Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[Black Flag]

dang...Black Flag's gone all OT on me.

No, just to show you your question is as old as the hills, and so is the answer.

It merely means your reading list is too short.

 

[Stupified]

Correct - but the money comes from the people.

So, asking "where does the money come from" ... comes from the same people.

The only difference:
one is coerced, the other way is voluntary.
But the ability and capacity is unchanged

Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses? Or do you think they would gripe and complain and think it was just a "scam" from some greedy corporation and that they'd be safer just hoarding their resources and protecting their family and neighbors?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

 

[otherone]

No, just to show you your question is as old as the hills, and so is the answer.

It merely means your reading list is too short.

Hah...just my comprehension is inadequate...what does your passage mean?

 

[Seraphim]

I agree, but I would argue that the capacity is actually INCREASED.

Uncoerced activity is far more efficient as it is not trickled through wasteful beaurocracy AND the very fact that the productive are not taxed for their work means they are more productive (the result of knowing you will keep what you earn; INCENTIVE).

Correct - but the money comes from the people.

So, asking "where does the money come from" ... comes from the same people.

The only difference:
one is coerced, the other way is voluntary.

But the ability and capacity is unchanged

 

[Seraphim]

I will preface my rebuttal with; their resources are of no god damn concern to you. Fuck yourself if you don't like them SAVING their resources. HOARDING is a fucking retarted, intellectually repugnant way of saying, SAVING.

Next; since the protection of private property always has been and always will be IMPORTANT to property owners, it is garbage to believe people will not adequately protect their property. Will some be lazy in such respect? YES. It is also their RIGHT to do so. Will some be somewhat overzealous with protecting their property? YES. It is there right to do so.

Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses? Or do you think they would gripe and complain and think it was just a "scam" from some greedy corporation and that they'd be safer just hoarding their resources and protecting their family and neighbors?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

 

[otherone]

"Either we all hang together or we all hang separately"

 

[Black Flag]

Do you think people would actually pay enough for all military expenses?

People pay $100+ billion a year in the USA for private security ...right now....in a paradigm where -theoretically- government should be doing such a darn good job, this would be unnecessary.

So, minus the coercion to pay for all the security apparatus right now, do you think this $100 billion would go up or down?

 

[Stupified]

I will preface my rebuttal with; their resources are of no god damn concern to you. Fuck yourself if you don't like them SAVING their resources. HOARDING is a fucking retarted, intellectually repugnant way of saying, SAVING.

Next; since the protection of private property always has been and always will be IMPORTANT to property owners, it is garbage to believe people will not adequately protect their property. Will some be lazy in such respect? YES. It is also their RIGHT to do so. Will some be somewhat overzealous with protecting their property? YES. It is there right to do so.

Please do not come into an argument that has spanned several pages without reading them first. Especially don't come into the argument the way you just did. Fuck yourself, sir.


And with pleasantries out of the way, I can catch you up to speed:

We're debating the scenario of an attack containing more than just ground forces (like any modern day assault would). I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.

 

[Black Flag]

Hah...just my comprehension is inadequate...what does your passage mean?

Israel was free, and they acted as free men ... following a moral leader who lead by example and not by violence.

Israel demanded to be lead by a king; and the Lord warned them of the horrors that they would suffer under such a king, even if it was one of their own choosing.

Israel ignored the warning, and the Lord said "Fine, but don't be crying to me - its your choice to be slaves again".

... and they were.

Free men can chose slavery, and they get their wish granted.... once.

 

[Seraphim]

Ummmm...

My argument is easily applicable to the voluntary association of neighbours, towns, regions etc. All fall under the scope of private property and everything I said is applicable.

Please do not come into an argument that has spanned several pages without reading them first. Especially don't come into the argument the way you just did. Fuck yourself, sir.


And with pleasantries out of the way, I can catch you up to speed:

We're debating the scenario of an attack containing more than just ground forces (like any modern day assault would). I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.

 

[Black Flag]

I am humbly proposing that you can't defend your private property if you're obliterated by a bomb.

You need to provide your rational for war, because at this point, you are arguing genocide.

War is not genocide, it is merely the extension of politics by other means. There is a goal, and it is rarely utter destruction and death, though that happens to be the means.

 

[Stupified]

People pay $100+ billion a year in the USA for private security ...right now....in a paradigm where -theoretically- government should be doing such a darn good job, this would be unnecessary.

So, minus the coercion to pay for all the security apparatus right now, do you think this $100 billion would go up or down?

Is that figure is including things like home security systems and security lights? Because private property security won't be of any use against an external assault.


The problem I have with private security (mercenaries) in an anarchist society is that I think those private security companies would have too much power. They'd essentially be a local police, except that they wouldn't even have to answer to federal authorities. Ever seen the movie Gangs of New York? Remember the scene where the opposing firefighting units brawl in the streets? That's how I envision an anarchist society with private security contracts.

 

[otherone]

Free men can chose slavery, and they get their wish granted.... once.

Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I agree completely in regards to deciding one's own fate. My point was, however, is that the 80% who capitulated left the 20% Liberty-minded screwed. The 80% were morally righteous in fucking over their remaining countrymen.

 

[Stupified]

You need to provide your rational for war, because at this point, you are arguing genocide.

War is not genocide, it is merely the extension of politics by other means. There is a goal, and it is rarely utter destruction and death, though that happens to be the means.

The war I am theorizing would be a war for real estate and resources, and not a war fought over monetary concessions or something. And I know that war is not genocide, but look at the Vietnam War. We couldn't fight the guerrilla militia in the jungles, so we resorted to simply dousing large stretches of lands with napalm. That would be a likely course of action for our enemy if guerrilla units composed of towns/communities kept harassing their ground troops.

It may all be hypothetical, but this is the type of theorizing you have to do in order to be confident in anarchy. You have to be prepared for the worst.

 

[mczerone]

You're begging the question. If a society chooses a state, is it moral?

"Society" is not an agent of force.

People are. And if people choose to organize under a constitution to achieve some goals; GREAT!

But if you force other, non-cooperators, into this "state" then it is immoral. If you refuse to allow people to disassociate themselves and their property from the aegis of this institution, then it is immoral. If the people use their state to indemnify their immoral desires, then it is immoral.

 

[Black Flag]

Is that figure is including things like home security systems and security lights? Because private property security won't be of any use against an external assault.

To answer your red herring: it is "all" private security, which probably includes putting locks on your door.

But that is irrelevant.

The point being, people see value in security and safety, and pay a hellva a lot of money for it ... today.... in a paradigm that eats through more than 3/4 of trillion a year on it via government.

To argue that without government, no one would pay flies head-on with the fact that they already do....

To argue that private firms would have too much power .... from what? Why would free men organize themselves to inflict the very essence of what they oppose?

Yes, do remember Gangs of New York - created by government action, in a city full of cops, etc.

You are arguing against yourself. You argue only the State can keep you safe, and then point to times in history where .... they didn't.


I am not saying (and I can say no one else is either) that free men would be better or even win against a determined enemy.
I am saying that you can't say that government would be better either, nor win against a determined enemy.

I am saying that free men have more than enough will and capacity to defend themselves -- and their success or failure at the time of testing is irrelevant.

 

[otherone]

"Society" is not an agent of force.

People are. And if people choose to organize under a constitution to achieve some goals; GREAT!

But if you force other, non-cooperators, into this "state" then it is immoral. If you refuse to allow people to disassociate themselves and their property from the aegis of this institution, then it is immoral. If the people use their state to indemnify their immoral desires, then it is immoral.

So....up until the 14th amendment, the Constitution WAS moral!

 

[Black Flag]

Thanks for the clarification, and yes, I agree completely in regards to deciding one's own fate. My point was, however, is that the 80% who capitulated left the 20% Liberty-minded screwed. The 80% were morally righteous in fucking over their remaining countrymen.

Well, the 20% ended up winning, this time.

Can't remember the fella or the exact quote, but he essentially said to his countrymen

Go and do not bother us and we will not bother you. We will fight for freedom without you, and indeed, we do not wish your company among us men...

 

[Black Flag]

So....up until the 14th amendment, the Constitution WAS moral!

No, it never was, and never will be.

A group of guys who believe they can sign away my rights against my wishes can never be a moral decree.

 

[Stupified]

To answer your red herring: it is "all" private security, which probably includes putting locks on your door.

But that is irrelevant.

The point being, people see value in security and safety, and pay a hellva a lot of money for it ... today.... in a paradigm that eats through more than 3/4 of trillion a year on it via government.

To argue that without government, no one would pay flies head-on with the fact that they already do....

To argue that private firms would have too much power .... from what? Why would free men organize themselves to inflict the very essence of what they oppose?

Yes, do remember Gangs of New York - created by government action, in a city full of cops, etc.

You are arguing against yourself. You argue only the State can keep you safe, and then point to times in history where .... they didn't.


I am not saying (and I can say no one else is either) that free men would be better or even win against a determined enemy.
I am saying that you can't say that government would be better either, nor win against a determined enemy.

I am saying that free men have more than enough will and capacity to defend themselves -- and their success or failure at the time of testing is irrelevant.

I think we will have to agree to tip hats and part ways then, for I do not see us ever coming to agreement.


I believe that the days of "The Patriot" - one man against an invading army - are long gone due to ever advancing military technology.