picture, reduce taxes to zero, and think about the kind of economy we'd have. Charitable contributions would probably increase by a factor of ten. We could afford the best military on the planet, if we wanted it, and with militias, we'd have pretty much the largest army too -- with no central command/control structure to destroy. And, the fact that we'd be oriented mainly around defense -- not having to worry about remote strike/support, each dollar we spent would buy even more firepower.

This is very convincing to me. Small, but an abundant number of, militias seems to be the best defense, and will not reduce to a pseudo-state.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Reality is the proof.

You need to be able to defend yourself or you will be enslaved by others. You don't seem to appriciate human nature.

Where is your proof. I do not live in fear or a world of fear for that matter.

My first exhibit is.... Gandhi

[TortoiseDream]

Where is your proof. I do not live in fear or a world of fear for that matter.

My first exhibit is.... Gandhi

Well you don't necessarily have to defend yourself with gun and bombs, but you do need to defend.

Gandhi himself said he was a soldier, a soldier of peace. His methods, the methods of Christ, proved to be far more effective than violence.

[Icymudpuppy]

Where is your proof. I do not live in fear or a world of fear for that matter.

My first exhibit is.... Gandhi

Gandhi had the coordinated support of two major religions who sought an autonamous "GOVERNMENT" free of British influence.

[.Tom]

I would like to know how you and your neighbours are going to defend yourselves from a f'in carrier-fleet with a squadron of bombers. Sure you can try to resist with your puny rifles but I doubt running from bombs and sleeping in ditches makes for a great quality of life.

Did you even read the "NO GUN CONTROL" part of my post?

That means that you would just shoot down the carrier with your heat seaking missile system.

You can thank the State for this popular misconception thanks to their limiting of our "arms" to just semi autos under 50 caliber.

[CasualApathy]

Where is your proof. I do not live in fear or a world of fear for that matter.

My first exhibit is.... Gandhi

No, you live in a fantasy world. The defenceless get trampled on, it has always been so. People don't want to live on the move or on the run, they want somewhere safe where they can raise their family. Penguins huddle together for warmth and safety during the cold winter, by doing that they have safety in numbers. People act in much the same way and have throughout all of history. This is not an argument for people being socialist, because most people understand that stealing is wrong if they are directly confronted with it. It is simply to say that you can't expect a majority of the human population to give op the safety that a nation-state provides.

We are social creatures after all. We have our families as our immediate pack, then the community around us and finally we choose to live in extended "families" called nations because of the benifits of added protection and safety in numbers this provides.

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

No, you live in a fantasy world. The defenceless get trampled on, it has always been so. People don't want to live on the move or on the run, they want somewhere safe where they can raise their family. Penguins huddle together for warmth and safety during the cold winter, by doing that they have safety in numbers. People act in much the same way and have throughout all of history. This is not an argument for people being socialist, because most people understand that stealing is wrong if they are directly confronted with it. It is simply to say that you can't expect a majority of the human population to give op the safety that a nation-state provides.

We are social creatures after all. We have our families as our immediate pack, then the community around us and finally we choose to live in extended "families" called nations because of the benifits of added protection and safety in numbers this provides.

i don't disagrees with that. However, the question of the thread was how an an-cap society would defend itself. The problem you keep running into is that you are trying to visualize only a government change and not a societal change.

Like I said before, the type of government you have reflects the type of society you have. To think that an an-cap society would look anything like what we have in America is silly. You're missing the point of the thread.

[TortoiseDream]

Did you even read the "NO GUN CONTROL" part of my post?

That means that you would just shoot down the carrier with your heat seaking missile system.

You can thank the State for this popular misconception thanks to their limiting of our "arms" to just semi autos under 50 caliber.

Right.

[CasualApathy]

i don't disagrees with that. However, the question of the thread was how an an-cap society would defend itself. The problem you keep running into is that you are trying to visualize only a government change and not a societal change.

Like I said before, the type of government you have reflects the type of society you have. To think that an an-cap society would look anything like what we have in America is silly. You're missing the point of the thread.

No, I get that. I'm asking how such a society would protect itself from outside aggression, I thought that was what the thread is about. Your "run away" sollution is laughable, you would simply be conquered from the outside and since your society is already divided it wouldn't even be that hard to do.

[CasualApathy]

Did you even read the "NO GUN CONTROL" part of my post?

That means that you would just shoot down the carrier with your heat seaking missile system.

You can thank the State for this popular misconception thanks to their limiting of our "arms" to just semi autos under 50 caliber.

So does this mean that the average person would have to own a heat seeking missile system? How would that work?

[TortoiseDream]

So does this mean that the average person would have to own a heat seeking missile system? How would that work?

Probably not. Perhaps at local militias they can keep a dozen or so. If you had a militia in every territory the size of a county, sounds like you would have a good defense to me.

[CasualApathy]

Probably not. Perhaps at local militias they can keep a dozen or so. If you had a militia in every territory the size of a county, sounds like you would have a good defense to me.

But then who would live at the border? If you did you'd have to spend unreasonable amounts of money on military equipment while people living in the more central parts of the geographical area wouldn't have to worry as much. Also, if the enemy were to focus on a single county at a time you wouldn't stand a chance.

[heavenlyboy34]

But then who would live at the border? If you did you'd have to spend unreasonable amounts of money on military equipment while people living in the more central parts of the geographical area wouldn't have to worry as much. Also, if the enemy were to focus on a single county at a time you wouldn't stand a chance.

People with the means to do so. The situation is already much like this in many border towns-I live in a border state, so I can testify to this. It's very much the wild west near the border. People who live down in Southern AZ know the risks and arm/insure themselves accordingly.

[CasualApathy]

People with the means to do so. The situation is already much like this in many border towns-I live in a border state, so I can testify to this. It's very much the wild west near the border. People who live down in Southern AZ know the risks and arm/insure themselves accordingly.

You didn't answer the second part....

There would be no benifit to living near the border even if you have the means.

[TortoiseDream]

But then who would live at the border? If you did you'd have to spend unreasonable amounts of money on military equipment while people living in the more central parts of the geographical area wouldn't have to worry as much. Also, if the enemy were to focus on a single county at a time you wouldn't stand a chance.

You wouldn't necessarily have to LIVE at the border. Militias could purchase private property along the coast and station defense arms there. Transportation in this day and age is not as hampered as it was back then. And technology would make it possible for no one to even have to BE there, i.e. make everything remotely controlled.

And it's not like every militia for itself. Probably neighboring militias would realize that if their neighbor falls, they are next, and they will ally with their neighbors. Attacking one point with ALL of your military might, too, seems like a tactical blunder anyways.

[CasualApathy]

You wouldn't necessarily have to LIVE at the border. Militias could purchase private property along the coast and station defense arms there. Transportation in this day and age is not as hampered as it was back then. And technology would make it possible for no one to even have to BE there, i.e. make everything remotely controlled.

And it's not like every militia for itself. Probably neighboring militias would realize that if their neighbor falls, they are next, and they will ally with their neighbors. Attacking one point with ALL of your military might, too, seems like a tactical blunder anyways.

This is just so naive on so many levels.... I'm going to bed, I'll deal with you tomorrow :p

[TortoiseDream]

This is just so naive on so many levels.... I'm going to bed, I'll deal with you tomorrow :p

"I don't have a response so...I''ll post an ad hominem and then run away!"

[Met Income]

If government can do it, then a voluntary, profit seeking company can do it. And they'll do it better. 99% of our life exists in anarchy and it works damn well - I see no reason why it cannot provide what people want.

[Met Income]

So does this mean that the average person would have to own a heat seeking missile system? How would that work?

No, you'd hire someone who did have one. We do this with government, do we not?

[Met Income]

But then who would live at the border? If you did you'd have to spend unreasonable amounts of money on military equipment while people living in the more central parts of the geographical area wouldn't have to worry as much. Also, if the enemy were to focus on a single county at a time you wouldn't stand a chance.

What is a border?

[tremendoustie]

But then who would live at the border? If you did you'd have to spend unreasonable amounts of money on military equipment while people living in the more central parts of the geographical area wouldn't have to worry as much. Also, if the enemy were to focus on a single county at a time you wouldn't stand a chance.


Did you even read what I wrote? Militias would have agreements to come to each other's aid in case of general attack. Any attacker would have thousands of militias capable of independence as well as coordination coming down on their head at once.

The benefit the residents of any area would receive by having the rest of the nation ready to back them up far outweighs the potential cost of having to assist another area if they are in need. It's the same reason your debit card works at any bank's atm.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Gandhi had the coordinated support of two major religions who sought an autonamous "GOVERNMENT" free of British influence.

The key word in your reply is not government. It is "support."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No, I get that. I'm asking how such a society would protect itself from outside aggression, I thought that was what the thread is about. Your "run away" sollution is laughable, you would simply be conquered from the outside and since your society is already divided it wouldn't even be that hard to do.

Why are you purposefully ignoring the more well thought situations that would most likely arise, to attack the worst defensible position? Of course we all know why.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

No, you live in a fantasy world. The defenceless get trampled on, it has always been so. People don't want to live on the move or on the run, they want somewhere safe where they can raise their family. Penguins huddle together for warmth and safety during the cold winter, by doing that they have safety in numbers. People act in much the same way and have throughout all of history. This is not an argument for people being socialist, because most people understand that stealing is wrong if they are directly confronted with it. It is simply to say that you can't expect a majority of the human population to give op the safety that a nation-state provides.

We are social creatures after all. We have our families as our immediate pack, then the community around us and finally we choose to live in extended "families" called nations because of the benifits of added protection and safety in numbers this provides.

You keep trying to make the same point yet have offered no proof...

Living in fear of a worst case scenario and living defenseless are two completely different things. Better for you to skip the absurd personal comment that starts your illogical reply.

I believe the contract the founders used was "We pledge to each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." That private contract seemed to turn out just fine without any official or formal government.

Your assertion the nation-state provides safety is false. Government can not protect you or make you safe. I thought that was a well settled point around here. Government can only react. It is also a well known fact around here the market reacts quicker and more efficiently than government.

So let's break down your nation-state. The nation-state 1) forcibly takes money from the people 2) purchases weapons from private companies 3) arms and compensates certain people from the general population. I would be willing to bet the market could perform the exact same function without #1 including the use of force.

Is it #1 and #3 that really matter or the fact that some private companies located within the united states manufacture some of the best weaponry on the planet?

What would happen to the cost of this awesome weaponry if we eliminated the government regulation?