How Many Believe The State WILL (not 'can') be Shrunk Back To Minarchy?

[ProIndividual]

And this is an example why libertarians turn off so many others. When said people display pomposity and jackassedness in their behavior, it totally turns people off.

Suggestion. Try to emulate Occam's banana. He rarely ever plays the name game and doesn't run around acting pompous. I consider him a friend and value his thoughts on issues.

It's an example of how illogical you are, and completely delusional. YOU said minarchism is not a form of statism. I proved you absolutely, 100% historically and logically WRONG using dictionary and encyclopedia sources. You have no argument. You just continue to live in denial of the most basic definition of a word. Your cognitive dissonance is your problem. Say what you like, you have been shown to be, beyond any shadow of a doubt, illogical and delusional (and it likely permeates other aspects of your psyche). Try admitting you're wrong when it is so proven, minimalist statist (minarchist).

I don't care what OB does...when someone says something so completely illogical, historically incorrect, etc., I correct them on it, and I expect them to correct me if I do it. As the song says:

I'll call you on your $#@!, just call me on mine
Yeah, then maybe we can work together, and make this $#@!hole planet better,
In time,
Until then...consider someone else

See, you don't have to like me for me to right. That goes for me liking you as well.

[ProIndividual]

After my little spat with LibertyEagle over the definition of the word minarchism, and Cabal's post #115 to Gunny about the definitions of voluntaryism and state, I'm starting to think minarchism isn't just the cause of inconsistent logic (which leads to inconsistent ethics), but instead may be some form of mental "illness" I used to suffer from.

#WhyCan'tWordsMeanJustWhatTheFuckTheyHaveAlwaysMea nt?

[Matthew5]

After my little spat with LibertyEagle over the definition of the word minarchism, and Cabal's post #115 to Gunny about the definitions of voluntaryism and state, I'm starting to think minarchism isn't just the cause of inconsistent logic (which leads to inconsistent ethics), but instead may be some form of mental "illness" I used to suffer from.

#WhyCan'tWordsMeanJustWhatTheFuckTheyHaveAlwaysMea nt?

Welcome to the futility of debate. We skipped the first step where we establish what minarchy, statism, and anarchy mean in a general sense. Of course, you're fighting an uphill battle because statism has such a negative connotations, that it's difficult to think of in its purely intellectual form. Therefore, when you rightly assert that a minarchist is a statist, they fly off the handle and begin defending themselves, rather than the concept.

This is only an example, but it's why debates on homosexuality are so fruitless. When you have twenty different definitions of "family", "gender", and "sexuality", it's impossible to have any proper discussion.

So, I would encourage anyone to ignore the negative connotations of "statism" when debating. No, we're not calling you a communist who worships the state, we're merely saying you fall on the low end of a scale that utilizes a "state" to govern. Now, there's nothing distinctly wrong with that position, it's yours to defend. Some would argue that the whole scale is immoral, but that's not really the point of the thread...or at least it wasn't to me.

And maybe this was already covered, I just begin to gloss over once we get to wall-of-text debate. Take one thing at a time...sounds like it needs to be definitions (right, LE?)

[Cabal]

Welcome to the futility of debate. We skipped the first step where we establish what minarchy, statism, and anarchy mean in a general sense.

Yes, defining your terms is an important step. But some things, especially given certain context (such as the fact that this is RPF, we speak English, etc.) tend to go without saying. In any case, you'd simply encounter the same intellectual dishonesty regardless, I think.

[LibertyEagle]

It's an example of how illogical you are, and completely delusional. YOU said minarchism is not a form of statism. I proved you absolutely, 100% historically and logically WRONG using dictionary and encyclopedia sources. You have no argument. You just continue to live in denial of the most basic definition of a word. Your cognitive dissonance is your problem. Say what you like, you have been shown to be, beyond any shadow of a doubt, illogical and delusional (and it likely permeates other aspects of your psyche). Try admitting you're wrong when it is so proven, minimalist statist (minarchist).

I don't care what OB does...when someone says something so completely illogical, historically incorrect, etc., I correct them on it, and I expect them to correct me if I do it. As the song says:

See, you don't have to like me for me to right. That goes for me liking you as well.

Problem is, you are NOT right.

[Matthew5]

Yes, defining your terms is an important step. But some things, especially given certain context (such as the fact that this is RPF, we speak English, etc.) tend to go without saying. In any case, you'd simply encounter the same intellectual dishonesty regardless, I think.

I've assumed as much as well. But Ron Paul brought in so many from the far reaches of the liberty movement, that we're now dealing with our diversity. Before, we had a single purpose on RPF, get Dr. Paul elected (although some were always just in it for the intellectual movement, which is great), but now as we move forward in the movement, we're coming to realization that there's a greater intellectual language barrier than previously thought.

That's been MY experience anyway...

[Matthew5]

Problem is, you are NOT right.

Somebody wanna lift the needle on this record?

[ProIndividual]

Problem is, you are NOT right.

No matter how many times you say that, it's not going to make it true. You can keep trying though, and maybe encyclopedias and dictionaries will all of sudden, magically, change the definition for you, minimalist statist (minarchist).

Objective things aren't subjective just because you don't want to face them.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Somebody wanna lift the needle on this record?

I tried but neither side wants to recognize that the cognitive distortion of labeling DOES not help with understanding.

Labeling is only useful, generally, after understanding is attained.

[GunnyFreedom]

The preceding appeals to stupidity and derangement: ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι

[GunnyFreedom]

"You disagree with me, therefore you have a mental disease." LOL This is your brand of 'logic' then I am sorely glad and thankful to God that I am bad at it. That's not actually 'logic' you see, it is called "sophistry." The illogic disguised as logic, in the pursuit of unsupportable conclusions. I have always found it a wicked art, and want nothing to do with it. I will neither twist minds nor have mine twisted, thankyouverymuch.

[otherone]

I don't think the state CAN or WILL. Localism is the only way to make minarchy work, so you'll need a combination of efforts to increase localism and for the starving of the Federal government once your region is stronger (not in might, but in health). So it's a pipe dream to think we can obtain minarchy amongst 315 million people in 50 states. No, it's going to take brave swaths of societies deciding to walk away (I would hope peacefully, but I'm not naive) and form a minarchistic society that places some sort of cap on growth.

IMO, the nature of power will create reform. There are as many petty lumps of flesh in DC as in State houses...the more power usurped from local tyrants by federal tyrants will result in increased power struggles.

[heavenlyboy34]

"You disagree with me, therefore you have a mental disease." LOL This is your brand of 'logic' then I am sorely glad and thankful to God that I am bad at it. That's not actually 'logic' you see, it is called "sophistry." The illogic disguised as logic, in the pursuit of unsupportable conclusions. I have always found it a wicked art, and want nothing to do with it. I will neither twist minds nor have mine twisted, thankyouverymuch.

To be fair, cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenommenon, not a "disease". Unless I browsed the thread too fast, I did not see sophistry. Strong opinions, but not sophistry.

[heavenlyboy34]

IMO, the nature of power will create reform. There are as many petty lumps of flesh in DC as in State houses...the more power usurped from local tyrants by federal tyrants will result in increased power struggles.

It's like street gang wars, isn't it?

[BSWPaulsen]

The issue isn't so much whether a State can be a minarchy. History has shown two things: that they can, and that it doesn't last.

The issue is whether anarchists can successfully defeat Statists in war. History says they cannot. Even aside from historical evidence, logic inevitably leads to Statists having significant advantages in warfare.

The fact anarchism is both ethical and logically consistent doesn't matter when human nature runs it over in practice. This is why governments of various kinds keep getting wheeled out despite the fact they eventually fail.

The issue, ultimately, comes down to how you want your society to fail. By the sword (stateless), or by collapse (state). Pick your poison.

[gwax23]

IMHO An Anarcho Capitalist society has the edge over minarchy on the basis of morality and consistency every day of the week. With that said I dont think an anarcho capitalist society is truly possible to achieve.(maybe im too pessimistic) In theory im an anarcho capitalist but in practice im really pushing for a limited state. I rather live under a small state with minimal interference in my life than a large state destroying my freedoms. Me making that choice doesnt lend support or legitimacy to the small state but simply making it the best of 2 bad choices. There seems to be many anarcho capitalists who dont support the political process because they believe that its either futile or by participating it somehow lends credence to the state. I reject that notion completely and I believe my views are in line with Rothbard on this matter. Again if 1 candidate would greatly scale back government and protect rather than trample our rights and freedoms, voting for him does not make one a supporter of the state or legitimize the state.

As to the constitution I dont think it should be considered a minarchist document. Minarchy by my definition a state restricted to the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. By that definition the constitution is not a minarchist one since it supports road building and the post office among other things. The constitution itself was not born out of a principled ideology for limited government it was created as a compromise to expand government from our previous ruling document (the articles of confederation) it did not shrink government it expanded it greatly. The only thing truly unique and great about the document is the Bill of Rights but that was only added later at the request of the anti federalists. For these reasons I dont believe it should be used as an example of minarchy. Though unintentionally we had periods and areas in the US that came damn near close to minarchy if not anarchy at many points in our history.

[Christopher A. Brown]

There seems to be many anarcho capitalists who dont support the political process because they believe that its either futile or by participating it somehow lends credence to the state.

I've seen that to be true. The original intentions of the constitution appear okay, and I agree that the BOR is the real quality for the people experienced on a daily basis.

Also, Article V, the right to alter or abolish is invaluable to the people if lawful, peaceful opposition to tyranny is valued.

I've developed uncompromising, albeit idealistic in the current political environment where the public is been made ignorant of facts and seriously manipulated/deceived by cognitive infiltration, that can be used to minimize the federal government to a very functional and tolerable point.

It starts with agreement upon the purpose of free speech, because we need that to go further, then it logically and legally, goes here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-to-perfection

[idiom]

Hey all,

New Zealand was a full blown social dystopia in 1984. One election later it was on track to become one of the most economically, socially and politically libertarian countries in the world.

It can happen. I dunno that it will happen in America though. People don't want it yet. To many still think they are in on the scam.

We don't even have much in the way of a constitution.

People just started being honest.

[Christopher A. Brown]

People just started being honest.

That could happen here but with cognitive infiltration people do not even know what to think. Their instincts are even blunted.

I'm sure most Kiwis could accept that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood. At this forum there is not one person that will overtly state acceptance.

FEAR

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...Of-Free-Speech

[Feeding the Abscess]

Stolen from a friend on Facebook:

Imagine you are shopping for a dog at a kennel. You want this dog to be strong and violent to protect you from intruders. The man working at the kennel gives you a violent, rabid dog and, along with it, gives you a certificate which says that while the dog is allowed to attack others, it is not allowed to attack you because you are its master. You bring the dog home and hang the certificate on the wall for all to see. Shortly thereafter, the dog pounces on you and begins to tear your throat open with its gnashing jaw. As you gasp for air and struggle for life are you:

a) Pointing repeatedly at the certificate on the wall to bring it to the dogs attention

or

b) Reconsidering owning a violent, rabid dog

[ProIndividual]

Even aside from historical evidence, logic inevitably leads to Statists having significant advantages in warfare.

I disagree with this. History shows far more states were conquered by states than stateless societies conquered by states. Both are susceptible to being conquered by states, and the state is more so open to this criticism.

There are two different kinds of war...offensive and defensive. The state is decent at defense, and it excels at offensive aggressions. It's great for committing mass murder, starting wars with initiations of force, occupying foreign people for long periods, etc. It's only so-so on defense.

The stateless defense system showed itself to be great at defense (most stateless societies didn't become states via being conquered, and it wasn't for a lack of states trying). The militia system in the early Confederation and under the up-to-late-19th-century-America, under which we lost zero wars, was very similar to the militia defense systems of stateless societies. The main difference was the state system had regional jurisdictions funded by extortion (but not a monopoly), while the stateless militia systems were based on contractual arrangements with willing paying customers. In both cases, the militias were nearly impossible to defeat (there was no single central authority that could surrender the entire force), and were easily trained semi-annually and assembled into a larger coordinated force when required.

The stateless defense was nearly inept...at occupations and acts of offensive, initiated, aggression. It was BETTER for defense.

I don't see how logic would lead to statists having significant advantages. If what we know about market economics holds true, then the state monopsony in defense suffers in spades from the economic calculation problem, is overcharging, underperforming, and totally unaccountable to its consumers (citizens). You can't see how $#@!ty it is because you have no market competitor to compare it to. The idea they would be at an advantage using state socialism (that's what they do; socialize the market) at providing a market demanded service like defense, is to me ludicrous. Of course, state socialism will allocate resources less efficiently, and more importantly, less on defense than offense.

The state would be at a serious disadvantage. And if we ever achieved a 2nd intellectual Enlightenment, where people accept the fact that the state is merely self-legalized organized crime, then forming a state would be considered a serious crime. It's like saying murder and rape can be legalized in society and made to be accepted. Not for long. As soon as the legal regime that makes us accept murder and rape falls, so to will that non-market-driven social norm. How long would a re-emergent state last in a world, or region, that sees their very existence as criminal behavior, their entire funding method to be extortion, and see their attempts at offensive aggressive war as mass murder?

It's like saying we shouldn't outlaw theft because it won't stop all theft. Worse yet, you want to legalize it for a select minority class of rulers, while keeping it illegal for the masses. Who cares that the state might rear its head again? Burglars still burgle even though we've outlawed it...that's no reason to legalize it for a small group in an attempt to allow some kind of preemptive catharsis for the whole collective society. You legalizing the state's criminal acts (acts that would criminal for the rest of us) doesn't decrease that acts occurrence overall, and it certainly doesn't make it cease altogether.

It should be illegal for ALL people, not just the peons, and not just the parasites in power, to extort others, or steal from others, or to threaten competition in a market. To have a state just legalizes them for a small group...it doesn't abolish it or even contain its growth.

[ProIndividual]

Maybe my hypothetical held more water than I thought...

It appears as of now that 44% of minarchists (11 of 25) think the state can be regressed to minarchy from where it is now by way of some peaceful political process back toward small government.

Meanwhile, only 24% of anarchists believe this.

My original hypothesis was that minarchists would buy into such a possibility at a much higher rate than anarchists, thereby partially explaining their dedication to possibilities within the current political institutions, and their belief the state is sustainable as form of human organization in the long term.

I was, early on, seeing numbers that didn't jive with that theory. I think now these numbers do jive with this theory somewhat. We'll see if we get a crap-ton more votes, but barring that, I'm going to say the hypothesis made some sense and was proven true. The sample size is woefully small though.

So, what I got from this thread was minarchists indeed do think, significantly more often than anarchists, that the state can be peacefully regressed before the entire system collapses, via voting and other political participation within the system. This explains not only their support for minimal statism, but also why they clamor to win elections more than tell the truth and convert people while losing elections (the Rand Paul vs Ron Paul methodologies). I think this belief being so disproportionate to minarchists (if indeed it really is) and history, as opposed to anarchists and the recorded history of the world when it comes to states, suggests the lack of consistent logic that leads to inconsistent ethics is also affecting their expectations in results and methods.

So, perhaps my theories as to the psychology of minarchists vs anarchists, centered around the root differences lying in the consistency in which logic is applied for both sets of individuals, aren't as far off base as I thought earlier in this thread.

If they apply logic inconsistently enough to still support the state as a non-pure-evil institution (that may or may not get things right once in a while by pure coincidence, like a broken clock), then leaping from that ethical inconsistency to skewed expectations (and therefore skewed tactics to reach those skewed expectations) isn't really that far of a jump at all. If you think X is ethical, benign, or necessary, even though totally consistent logic (and proper information) shows it isn't any of those things, then it isn't hard to see why you'd also expect that X have a longer lifecycle than it really does, that it ends in a good way more often that it actually does, that X is somehow less dangerous than it really is, and that working within the system of X will actually further your cause more than it will.

[euphemia]

I don't think it will be shrunk back, but I can tell you I could shrink it back in pretty short order.

[Uriah]

I've assumed as much as well. But Ron Paul brought in so many from the far reaches of the liberty movement, that we're now dealing with our diversity. Before, we had a single purpose on RPF, get Dr. Paul elected (although some were always just in it for the intellectual movement, which is great), but now as we move forward in the movement, we're coming to realization that there's a greater intellectual language barrier than previously thought.

That's been MY experience anyway...

Agreed. My experience as well.

[ProIndividual]

I don't think it will be shrunk back, but I can tell you I could shrink it back in pretty short order.

And I can tell you it wouldn't stay shrunk, and its regrowth would occur in relatively short order, as it always does.

[Christopher A. Brown]

It appears as of now that 44% of minarchists (11 of 25) think the state can be regressed to minarchy from where it is now by way of some peaceful political process back toward small government.

Meanwhile, only 24% of anarchists believe this.

Yes, and the strategy I post about exercising our first constitutional right, to "alter or abolish", by first acting to clean up states will work.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A step by step process in a forum which stands un opposed because it is fully lawful and logical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5433668

This will work, and it is obvious IF a person believes in human nature. Of course information controls human nature. Free speech is abridged, so without many citizens helping, information vital to survival will not be shared or understood. Many may lose their lives.

Oh, I've put the anarchists on notice of a simple fact, not obvious but simple once a person thinks of it.

The only anarchy which is peaceful is one where every person of it knows everything there is to know about needs and will not place a want over a need.
They of course do not know all of that, but do know that there are many who will place wants over needs, so are converting to minarchists. The smart ones anyway.

[BSWPaulsen]

I disagree with this. History shows far more states were conquered by states than stateless societies conquered by states. Both are susceptible to being conquered by states, and the state is more so open to this criticism.

History shows that all stateless societies are either forcefully stomped out, by genocide if necessary, or are only allowed to exist at the sufferance of a State.

Stateless societies are a noble goal, but as stated before, it will eventually get put to the sword once those unethical Statists get it in their mind to forcefully collectivize their charges for the purpose of killing you off. Their world view doesn't inherently condemn those actions - this is the reality that must be faced.

There are two different kinds of war...offensive and defensive. The state is decent at defense, and it excels at offensive aggressions. It's great for committing mass murder, starting wars with initiations of force, occupying foreign people for long periods, etc. It's only so-so on defense.

It excels at offensive because there is no standard judging it as unethical. I repeat this point because that, in itself, gives them an advantage.

War is nothing if not mass murder. Stateless societies have been mass murdered since time immemorial. Let's face it, if the Native Americans had collectivized somehow, then Europeans would have never gotten a foothold in this country. They didn't. The USA (a State) beat them down. Repeatedly. Using any and all unethical means available to them.

The stateless defense system showed itself to be great at defense (most stateless societies didn't become states via being conquered, and it wasn't for a lack of states trying). The militia system in the early Confederation and under the up-to-late-19th-century-America, under which we lost zero wars, was very similar to the militia defense systems of stateless societies. The main difference was the state system had regional jurisdictions funded by extortion (but not a monopoly), while the stateless militia systems were based on contractual arrangements with willing paying customers. In both cases, the militias were nearly impossible to defeat (there was no single central authority that could surrender the entire force), and were easily trained semi-annually and assembled into a larger coordinated force when required.

States resort to genocide when there is no central authority to go after. It's a stupid-as-all-hell argument to think that them having to play whack-a-mole means you're winning. Maybe them playing whack-a-mole might bankrupt them eventually (ie: as the "War on Terror" may very well do to this country, or as with the USSR in Afghanistan), but it is an awful means of attempting to win a war. You lose many more lives, and end up with the most useless version of "winning a war" humanly possible. Your land is in ruins, your people dead, and the only reason you "won" is because they stopped killing you. Great.

I am reminded of Sherman sacking the south. Even had his army been defeated at the end of his march to the Atlantic the South would have still been left destitute as a result of the wanton destruction. Fighting a war on your territory is a losing proposition. The goal is to bomb the other guy, not let him bomb you.

Never minding the fact that the existing agreement between the states guaranteed their defense should any one of them be attacked by a foreign power. Using a militia system codified by a State (the USA) is not an argument in your favor.

I don't see how logic would lead to statists having significant advantages. If what we know about market economics holds true, then the state monopsony in defense suffers in spades from the economic calculation problem, is overcharging, underperforming, and totally unaccountable to its consumers (citizens). You can't see how $#@!ty it is because you have no market competitor to compare it to. The idea they would be at an advantage using state socialism (that's what they do; socialize the market) at providing a market demanded service like defense, is to me ludicrous. Of course, state socialism will allocate resources less efficiently, and more importantly, less on defense than offense.

Let's call it for what it is - a State monopoly on warfare. There's also the issue of you ignoring any resources gained from war as doing much to cancel out the inefficiencies of the machine that gained the resources.

That the State pays for its violation of the market after the war is over bears no significance on the fact that they can marshal far more resources for one specific purpose than a stateless society ever will. And when that specific purpose is mass murder, they do it way better than the stateless society ever will. You have essentially admitted this point already. And should you fail to admit this point, then what in the hell is the point of aiming for a society that performs mass murder better than the State?

Inefficient use of a large number of resources does cause waste, but they have more resources to use. Good luck convincing everyone in a stateless society to contribute to any given cause "because it's for their own good". Coercion works, and that is part of why States exist. Having more resources at one's disposal is always a huge advantage in warfare.

Statists have no moral standards that judge offensive actions as immoral. Lacking a moral imperative to avoid it, they will attack first. This always puts the defender at a disadvantage.

Statists forcefully pool resources, and this will always exceed a voluntary pool. This refers to both material resources and human resources.

Between these two, and the wide breadth of human history one thing becomes evident: stateless societies are at a distinct disadvantage in war.

[ProIndividual]

History shows that all stateless societies are either forcefully stomped out, by genocide if necessary, or are only allowed to exist at the sufferance of a State.

Actually it doesn't show that at all. Anthropology shows the vast majority of stateless societies weren't victims of genocide or forcefully stomped out...they became states by allowing cartelization of law/defense markets, unaware of the consequences long term. Very few of them fell to force...because stateless defense was so great at repelling invasions. Notice America in the 18th and up to the late 19th centuries used ONLY militia defense in terms of "army", no standing army. This was exactly the stateless Model (with obvious variance because the militia system of America was under the jurisdictions of States under a state). The early American system never lost a war...we didn't start losing until the standing Army period. Also, initiated war is largely impossible with a militia system (hence we illegally have a standing Army now). It (a militia system), even under the smaller Constitutional Republic-type government, and the Confederated American system before that, is most reflective of the market demand of the people...for defense, not warmongering. So resources are most efficiently allocated to that cause. Of course, it's better at defense for that reason. If America never formed a state, we'd still have that maximally efficient system of defense now, thanks to the market supply to meet market demand for defense.

To contrast that...at one time there were 600,000 states on the planet...they all were either conquered, even with standing armies, or they self-imploded, died out because of some disease, or some bad citizenship rules (Sparta's inability to be a citizen unless you were born a Spartan made it so they collapsed - they changed the rule far too late), or some natural disaster.

I won't go on from there, because if that premise is false, most of your thinking that follows from it is false.

It's a stupid-as-all-hell argument to think that them having to play whack-a-mole means you're winning.

Straw man. I never said that, now did I? However, common sense tells you its easier to defeat a people when they have one central authority that can surrender on behalf of everyone else. The genocide cases you spoke of earlier only happened because that was the ONLY way to defeat the stateless societies in question...they had no central authority to surrender for everyone...the states that invaded had to get each and every defense agency (clan, whatever - they had different names in different places and different times) to surrender individually to secure an end to insurgency.

Do you think Afghanistan, after over a decade of war, and no real central government to speak of beyond what we imposed on them, is in anyway losing the war? When we leave, the insurgency will not be over...because we aren't using genocide to slaughter every last local defense agency. The tribal defense structure requires scorched earth strategy to beat, as winning hearts and minds almost never works. This is nation-building fails...it either commits genocide, which gets it condemned, or it tries to win hearts and minds of the very people they're occupying.

...but it is an awful means of attempting to win a war

If state versions fail, but that version wins...

This whole conversation has no relevance to America though...we have nukes. It's impossible to exploit us. We could privatize defense and hand the nukes over to the defense companies that appear in the market...no one could invade us due to game theory mathematics. And that doesn't even take into account our gun ownership rates and that effect on invasions.

States do NOT have an advantage in war against stateless societies. You act as if state socialism in defense magically doesn't carry with it all the inefficiencies of state socialism...but it does. As compared to free market defense, it's garbage...you just don't realize it because you have nothing to compare state socialism of those markets to. That. and your whole life you've been taught to see it as state socialism, even though that's exactly what it is by definition.

Can explain how it isn't state socialism of defense markets? Or how that state socialism isn't less efficient than market accumulation and allocation? And why you don't advocate full state socialism for all markets (state communism) since it's so damn efficient to have state socialized markets?

And please, prove resources gained from war somehow "make up for" those inefficiencies...because they flatly don't. Not only is this proven in economics, but also by history. The states that became Empires, by attempting this strategy, bankrupt themselves every single time.

[BSWPaulsen]

Actually it doesn't show that at all. Anthropology shows the vast majority of stateless societies weren't victims of genocide or forcefully stomped out...they became states by allowing cartelization of law/defense markets, unaware of the consequences long term. Very few of them fell to force...because stateless defense was so great at repelling invasions. Notice America in the 18th and up to the late 19th centuries used ONLY militia defense in terms of "army", no standing army. This was exactly the stateless Model (with obvious variance because the militia system of America was under the jurisdictions of States under a state). The early American system never lost a war...we didn't start losing until the standing Army period. Also, initiated war is largely impossible with a militia system (hence we illegally have a standing Army now). It (a militia system), even under the smaller Constitutional Republic-type government, and the Confederated American system before that, is most reflective of the market demand of the people...for defense, not warmongering. So resources are most efficiently allocated to that cause. Of course, it's better at defense for that reason. If America never formed a state, we'd still have that maximally efficient system of defense now, thanks to the market supply to meet market demand for defense.

You keep using the USA's model as an argument for the defense of a stateless society when it has always been a State (both pre-Constitution and post). It makes no sense at all. Get back to the drawing board and find a stateless society that succeeded. Never mind all the wars the USA fought in the 19th century, par the course for a State.

The genocide (for that was what it was) that Britain perpetrated against Ireland. Americans against Native Americans. So on and so forth - stateless societies have an awful track record in warfare.

Straw man. I never said that, now did I? However, common sense tells you its easier to defeat a people when they have one central authority that can surrender on behalf of everyone else. The genocide cases you spoke of earlier only happened because that was the ONLY way to defeat the stateless societies in question...they had no central authority to surrender for everyone...the states that invaded had to get each and every defense agency (clan, whatever - they had different names in different places and different times) to surrender individually to secure an end to insurgency.

...And the end result was the defeat of the stateless society. Stamping out those that resist as isolated units has a name that Americans should know from our not-so-distant history. The Indian Wars.

Uncoordinated military units have an awful track record against coordinated ones intent on eradication. Stateless, by definition, do not have a pre-established chain of command and other things mankind has spent centuries figuring out when it comes to the art of killing each other. If you were any sort of student of anthropology you would understand that the military traditions that exist globally came about because they work. Humans have a tendency to keep what works, and reject what doesn't.

As it so happens, stateless approaches to warfare have been largely rejected by almost the entire body of mankind, and not just because anarchism is a scary word to them.

Do you think Afghanistan, after over a decade of war, and no real central government to speak of beyond what we imposed on them, is in anyway losing the war? When we leave, the insurgency will not be over...because we aren't using genocide to slaughter every last local defense agency. The tribal defense structure requires scorched earth strategy to beat, as winning hearts and minds almost never works. This is nation-building fails...it either commits genocide, which gets it condemned, or it tries to win hearts and minds of the very people they're occupying.

That we aren't employing genocide is precisely why Afghanistan is still standing. Make no mistake, under the guise of the "kind" warfare the USA conducts they have suffered devastation, but not the kind that they could have been subjected to. Their defense is not an effective one at all, it only exists at the sufferance of the US.

And if you're proposing that Americans develop a "defense" akin to what the Afghanis currently have, then you, sir, are hopeless.

If state versions fail, but that version wins...

Simply being alive at the end does not constitute winning a war. When we withdraw from Afghanistan will they have won? No. They will have suffered a ridiculous number of deaths, destruction of infrastructure, instability, etc. The US collapses, but gets to recover with plentiful human resources, and infrastructure that hasn't been blown up.

Anyone that endorses a society, stateless or otherwise, in which that is the route in which wars are won, then you will not ever convince people to take up arms for your cause. Relying on the generosity of your enemies to stay alive is stupid. Stop. Keeping yourself open to the possibility of genocide in order to defend the idea of stateless defense is asinine. Full stop.

This whole conversation has no relevance to America though...we have nukes. It's impossible to exploit us. We could privatize defense and hand the nukes over to the defense companies that appear in the market...no one could invade us due to game theory mathematics. And that doesn't even take into account our gun ownership rates and that effect on invasions.

The moment defense is privatized in this country is the moment it balkanizes and rapidly disintegrates. Brutal coercion is the only thing keeping it going at this point. Furthermore, I don't fancy the chances of a stateless USA against China, Russia, or anyone with a modern military. To wit: If Russia decides it wants to take Alaska (it was theirs at one point!), stateless USA is going to be hard pressed to get people up there to defend it. The logistics problems, in the modern era, are not insurmountable.

...And handing nukes over to anyone is not in the self-interest of any individual on this planet.

States do NOT have an advantage in war against stateless societies. You act as if state socialism in defense magically doesn't carry with it all the inefficiencies of state socialism...but it does. As compared to free market defense, it's garbage...you just don't realize it because you have nothing to compare state socialism of those markets to. That. and your whole life you've been taught to see it as state socialism, even though that's exactly what it is by definition.

Studying warfare throughout human history makes it obvious that States do it better. Not once in history has the most effective military at any point on the planet been beholden to a stateless society.

Attila the Hun? Monarchy. Genghis Khan? Emperor. Rome? USA? The proof is in the pudding. Statists, the lot of them.

Your focus on the inefficiencies is pointless. In warfare, quantity has a quality all its own. The more resources the better. Will there be waste? Damn right. Does it matter if your enemy has considerably less resources that happen to be more efficient? Not in the slightest. Market efficiency does not give you the resources available to those that employ coercion. Period.

Can explain how it isn't state socialism of defense markets? Or how that state socialism isn't less efficient than market accumulation and allocation? And why you don't advocate full state socialism for all markets (state communism) since it's so damn efficient to have state socialized markets?

Strawman. Inefficiency is not being questioned. Gross resources is. Do you contend that a stateless society has more available resources for one specific purpose, sans coercion as it is, than a Statist society during war? If so, then do explain how this is logically possible given human behavior.

And please, prove resources gained from war somehow "make up for" those inefficiencies...because they flatly don't. Not only is this proven in economics, but also by history. The states that became Empires, by attempting this strategy, bankrupt themselves every single time.

The bankruptcy always comes after, when their gains have exhausted themselves. Recent example: American expansion in the west. It is not concurrent with the newly obtained resources, and is not the cause endemic to the eventual collapse. The USA boomed while it murdered Indians, purchased a ton of land, beat Mexico, etc. The collapse has yet to come.

Your interpretation of history, and more importantly to this discussion, military history, has no basis in logic or events.

[ProIndividual]

You keep using the USA's model as an argument for the defense of a stateless society when it has always been a State (both pre-Constitution and post).

I'm using it as an example because it closely resembles stateless defense systems. How did you not understand that? The point stands...the closer you get to stateless defense systems, the less defensive wars you lose. This is due to the overall way it meets market demand for defense, without perverting the entire market into warmongering via a standing army.

Do you see why?

...And the end result was the defeat of the stateless society.

And that was the rare case. Again, why aren't you understanding this? Most stateless societies DID NOT get forcefully conquered. Most states did. The further they drifted toward standing armies, the more likely they drifted away from defense and into warmongering and Empire, and in so doing, they became susceptible to invasion. Do you see why?

That we aren't employing genocide is precisely why Afghanistan is still standing.

That was my point...you CAN'T beat an essentially stateless (or in this case, heavily localized militia system under a decentralized state - which is closer to statelessness than central government) defense system without full-on genocide. Did you notice states are susceptible to genocide as much or more than stateless societies too? How about the fact those genocides are often committed by the state on its own population (the 2nd leading cause of unnatural human death in the last century was WAR,; the 1st leading cause was democide, which is your own government murdering you for racial, political, religious, etc. reasons when you aren't engaged in any act of resistance violently)?The more centralized (more state socialized) the defense system, the easier it is to conquer, because the central authority can surrender on behalf of all, whereas the decentralized or fully stateless system (which is even more decentralized and flexible) MUST be obliterated to lose (and that requires more expense, more effort, more time, etc.).

Do you see why?

The moment defense is privatized in this country is the moment it balkanizes and rapidly disintegrates

If this economic principle applies to defense, then it applies elsewhere...so when are you going to be calling for ALL markets to become state socialized (state communism)?

Tell me why, EXACTLY, defense markets are so different in their response to coercive state socializing than any other kind of market. Better yet, why is law, roads AND defense different.

Good luck on that.

Studying warfare throughout human history makes it obvious that States do it better.

It shows completely the opposite. Again, very few states conquered stateless societies, and most stateless societies became states NOT through wars they lost, but through internal cartelization (and eventually the cartel becoming monopoly/monopsony) of legal and defense markets. Meanwhile, of 600,000 states, all but about 200 were conquered by other states. It's precisely because stateless societies had market defense that they reflected market demand for DEFENSE, and therefore did very little warmongering and conquering of neighboring states.

Do you know how long it took for the few states that conquered stateless societies to succeed? Do you realize how many times they had to try?

Strawman. Inefficiency is not being questioned. Gross resources is.

And show me the state that didn't eventually collapse when using this "conquer for resources model"...you won't find one. If they haven't collapsed yet it's because of the relative youth of the state in question. You claimed it made up for the inefficiencies...it flatly doesn't. So, it wasn't a straw man at all. Do you see why?

Unlike market expansion, expansion through coercion is unsustainable long and short term. How long did the Nazis last before collapse (they invaded Russia, IN THE DEAD OF WINTER, for grain, because fast expansion via coercion equals greater need to maintain the closed system)? How long did the Russian Empire last, for similar reasons? How about England's? How about Rome's before splitting into multiple Empires? How about the Ottoman's? How about the Egyptians (which lasted a long time, but not as the same state - it had multiple overthrows, revolutions, political murders and coups, and civil wars, just like England)? How about the Greeks? How about the Chinese (same as the Egyptian problems)?

Expansionary economics (the economics of coercion and loot) DO NOT make up for lost efficiency caused by state socialism in defense markets. It actually opens them up to being conquered at home via invasion, because the resources aren't just wasted, they also aren't being spent on what the markets want - DEFENSE. Expansionary economics in states always SPEED UP collapse, they certainly don't slow it or make up for inefficiency. The evidence in history and anthropology is overwhelming.

The bankruptcy always comes after, when their gains have exhausted themselves. Recent example: American expansion in the west.

Except the expansion into the West was PROHIBITED by the state mostly...the government had to catch up with the people's expansion...it didn't sanction or lead it for the most part. It wasn't armies who settled that land, but pioneers. That's not an example of a state conquering stateless people (natives were nations, hence states) or states (with the exception of Mexico's land that the USA took). The Louisiana Purchase wasn't coerced (it was a purchase) - well, for the taxpayer it was, but not for the French.

It is not concurrent with the newly obtained resources, and is not the cause endemic to the eventual collapse. The USA boomed while it murdered Indians, purchased a ton of land, beat Mexico, etc. The collapse has yet to come.

And you're telling me that our eventual collapse has NOTHING to do with our expensive world Empire? You're telling me that some of the attacks against us here at home have not been motivated by that Empire? Are you telling me that if we spent the money where the market demanded it (on defense here at home) that the probability of success of those attacks wouldn't have been decreased?

Here is the point: the more and faster a state expands through military conquering, the faster and more likely the state is to collapse. This holds true for all of history. And you act like America is an old country...it's less than 300 years old! We only made it this long because we didn't do what many other, more short-lived, Empires did - ie, we didn't expand via state socialized military for the most part. Our people expanded against the will of government both West of the Appalachians and West of the Mississippi. The state's military only came in later to "defend" the pioneer settlements (and subjugate them, along with the natives).

You see things in a very myopic way. It's the only way you can have such a disconnect between American standing armies and Empire, and our eventual collapse. We've only had a permanent standing Army engaged in Empire-type expansion/occupations since WW1. The standing Army of the late 19th century did very little expansion and occupation, relatively. Other times the armies were formed for war out of the militias, it was quickly disbanded in accordance with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution soon after.

Many aspects of a closed system lead to collapse of that system (entropy). Not an insignificant one in states (a closed system, as opposed to the open system of a TOTALLY free market society) is the expansionary military activities. It leads to more expense needed to maintain the existing and newly grown system, which in turns requires further expansion, which in turn further weakens it, until it sacrifices at-home defense for the Empire expansion, and either gets it conquered from outside, or wears it thin until it collapses economically.

Do you see why?