Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Madison320]

Your use of the term anarchy is misleading. In addition, you are confusing government and state. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual. When it violates individual rights to do so, it becomes the state.

So if the government is only protecting individual rights, that's an anarchy? LOL! I never heard that definition before. I guess that makes me an anarchist!

[otherone]

So if the government is only protecting individual rights, that's an anarchy? LOL! I never heard that definition before. I guess that makes me an anarchist!

There are various definitions, but what I've described is Voluntaryism. The only difference is whether consent is individual, or collective. Collective consent, by it's definition, violates the rights of those who do not consent. When the collective is defined as a legal third party, it is the state. Welcome to the club.

[Swordsmyth]

Wars could not be fought without the people being eager to fight. The state relies upon this.

Tell that to the draft boards and commissars.

[otherone]

Tell that to the draft boards and commissars.

LOL. That's usually after a conflict drags on, and all the patriots have been slaughtered. Some sheep are more reluctant to die than others.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL. That's usually after a conflict drags on, and all the patriots have been slaughtered. Some sheep are more reluctant to die than others.

There are always plenty of thugs willing to fight and/or conscript for pay.

[otherone]

There are always plenty of thugs willing to fight and/or conscript for pay.

True, except conscripts don't have a choice.

[Swordsmyth]

True, except conscripts don't have a choice.

So this is wrong then isn't it?

Wars could not be fought without the people being eager to fight. The state relies upon this.

[r3volution 3.0]

Another way of thinking about how an anarcho-capitalist society defends/preserves itself (or, rather, doesn't),

First, the concept "public good" is an economic concept, not an ethical concept. From the fact that something is a public good, it does not necessarily follow that there ought to be a state to provide it (whether it does or not depends on one's ethical principles, one's goals). That something is a public good simply means that it will be underproduced on a market. That caveat in place, defense, on a military scale, is a public good. It is possible for a private defense agency (PDA) to protect Jim from muggers without incidentally providing such protection to his neighbor Bob. In the event Jim is mugged, it's possible for the PDA to which he subscribes to seek out and prosecute the criminal. On the other hand, in the event Aggressionberg invades the neighborhood with the intention of conquering it (i.e. subjecting it to extortion, aka taxation), it is not possible for Jim's PDA to set up a defensive position which would defend Jim and not his neighbor Bob; you can't defend 7/8ths of a wall. In other words, Bob can free ride on Jim's purchase of the PDA's services, and so Bob has no incentive to pay for those services himself. Of course, the same logic also applies to Jim himself; if his neighbor is paying for protection against Aggressionberg's attempt at conquest, he has no incentive to pay for those services either. And so on, for everyone in the effected area. Even if every single person in Peaceville wants to prevent Aggressionberg's conquest, each of them has an incentive to not pay for the services required to accomplish that. Hence security will be underproduced. The ruler of Aggressionberg, extorting the resources required to finance his military operations, faces no such problem.

[Madison320]

There are various definitions, but what I've described is Voluntaryism. The only difference is whether consent is individual, or collective. Collective consent, by it's definition, violates the rights of those who do not consent. When the collective is defined as a legal third party, it is the state. Welcome to the club.

No matter how you define it, you only have 2 options for your island "place".

1. Do nothing and hope that whoever conquers you is not that bad.

2. Organize a defense and hope it's not that bad.

Either way you end up with a state. That's why I think the best alternative is to be proactive and organize your force in such a way that it does the least amount of harm.

[otherone]

So this is wrong then isn't it?

We've been over this. If conscription was needed at the onset of war, there would be no war, because the people would be against it. Only after the piss and vinegars are dead are the unwilling conscripted.

[otherone]

No matter how you define it, you only have 2 options for your island "place".

1. Do nothing and hope that whoever conquers you is not that bad.

2. Organize a defense and hope it's not that bad.

Either way you end up with a state. That's why I think the best alternative is to be proactive and organize your force in such a way that it does the least amount of harm.

We've been over this. Voluntary service is not compulsion, hence, not a state. There is a plethora of historical examples of armies disbanding after conflicts are resolved.

[Swordsmyth]

We've been over this. If conscription was needed at the onset of war, there would be no war, because the people would be against it. Only after the piss and vinegars are dead are the unwilling conscripted.

And there are plenty of mercenary thugs and people looking for a home in "this man's army" to start any war they want.

[otherone]

And there are plenty of mercenary thugs and people looking for a home in "this man's army" to start any war they want.

They are far outnumbered by those who take up arms in defense of homelands. Unless we're talking Renaissance Italian city-states.

[r3volution 3.0]

They are far outnumbered by those who take up arms in defense of homelands. Unless we're talking Renaissance Italian city-states.

Unless we're talking another planet, there has never been a shortage of people willing to fight for pay/loot/fun.

[Swordsmyth]

They are far outnumbered by those who take up arms in defense of homelands. Unless we're talking Renaissance Italian city-states.

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
B. after they start the war they conscript
C. your assertion is far from provable, you yourself have pointed out a counter example: Renaissance Italian city-states.

[otherone]

Unless we're talking another planet, there has never been a shortage of people willing to fight for pay/loot/fun.

Of course. But they (AGAIN) are dwarfed in number by those who volunteer. Not sure why this is even an issue.

[otherone]

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
B. after they start the war they conscript
C. your assertion is far from provable, you yourself have pointed out a counter example: Renaissance Italian city-states.

It's not provable that mercenaries are historically outnumbered by volunteer forces?

[r3volution 3.0]

Of course. But they (AGAIN) are dwarfed in number by those who volunteer. Not sure why this is even an issue.

Even if that were true, I'm not sure why it would help your case.

[otherone]

And there are plenty of mercenary thugs and people looking for a home in "this man's army" to start any war they want.

Is your point that a community has to be protected from mercenaries by a compulsory state?

[otherone]

Even if that were true, I'm not sure why it would help your case.

Do you know what my case is at this point? Or have you come in on the tangential nit-picking?

[Swordsmyth]

It's not provable that mercenaries are historically outnumbered by volunteer forces?

It is not provable that an aggressor state's combination of mercenaries, volunteers and and conscripts are outnumbered by anarchists or tribals willing to defend their territory.

And I notice you didn't respond to A or B.

[Swordsmyth]

Is your point that a community has to be protected from mercenaries by a compulsory state?

A state is required to provide protection from enemies and criminals foreign or domestic, that includes mercenaries hired by foreign states.

Men are NOT angels and we can't have perfection in this world so we must seek the best practical outcome.

[otherone]

It is not provable that an aggressor state's combination of mercenaries, volunteers and and conscripts are outnumbered by anarchists or tribals willing to defend their territory.

And I notice you didn't respond to A or B.

A and B are inconsequential. Your superior force would defeat ANY inferior force, whether statist or stateless. Making service compulsory doesn't overcome tactical inferiority. And your argument, btw, is not simply for the state, but for empire. Which is where the US sits today.

[otherone]

A state is required to provide protection from enemies and criminals foreign or domestic, that includes mercenaries hired by foreign states.

Men are NOT angels and we can't have perfection in this world so we must seek the best practical outcome.

Which means you support the violation of individual rights. The needs of the collective, in your mind, supersede the individual. I'm not critical of your opinion, just realize that for you, and the majority of people, security outweighs liberty.

[Swordsmyth]

A and B are inconsequential. Your superior force would defeat ANY inferior force, whether statist or stateless. Making service compulsory doesn't overcome tactical inferiority. And your argument, btw, is not simply for the state, but for empire. Which is where the US sits today.

?????

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
The aggressor state keeps a standing army with superior training and equipment to your anarchic society's supposed numerical majority, how is that not consequential?


B. after they start the war they conscript
Your supposed numerical superiority is countered by conscription after the aggressor uses their standing army to start the war, how is that not consequential?

You admit that the state and empire are two different things, how is my argument in favor of empire? I have never argued for my state to conquer foreigners.

[Swordsmyth]

Which means you support the violation of individual rights. The needs of the collective, in your mind, supersede the individual. I'm not critical of your opinion, just realize that for you, and the majority of people, security outweighs liberty.

There is no liberty without some security, just as there is no security without liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you know what my case is at this point? Or have you come in on the tangential nit-picking?

...

My point is that the same people who choose to fight for a state would choose to fight voluntarily in a stateless society.

Let's suppose that's true: the stateless society would draw as many volunteers in its defense as would the state.

Now, in addition to the volunteers, the state may have conscripts.

Tell me how many conscripts the stateless society will have.

[otherone]

?????

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
The aggressor state keeps a standing army with superior training and equipment to your anarchic society's supposed numerical majority, how is that not consequential?

As an aside, google the American War of Independence. In addition, the founders understood that a standing army was a danger to liberty. The government tried to institute a national draft in 1812 but it was defeated.

B. after they start the war they conscript
Your supposed numerical superiority is countered by conscription after the aggressor uses their standing army to start the war, how is that not consequential?

I don't know what you are saying here. That an aggressor state will draft soldiers to counter a larger voluntary force? And the only way to counter this is the state?

You admit that the state and empire are two different things, how is my argument in favor of empire? I have never argued for my state to conquer foreigners.

Your argument for security fails when confronted by empire. Empire is needed to counter empire. Your state standing army will fall to a macro-state. Unless you are talking Greco-Persian wars, which actually, ironically enough, was won by volunteers.

[otherone]

...



Let's suppose that's true: the stateless society would draw as many volunteers in its defense as would the state.

Now, in addition to the volunteers, the state may have conscripts.

Tell me how many conscripts the stateless society will have.

Historically you will find that those who defend their homelands are far more willing to fight than those expected to serve overseas. Even during the Civil War, volunteers far outnumbered draftees. Recognize as well that the US was not a state when the militias defeated your beloved Mad King George.

[r3volution 3.0]

Historically you will find that those who defend their homelands are far more willing to fight than those expected to serve overseas. Even during the Civil War, volunteers far outnumbered draftees. Recognize as well that the US was not a state when the militias defeated your beloved Mad King George.

Who was/were the defender(s) in WWI, for instance?

Considering that who is the defender is a function of local propaganda, could it be...everyone?