# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Why Anarcho Capitalism is impossible

## RandRevolution

If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.

Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?

----------


## fisharmor

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?

----------


## bolil

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


Umm, no they have never considered that obvious question .

You forgot that wars stimulate the economy./s

----------


## acptulsa

> 


Fighting off the biggest, most heavily taxpayer-funded, most organized military the world has _ever_ seen for over eleven years now...

----------


## AuH20

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


Robotics can make the anarcho-capitalist dream a reality. LOL

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> Fighting off the biggest, most heavily taxpayer-funded, most organized military the world has _ever_ seen for over eleven years now...


And the Soviets for almost a decade.

----------


## acptulsa

> And the Soviets for almost a decade.


Admittedly they have the most advantageous terrain east of Switzerland.  That said, it'll teach the OP never, ever to say 'impossible'...

----------


## AuH20

> Fighting off the biggest, most heavily taxpayer-funded, most organized military the world has _ever_ seen for over eleven years now...


And if you don't have a uncharted mountain range to hide in?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> And if you don't have a uncharted mountain range to hide in?


Ask the North Vietnamese.

----------


## QuickZ06

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


You know very little, would you like to learn?

----------


## FSP-Rebel



----------


## A Son of Liberty

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


Yes.  Yes we have.

----------


## acptulsa

> You know very little, would you like to learn?


Nah, he's still too busy trying to play 'gotcha troll' and getting got himself.

He might come down off his high horse after a few more of these threads, though...

----------


## AuH20

> Ask the North Vietnamese.


The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

How much money does the US taxpayer pay for the largest, most technologically advanced military humanity has ever known?  How efficient is that spending?  How efficient is that _military_?

----------


## familydog

> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


Okay. I'll bite.

They have. Time and time again. Would you like a reading list? 

Let's open up our imagination and find ways to solve these kinds of problems. Entrepreneurs tend to be good at this. 

Have _you_ considered the lack of incentive and surety in invading an area with no government, tax structure or knowledge of enemy weaponry?

----------


## acptulsa

> The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.


In a nuclear scenario they'd have been lucky to last an hour.

The OP said 'impossible', and got pwned.  All the rest is lame excuse making--of the exact same sort we've been hearing from the MIC and the government since long before 9/12/2001...

----------


## bolil

> The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.


Hmmmm, really?  How much do you know about the Korean war?  We tried that total war scenario and China called our bluff.

There is no military in the world than can defeat, without prohibitive losses, a local force with popular support.  They best they can hope for is to win battles.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.


Ok. Ask the American colonists facing the most powerful military known to that time. Or is there an excuse for every example where armed peasants defeated the mighty superpower?

----------


## AuH20

> In a nuclear scenario they'd have been lucky to last an hour.
> 
> The OP said 'impossible', and got pwned.  All the rest is lame excuse making...


It's not impossible, but not likely. With favorable terrain and a robotic arsenal, you could theoretically maintain a thriving anarcho-capitalist state.

----------


## bolil

> Ok. Ask the American colonists facing the most powerful military known to that time. Or is there an excuse for every example where armed peasants defeated the mighty superpower?


You say America, he'll say the french.  You say the IRA, he'll say...?

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.
> 
> Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?


You really are new here?

----------


## RandRevolution

> 


Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me. 

Regardless, that's a tiny city. Say China or the US wanted it - they could easily get it. It's just more trouble than it's worth so they don't bother. Now say you have a country as big and resource rich as the US and it's an anarcho capitalist state - they're $#@!ed.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Okay. I'll bite.
> 
> They have. Time and time again. Would you like a reading list? 
> 
> Let's open up our imagination and find ways to solve these kinds of problems. Entrepreneurs tend to be good at this. 
> 
> Have _you_ considered the lack of incentive and surety in invading an area with no government, tax structure or knowledge of enemy weaponry?


He won't read anything. He is one of Obama's internet warriors trying to gather info and spread state propaganda.

----------


## acptulsa

> You really are new here?


Obviously--he still has his arrogance.  That's the _first_ thing we all lose here.




> Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me.


You didn't know the Soviets tried and failed to conquer Afghanistan?  You didn't know we've been there for eleven years now?

You, son, are mighty ignorant to be here lecturing people on what is and isn't possible.  Hell, you need a few years of education just to get to where you'll know when you've been proven a fool.  _That's_ what the situation is.

----------


## bolil

> It's not impossible, but not likely. With favorable terrain and a robotic arsenal, you could theoretically maintain a thriving anarcho-capitalist state.


You leave out the most important facet of any guerrilla operation: local support.

----------


## Czolgosz

Damn near impossible to beat guerrilla tactics.

----------


## RandRevolution

> Ok. Ask the American colonists facing the most powerful military known to that time. Or is there an excuse for every example where armed peasants defeated the mighty superpower?


That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me. 
> 
> Regardless, that's a tiny city. Say China or the US wanted it - they could easily get it. It's just more trouble than it's worth so they don't bother. Now say you have a country as big and resource rich as the US and it's an anarcho capitalist state - they're $#@!ed.


d00d, this subject has been debated around here so many times, it's ridiculous.  Your arguments have been dealt with.  Just do a forum search.

----------


## staerker

True, pure Anarcho-Capitalism can never be obtained. The coercive will always exist. That does not mean you should condone their behavior. ?

edit: the invading government is in the wrong for the same reason as the standing government.

----------


## bolil

> That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.


War never changes.  Pilots, Tank drivers, drone controllers all need to eat an sleep.  Pilots, Tank drivers, and drones don't control territory boots on the ground do.  They always will.

----------


## A Son of Liberty



----------


## AuH20

> Hmmmm, really?  How much do you know about the Korean war?  We tried that total war scenario and China called our bluff.
> 
> There is no military in the world than can defeat, without prohibitive losses, a local force with popular support.  They best they can hope for is to win battles.


There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.

----------


## acptulsa

> That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.


Why do you think they no longer build battleships and battlecruisers?  Because heavy artillery is of no use on the high seas?  Hardly.

They don't build them any more because a billion dollar ship can be sunk by a few hundred thousand dollars each aircraft.

If you don't understand how this is pertinent, you're in so far over your head that you should save your breath.




> d00d, this subject has been debated around here so many times, it's ridiculous.  Your arguments have been dealt with.  Just do a forum search.


Life's too short to search the forum.  He's much too impatient to embarass the living snot out of himself.

----------


## RandRevolution

> Obviously--he still has his arrogance.  That's the _first_ thing we all lose here.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't know the Soviets tried and failed to conquer Afghanistan?  You didn't know we've been there for eleven years now?
> 
> You, son, are mighty ignorant to be here lecturing people on what is and isn't possible.  Hell, you need a few years of education just to get to where you'll know when you've been proven a fool.  _That's_ what the situation is.


Don't be condescending. 

I'm asking about this city in particular, what is the situation going on there, why did he post it as an example?

You can't compare the US occupation of Afghanistan to trying to take over an archo-capitalist state. If anything this would be in favor of my argument - the Taliban, the militia group, clearly are losing to the organized taxpayer funded military.

----------


## acptulsa

> Don't be condescending. 
> 
> I'm asking about this city in particular...


Let's see.  How do I find a non-condescending way to say, 'That's not a city it's a nation, Einstein'?

----------


## bolil

> There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.


I do not disagree with you on that, but that only a state run military can protect people from aggression.  Militias are an alltogether better way to go about defense.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.


Seems like you're saying that a centrally commanded military structure is inefficient and prone to bad decisions.  I would say that a LOT of veterans, including veterans of the "last good war", WWII, would agree with you.

----------


## RandRevolution

> Why do you think they no longer build battleships and battlecruisers?  Because heavy artillery is of no use on the high seas?  Hardly.
> 
> They don't build them any more because a billion dollar ship can be sunk by a few hundred thousand dollars each aircraft.
> 
> If you don't understand how this is pertinent, you're in so far over your head that you should save your breath.


I don't get your point here. Sure you can shoot down planes and sink ships. If anything that's going to hurt the militias, they can't afford to keep buying ships and planes. Sure they can shoot down the enemy's stuff but that's only after they've done a ton of damage and the taxpayer funded military will be able to afford new ones unlike the militia.

----------


## RandRevolution

> Let's see.  How do I find a non-condescending way to say, 'That's not a city it's a nation, Einstein'?


I read wikipedia and it says it's a city, is it not? Can you explain the situation to me and why it's an example of how anarcho capitalist militaries work?

Please don't be condescending. We're people who agree with each other on almost everything and are debating the disagreements we do have, it's not necessary.

----------


## AuH20

> Seems like you're saying that a centrally commanded military structure is inefficient and prone to bad decisions.  I would say that a LOT of veterans, including veterans of the "last good war", WWII, would agree with you.


Political decisions prolong (as well as start them) wars and suffering. It has happened in every war and seems to worsen with every new conflict.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't get your point here. Sure you can shoot down planes and sink ships. If anything that's going to hurt the militias, they can't afford to keep buying ships and planes. Sure they can shoot down the enemy's stuff but that's only after they've done a ton of damage and the taxpayer funded military will be able to afford new ones unlike the militia.


Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??  

Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?

----------


## bolil

> I don't get your point here. Sure you can shoot down planes and sink ships. If anything that's going to hurt the militias, they can't afford to keep buying ships and planes. Sure they can shoot down the enemy's stuff but that's only after they've done a ton of damage and the taxpayer funded military will be able to afford new ones unlike the militia.


One does not magically create a plane by buying it, but by building it.  There are very clever people out there, and lotsa the real geniuses resent the state.  Planes and ships do not control territory, boots on the ground do. (Cause planes cant be there all the time, and no nation could afford the gas to keep them there all the time).  Boots on the ground need to patrol.

----------


## nano1895

> Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??  
> 
> *Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?*


*
*

Suppose they don't want to rule, they just want the land. Like westward expansion in the 1800s.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Political decisions prolong (as well as start them) wars and suffering. It has happened in every war and seems to worsen with every new conflict.


Indeed.  That speaks to the shortcomings of a centrally commanded defense/military.  One would think that Afghanistan would be a cake-walk for the US military; yet we see that this massive, lumbering institution, with all its power and technological advantages, can't really figure out how to subdue this tiny, poor, disorganized country.  It's like trying to press mercury down on a counter.

----------


## AuH20

> That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. *Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age?* The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.


Yes, largely because of proximity and major logistic obstacles facing the federal government.

----------


## Acala

A truly anarcho-capitalist society would be so productive, it could afford an effective military out of voluntary donations.  But it wouldn't need to because the rest of the world would depend on it for so much and have nothing to fear from it.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.


Unless you're the Romans at Carthage or the Germans invading the eastern front executing every man, woman, and child you come across, most wars have some higher political/strategic end.  Nuking or bombing the dikes and thus flooding the the country would defeat any political purpose and any chance for local popular support.  It would also dissolve support at home if you have any representative government.  When you engage in total war and mass execute civilians it leaves a bad taste and fosters resistance movements like Russian partisans.  The Vietnamese won because of their will to resist and leadership of General Giáp.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> [/B]
> 
> Suppose they don't want to rule, they just want the land. Like westward expansion in the 1800s.


The westward expansion of the US was into a very vast and sparsely populated area; we're discussing how a foreign state would overrun and occupy an anarcho-capitalist area.

----------


## RandRevolution

> Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??  
> 
> Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?


There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc

----------


## The Gold Standard

> There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.
> 
> They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc


Sure they can, if the donations come from wealthier people, which they would.

----------


## RandRevolution

> One does not magically create a plane by buying it, but by building it.  There are very clever people out there, and lotsa the real geniuses resent the state.  Planes and ships do not control territory, boots on the ground do. (Cause planes cant be there all the time, and no nation could afford the gas to keep them there all the time).  Boots on the ground need to patrol.


It costs a lot of money to build those planes.

Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be $#@!ed. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the $#@! out of those boots on the ground.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Fighting off the biggest, most heavily taxpayer-funded, most organized military the world has _ever_ seen for over eleven years now...


You know, there is also that Texas Revolutionary War thing where a Texas Army of far inferior numbers defeated Santa Anna, the self professed Napoleon of the West, while 65 Texas Rangers kept the Comanche Indians (bad ass Native Americans) at bay. 
These were the same Comanche Indians who, as a force of a 65,000 manned Calvary, intercepted a Spanish force of 35,000 professional soldiers years before the Texas Revolutionary War slaughtering and preventing them from traveling north to conquer the newly created nations of the United States and Canada.  
In other words, professional armies, generally speaking, have never been known to be worth a cold bucket of warm spit.

----------


## Acala

You could also have security forces that charge fees.  For example, if you want your property protected, you pay an annual fee.  If you don't pay the fee, your property will not be defended in an invasion.  The more property you have, the more you will want to pay a security force to defend it.

----------


## bolil

> It costs a lot of money to build those planes.
> 
> Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be $#@!ed. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the $#@! out of those boots on the ground.


It doesn't cost money to build a plane, but to buy one.  To build one requires a technological recipe and resources.  You are reading what I've written earlier, thats okay.  Im done with this give the forum a search and be relieved of ignorance in this matter.  Welcome to the forum.

----------


## Acala

> It costs a lot of money to build those planes.
> 
> Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be $#@!ed. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the $#@! out of those boots on the ground.


You don't have to draft when liberty is at stake.

----------


## RandRevolution

> It doesn't cost money to build a plane, but to buy one.  To build one requires a technological recipe and resources.  You are reading what I've written earlier, thats okay.  Im done with this give the forum a search and be relieved of ignorance in this matter.  Welcome to the forum.


Building a plane costs money. Do you disagree?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.


What are you basing this conclusion upon?  




> They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc


There is quite a bit more to it than that, logisitically.  _Who_ is going to enforce the laws?  Who is going to organize whatever form of government they wish to impose?  Where are they going to get the tools (weapons) to maintain that rule?  Are they going to keep open long supply lines back to the invading country?  Their military is going to have to stay encamped in the victim region; how is that going to be effectively maintained?  How are they going to force the victim region to continue to be productive, the presumptive aim of such an invasion?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> In other words, professional armies, generally speaking, have never been known to be worth a cold bucket of warm spit.


:thumbs:

Very often they're impressed into duty, or are doing so as a last resort.  They have very little motivation.  They're often very poorly commanded.

Generally speaking, history shows that such armies aren't good for much of anything, except doing away with huge numbers of human beings.

----------


## bolil

> Building a plane costs money. Do you disagree?


Oh $#@! it. No, building a plane does not cost money.  Buying a plane does, paying workers to help might.  Building a plane requires A. A recipe and B. Material.

Do those things cost money? Again, not necessarily.

You know you wannabe socrates types are poorly received, everywhere.

----------


## The Gold Standard

You might have some wealthy insurance companies with their own drones and tanks out there to protect any property they are insuring as well. There is more than one way to fight a war. You need to tell your boss that you are speaking to people much smarter than his typical sheep and his propaganda won't work.

----------


## acptulsa

> Please don't be condescending. We're people who agree with each other on almost everything and are debating the disagreements we do have, it's not necessary.


Your OP is chock full of condescension.  Isn't it a little late to declare your thread to be free of it?

----------


## bolil

> You might have some wealthy insurance companies with their own drones and tanks out there to protect any property they are insuring as well. There is more than one way to fight a war. You need to tell your boss that you are speaking to people much smarter than his typical sheep and his propaganda won't work.



Never thought of this, but this aswell.

----------


## talkingpointes

Why of course !! How could we think this simple thoughts all along and believe in something. You have to be named randrevolution too. Troll.

----------


## erowe1

I don't get why this objection comes up so much. Who cares if it's impossible? What does that have to do with anything?

You don't see people saying, "A world without murder is impossible. Therefore, you shouldn't be against murder."

----------


## Acala

I find it amusing when the occasional troll shows up here thinking he is so smart he is going to chew up the stupid Paulbots and spit them out and then you guys hand him his ass in a ribbon without even trying.  It's like "ho hum".  Lol.

OP, the people on this forum are among the most well-read, high-watt minds you will ever run into and they stand on the shoulders of giants.  And the best part is that they want you to be free too, even though you are an obnoxious ninnyhammer.

----------


## Lucille

I'm thinking about all those poor AnCap intellectuals who have written books on the subject, and who now have no future since they have been utterly pwnd by RandRevolution.  They might as well all just kill themselves on a pyre of their books, essays, and articles...which he didn't even have to read (let alone be aware of their existence) to conclude how impossible it is.

----------


## Pericles

In fairness to the OP, the Panama Canal. If there was anything in Vietnam or Afghanistan worth having, the US Govt. would have them, too. They just aren't worth the price, which is ultimately the point - anything valuable is worth defending, and different people assign different value to the same thing.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Indeed.  That speaks to the shortcomings of a centrally commanded defense/military.  One would think that Afghanistan would be a cake-walk for the US military; yet we see that this massive, lumbering institution, with all its power and technological advantages, can't really figure out how to subdue this tiny, poor, disorganized country.  It's like trying to press mercury down on a counter.


That's because the military has been misused for the last half century.  They're in this weird limbo of providing humanitarian services, instead of killing the enemy and winning.  I can't agree more with Michael Scheuer on these matters.  War should be rare and be defensive, imminent, or punitive in nature.  The natural consequence would be less of these humanitarian type wars where we get bogged down and squeamish about the death that war entails.  When fighting defensively you hold the moral high ground at home and abroad and the gloves come off so to speak so you're freed to win by any measures necessary.  I think Americans instinctively lose heart for wars that aren't seen as just and defensive.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> That's because the military has been misused for the last half century.  They're in this weird limbo of providing humanitarian services, instead of killing the enemy and winning.  I can't agree more with Michael Scheuer on these matters.  War should be rare and be defensive, imminent, or punitive in nature.  The natural consequence would be less of these humanitarian type wars where we get bogged down and squeamish about the death that war entails.  When fighting defensively you hold the moral high ground at home and abroad and the gloves come off so to speak so you're freed to win by any measures necessary.  I think Americans instinctively lose heart for wars that aren't seen as just and defensive.


Under the present paradigm, I have no objection with this.  That is indeed how a military should be organized.  Of course, the way the military is presently utilized is an inevitable outcome of a state such as the US government.

----------


## gwax23

The problem is less of a foreign military threat but more that governments will naturally rise like they did historically at the dawn of civilization. I love Anarcho Capitalism on paper but governments are inevitable, if they werent we wouldnt we where we were today. Thus I support a Minarchist society. Just the barest of the bare. Courts Military police thats it.

----------


## erowe1

> The problem is less of a foreign military threat but more that governments will naturally rise like they did historically at the dawn of civilization.


Foreign military threats IS how governments have naturally risen since the dawn of civilization. That's what states are, one group of people who subjugated another group of people by force.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The problem is less of a foreign military threat but more that governments will naturally rise like they did historically at the dawn of civilization. I love Anarcho Capitalism on paper but governments are inevitable, if they werent we wouldnt we where we were today. Thus I support a Minarchist society. Just the barest of the bare. Courts Military police thats it.


I agree with this line of thought.  Humans are social/tribal animals.  In the simplest forms of "government" someone will always be tribal leader, whether they sought out that role or were thrust into it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The problem is less of a foreign military threat but more that governments will naturally rise like they did historically at the dawn of civilization. I love Anarcho Capitalism on paper but governments are inevitable, if they werent we wouldnt we where we were today. Thus I support a Minarchist society. Just the barest of the bare. Courts Military police thats it.


 Why police?  They're not constitutional and are a relatively new innovation.

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> Why police?  They're not constitutional and are a relatively new innovation.


How are police unconstitutional?

----------


## acptulsa

> I find it amusing when the occasional troll shows up here thinking he is so smart he is going to chew up the stupid Paulbots and spit them out and then you guys hand him his ass in a ribbon without even trying.  It's like "ho hum".  Lol.
> 
> OP, the people on this forum are among the most well-read, high-watt minds you will ever run into and they stand on the shoulders of giants.  And the best part is that they want you to be free too, even though you are an obnoxious ninnyhammer.


I wonder if he can even tell who is an An-Cap and who is merely defending allies...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How are police unconstitutional?


In many ways.  The below paper goes into detail.

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?_Roger Roots_*ABSTRACTPolice work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century _after_ the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles. 
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

PART I
INTRODUCTION......................................  ..........................686
THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT..............................................  688
PRIVATE PROSECUTORS.......................................  .............689
LAW ENFORCEMENT AS A UNIVERSAL................................692
POLICE AS SOCIAL WORKERS...........................................  ..695
THE WAR ON CRIME.............................................  .............696
THE DEVELOPMENT OF DISTINCTIONS................................698
RESISTING ARREST............................................  ................701
THE SAFETY OF THE POLICE PROFESSION............................711
PROFESSIONALISM?..................................  ........................713
DNA EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATES FALLIBILITY OF POLICE........716
COPS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE DETERRENT.............................721
PART II
POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY...........................................722
THE SECOND AMENDMENT........725
THE THIRD AMENDMENT.........................................  ..........727
THE RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE...........................................72  8
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.........................................  .......729
WARRANTS A FLOOR, NOT A CEILING.................................733
PRIVATE PERSONS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT..............734
ORIGINALISTS CALL FOR CIVIL DAMAGES...........................739
DEVELOPMENT OF IMMUNITIES........................................  ..743
THE LOSS OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THE ONSET OF PROBABLE SUSPICION.........................................  .......744
POLICE AND THE "AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION"......................745
ONE EXCEPTION: THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE?......................747
THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.........................................  ...........751
DUE PROCESS...........................................  ........................752
ENTRAPMENT........................................  ...........................754
CONCLUSION...................................757

----------


## TokenLibertarianGuy

> In many ways.  The below paper goes into detail.


I'm not looking for a copy/paste. Where does the Constitution prohibit states from having police forces?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I'm not looking for a copy/paste. Where does the Constitution prohibit states from having police forces?


Article I, sect 10 prohibits the several states from maintaining standing armies-and police are what the authors of the constitution would consider a standing army.

----------


## jcannon98188

> I don't want to have to read! I just want the answers! Gosh!


Anyone want to guess who that was?

_Hint, it was TokenLibertarianGuy_

----------


## EBounding

An established anarchist society wouldn't be conquered by tanks and an invasion of troops.  It would be conquered by a culture of dependency; kind of like what's happening/has happened to the US. 

Is there anything that would stop a foreign state from setting up shop in an anarcho population?  If a foreign state wanted to conquer an "anarchist region", they could take the money they'd use for weapons and instead offer cheap/free goods and services to the population.  As the anarchists get more accustomed to being dependent on these goods, then the State can roll in and control the region since there'll be little resistance.  Or like others have mentioned, this would just happen from within.

That's why I don't think a large anarchist society is feasible; it assumes that everyone's #1 priority is freedom but human history proves that's not the case.  Most people's #1 priority is to be comfortable.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> An established anarchist society wouldn't be conquered by tanks and an invasion of troops.  It would be conquered by a culture of dependency; kind of like what's happening/has happened to the US. 
> 
> Is there anything that would stop a foreign state from setting up shop in an anarcho population?  If a foreign state wanted to conquer an "anarchist region", they could take the money they'd use for weapons and instead offer cheap/free goods and services to the population.  As the anarchists get more accustomed to being dependent on these goods, then the State can roll in and control the region since there'll be little resistance.  Or like others have mentioned, this would just happen from within.
> 
> That's why I don't think a large anarchist society is feasible; it assumes that everyone's #1 priority is freedom but human history proves that's not the case.  Most people's #1 priority is to be comfortable.


The problem with that argument is that anarcho capitalists aren't pacifists.  They, in my experience, like being armed and favor voluntary association with protection agencies. ("DROs" as Molyneux calls them)

----------


## Danan

You can't just create a szenario where a giant military super power attacks a tiny anarcho-capitalistic town and claim that this is the ultimate invalidation of a politcal philosophy.

You would have to show how that same tiny town would do any better if it were controlled by a government (and thus likely less prosperous). It would still be crushed the same way.

So your real argument is that countries with little power and territory are not sustainable and ideally states should be as big as possible to protect it's citizens from more powerful states. And I believe that is a bunch of BS. I'd be willing to bet that historically smaller countries are less likely to be involved in wars than bigger ones, btw.

----------


## Danan

> An established anarchist society wouldn't be conquered by tanks and an invasion of troops.  It would be conquered by a culture of dependency; kind of like what's happening/has happened to the US. 
> 
> Is there anything that would stop a foreign state from setting up shop in an anarcho population?  If a foreign state wanted to conquer an "anarchist region", they could take the money they'd use for weapons and instead offer cheap/free goods and services to the population.  As the anarchists get more accustomed to being dependent on these goods, then the State can roll in and control the region since there'll be little resistance.  Or like others have mentioned, this would just happen from within.
> 
> That's why I don't think a large anarchist society is feasible; it assumes that everyone's #1 priority is freedom but human history proves that's not the case.  Most people's #1 priority is to be comfortable.


It's a cultural thing. That's why education is the most important task. And it will always stay that way.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Security, Shelter, Stomach, Sex are the base priorities for humanity.  Freedom is such a high order concept it's easily dispensed with when devoid of the others.

----------


## Danan

> Security, Shelter, Stomach, Sex are the base priorities for humanity.  Freedom is such a high order concept it's easily dispensed with when devoid of the others.


Yeah but freedom is the best tool to get the largest number of people security, shelter, stomach and sex. It's not only an ends but also a means to all other ends. That's why people need to be educated on it.

I never realized why some people seem to believe liberty is such an intuitive concept. Imho it's the most counter-intuitive idea on the planet that not intervening could lead to desired results in a better way than intervening and it takes a huge amount of intellectual work to come to that conclusion.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Yeah but freedom is the best tool to get the largest number of people security, shelter, stomach and sex. It's not only an ends but also a means to all other ends. That's why people need to be educated on it.
> 
> I never realized why some people seem to believe liberty is such an intuitive concept. Imho it's the most counter-intuitive idea on the planet that not intervening could lead to desired results in a better way than intervening and it takes a huge amount of intellectual work to come to that conclusion.


Try holding class when people are starving or fearing for their life.  People will take care of their immediate needs before sitting down for an educational lesson.  That's if you can even convince them to submit to this proposed lesson.  Then you admit (correctly) that this educational lesson isn't easily intellectually digestible; it's counter-intuitive.  You really have your work cut out for you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You can't just create a szenario where a giant military super power attacks a tiny anarcho-capitalistic town and claim that this is the ultimate invalidation of a politcal philosophy.
> 
> You would have to show how that same tiny town would do any better if it were controlled by a government (and thus likely less prosperous). It would still be crushed the same way.
> 
> So your real argument is that countries with little power and territory are not sustainable and ideally states should be as big as possible to protect it's citizens from more powerful states. And I believe that is a bunch of BS. I'd be willing to bet that historically smaller countries are less likely to be involved in wars than bigger ones, btw.


Great point.  Thanks.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yeah but freedom is the best tool to get the largest number of people security, shelter, stomach and sex. It's not only an ends but also a means to all other ends. That's why people need to be educated on it.
> 
> I never realized why some people seem to believe liberty is such an intuitive concept. Imho it's the most counter-intuitive idea on the planet that not intervening could lead to desired results in a better way than intervening and it takes a huge amount of intellectual work to come to that conclusion.


Agreed.

I don't think any of us advocate a hap-hazard, thoughtless statelessness, but rather a conscientious, evolved decision to live as free people.  It would only take just enough of the population - whatever that percentage may be - to reject the state.  Of course, there will always be people who advocate physical and coercive violence in the name of some perceived "greater good", just as there are today, and just as there are murderers and thieves in the world today.  Mankind has evolved to the point that most recognize that physical violence is unproductive, impractical, but most importantly immoral.  There is no reason to believe that at some point mankind won't evolve to recogize that the wholesale physical and coercive violence of the state is just as unproductive, impractical and most importantly immoral.

----------


## Danan

> Try holding class when people are starving or fearing for their life.  People will take care of their immediate needs before sitting down for an educational lesson.  That's if you can even convince them to submit to this proposed lesson.  Then you admit (correctly) that this educational lesson isn't easily intellectually digestible; it's counter-intuitive.  You really have your work cut out for you.


I don't believe it's possible to go from poverty and starvation to anarcho-capitalism, nor that it would necessarily be a good move. Imo it can only work as a long-term approach to patiently phase out all government while technological progress and economic prosperity rise steadily to compliment it.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> :thumbs:
> 
> Very often they're impressed into duty, or are doing so as a last resort.  They have very little motivation.  They're often very poorly commanded.
> 
> Generally speaking, history shows that such armies aren't good for much of anything, except doing away with huge numbers of human beings.


I gave three example of dumb ass people, with these being the Texas Army, the Texas Rangers, and the Comanche Indians, kicking the holy $#@! out of far superior numbers of warriors or of soldiers being in professional armies.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Why police?  They're not constitutional and are a relatively new innovation.


In understanding the Constitution, why on earth would one ever ask a lawyer?  The business of lawyering didn't come into play until the advent of the two-party system.  No one on the Supreme Court should be a lawyer.  The president shouldn't be a lawyer.  No one in Congress should be a lawyer.  A lawyer should be the very last person to ask a question regarding why these United States are great.

----------


## acptulsa

The more I see these posts pop up, dripping with condescension, but saying nothing at all, the more I'm convinced the public schools are no longer the least bit interested in teaching critical thinking skills.  Indeed, just the opposite--they seem to teach only condescension.  In fact, I'd say they use condescension as a weapon to kill any critical thinking skills in the womb.  What's that you're doing there, little Johnny?  Do I detect an attempt at critical thinking?  Well, now.  Class, little Johnny is trying to think critically.  Let's all laugh at him now.

Now children, we're going to teach you corporate socialism (but we do _not_ say fascism), imperialism and fiat money.  None of this stuff has a toe to stand on historically, much less a whole leg.  But we're going to teach you to sneer the naysayers into silence, so don't worry about it...

The more of these I see, the more patient I am with people who approach us in humility--even if they _could_ search the forum before they ask their question.

----------


## fisharmor

> You would have to show how that same tiny town would do any better if it were controlled by a government


And this argument transfers over to every other sticking point.

How will we school our children?  Show me how what we have right now is so wonderful.
How will we build roads?  Show me how what we have right now isn't falling to pieces and sucking hours out of our lives.
How will we have police?  Show me how what we have right now isn't intentionally burning people to death live on national TV.

Of course an hour's objective thought on these three matters would show that these aren't even necessarily desirable to have in society.  But you don't need to go as far as doubting their necessity to realize that the state's $#@! actually does stink.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> None of this stuff has a toe to stand on historically


Our 'betters' have it all figured out.  Why do you fuss and worry about things like this?

I find your premise frequently bearing out when I try to discuss how money works.  It's a different economy, and a different world now, they say.  Asset-based currencies would be ruinous, they say.  They cite the alchemists, like Krugman, who they themselves don't understand, nor could, because he is in fact incomprehensible.  The whole of modern human society is one great big Rube Goldberg machine, of which the architects are at a loss to both control and manipulate.  It's too intimidating for most people to spend too much time thinking about, so - as they have been taught - they defer to their 'betters', and run off to be a cog in the machine.  

The fact is, we're not living in reality.  Nothing short of a complete paradigm shift among the mass of humanity is required to un-$#@! this situation.  This, incidentally, is why my focus and in my opinion our only true hope is to continue the educational efforts that Ron really brought to our social discourse.

----------


## fisharmor

> the more I'm convinced the public schools are no longer the least bit interested in teaching critical thinking skills.


I went to public indoctrination camps from grades 8-12 in Fairfax County, VA.  The Fairfax County Public School system was rated one of the top 25 school systems in the US back then - and that was before the explosion of property prices, before the explosion of public sector jobs, and generally before the area became one of the wealthiest areas per capita in the world.

I very clearly remember a pattern when discussing poetry or any literature which employed symbolism.  The exercise went like this:
"Ok, so what do you all think that passage means?"
(answers, answers, answers)
"Ok, great answers.   Let me go ahead and crush all of them by stating that what the Teacher's Edition has in it is absolute fact.  You now feel as if you have participated and I have made you all feel stupid for it, because I knew the answer all along and was just seeing if you could guess.  The official take-away from this exercise is that your efforts are probably meaningless, unless someone in authority has supplied the answer, and that you probably shouldn't try."

----------


## mczerone

> Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me. 
> 
> Regardless, that's a tiny city. Say China or the US wanted it - they could easily get it. It's just more trouble than it's worth so they don't bother. Now say you have a country as big and resource rich as the US and it's *an anarcho capitalist state* - they're $#@!ed.


Dismiss it before you understand it. Raise objections that are outlined and answered in the foundation documents.

(1) There would be no "state".  Your example would be analogous to China being able to claim rule over all of the Western Hemisphere if Mexico City fell to them. There is no state currently claiming all of the Western Hemisphere, so such a claim is ridiculous. In an anarcho-capitalist society an invader would similarly not be able to conquer any one city to take over - they would have to go to each defense agency, to each individual, to each blade of grass with a rifle behind it. Only then could they claim the right to rule the people or property of that AnCap land.

(2) Free trade and the division of labor is WAY more profitable than invading.

----------


## Acala

The OP's argument is based on two fallacies (at least) that, in one form or another, underlie most statist thinking:

1. The only way to protect your freedom from hypothetical aggression is to surrender your freedom to an agressive entity you create yourself.  You must abandon freedom to save it.  

2.  Humans are too stupid, incompetent, and predatory to be left to manage their own affairs and so must be forcefully governed by an entity comprised of the same stupid, incompetent, and predatory race of beings.

----------


## Wesker1982

I converted someone to anarcho-capitalism with this, so you might find it useful. It was a response to the free rider problem but it is all about national defense.




> So the problem with free riders is supposedly security will be under produced because of it, right? Even if there are free riders in some areas, I don't think it follows that security would be under produced. Like, even if in NYC or Las Vegas, no citizens specifically buy national defense protection, I think with all of the money invested that national defense would be provided by anyone (shareholders etc) who owns any expensive property (through insurance). You could multiply this scenario thousands of times throughout the USA because of all the private investment in various cities. Once you multiply this many times, all of the sudden an invading army would find it hard to make a lot of progress. What are they gonna do, invade a potato farm in Idaho? Naaa, their targets are gonna be valuable, so it follows that the cities are the only ones who even need it and since people invest there, it will be provided.
> 
> Another solution is to "eternalize the externalities". What I mean is that I don't see why defense companies or whatever could not publicize a list of people who do not have defense. Just be like, "yo, free attacks on these people, they dunnn have security!"
> 
> Also, on people free riding on local security, in the over all production of security I don't think it matters. Anyone who owns a road or business will provide security, or else they would lose business to safer places. If an area is so safe that security isn't really needed, then the underproduction obviously is not a problem. With neighborhood protection too I see contracts emerging between landlords where either they themselves contractually agree to require tenets to buy security or the landlords buy security as part of home insurance. Or non-landlord owners might join neighborhood associations or whatever, and if someone refuses to buy security, it would be pretty easy to let all the criminals know that certain houses have no protection. But again, even if someone has no subscription, I don't see why they still couldn't call for help and just get charged a higher price or whatever. The amount of security provided would actually be in proportion to crime rates. Say that it is so nice somewhere that no one buys subscriptions, but relies on just emergency help. Well, the police force will be small, as it should be!
> 
> Defense and insurance companies also having a lot of money at risk with customers and their own capital (buildings, equipment, etc.) would have an incentive to contractually agree to group up in case of an invasion. I mean, think if you owned some stuff or a company, and you saw some army invading 300 miles to the south of you, then 250 miles, then 200, then 100, getting closer to you each time. I think it is obvious that even companies hundreds of miles away would view an attack on their neighbors as a potential threat. So I think large areas would be covered just by various investors, insurance agencies, and defense agencies agreeing to help each other out for their own good.
> 
> Also, when we think of war right now, we imagine how ridiculously expensive it is, well...because IT IS. The insane amount of money spent by the US military is more than the whole world's defense budget COMBINED. What I am getting at here is that DEFENSE spending would be extremely cheap compared to the costs we imagine with war now. Not only is the US maintaining an empire, but the US government is terrible at allocating resources (i.e. they spend a $#@! load of money without concern). With private defense, it will be efficient and dirt cheap compared to government military. I could see all the major cities defended against invasion for CHUMP CHANGE. What this means is that I think with how cheap it would be, people mooching in itself would not be a big concern. Some people are super cheap sure, but I think most people would pay an extra $10 a month (assuming companies didn't already cover 100%) vs facing the social pressure or even a black list of people declared "free to attack". Defense is SUPER cheap compared to offense, I think even a small town (like my home town of 9k ppl) could afford adequate defense, although it probably would not need "national" defense, but that is impossible to decide, which is exactly why the market is the best way to find out lol!
> ...

----------


## EBounding

> It's a cultural thing. That's why education is the most important task. And it will always stay that way.


I agree.  We have to convince people that freedom will ultimately make you the most comfortable and happy.

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> The more I see these posts pop up, dripping with condescension, but saying nothing at all, the more I'm convinced the public schools are no longer the least bit interested in teaching critical thinking skills.  Indeed, just the opposite--they seem to teach only condescension.  In fact, I'd say they use condescension as a weapon to kill any critical thinking skills in the womb.  What's that you're doing there, little Johnny?  Do I detect an attempt at critical thinking?  Well, now.  Class, little Johnny is trying to think critically.  Let's all laugh at him now.
> 
> Now children, we're going to teach you corporate socialism (but we do _not_ say fascism), imperialism and fiat money.  None of this stuff has a toe to stand on historically, much less a whole leg.  But we're going to teach you to sneer the naysayers into silence, so don't worry about it...
> 
> The more of these I see, the more patient I am with people who approach us in humility--even if they _could_ search the forum before they ask their question.


The purpose of public schools is to instill conformity to a particular state-approved mold of what a proper "citizen" should be. It's social engineering. From instilling obedience and submission to authority (regardless of whether the person in a position of authority is right or wrong), to school sports representing a microcosm of nation-state warfare (including School Spirit/Nationalism) and everything in between, they are pure and simple propaganda centers. Modeled after industrial factories, their product is the cookie cutter citizen tax slave who only really cares about government to votes in the presidential popularity contest, get some kind of benefits, or make pledges of allegiance at a sports game without even really taking into consideration what exactly he's pledging his allegiance to and his association to it.

This instillation of propaganda is continued as people "educate" themselves through the consumption of TV media personalities and other propaganda discussing issues in a dialectic that pits people into 2 opposing teams which always seems to involve increasing state power in some regard. Of course none of these issues are about anything as fundamental as principles, and mostly just contain appeals to people's emotions to back up their inconsistent frameworks.

Schools do the opposite of their purported purpose, by destroying a child's natural inclination to learn, as they turn the overwhelmingly joyful experience of discovery into an authoritarian, utterly boring, judgmental atmosphere in which the child is a product being hammered to fit the concept of a "perfect citizen".

----------

