Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[TheTexan]

No, you can't.

The weapons that the Afghans have? I don't need a foreign government to supply me with AK-47's. RPG's for that matter, either, if it weren't for the FFL restrictions.

How much do anti aircraft missiles go for? I may have to pool some funds for that one, but no, we have the means to supply ourselves with our own arms, thank you very much.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Haha.

This country would turn to shit if we abolished the federal government and a foreign nation invaded. Think Afghanistan.

 

[No Free Beer]

Haha.

This country would turn to shit if we abolished the federal government and a foreign nation invaded. Think Afghanistan.

How can you say that you statist! (troll face)

 

[TheTexan]

please supply me with examples/proof...

 

[mczerone]

My rights are supported by the Constitution, yes.

My natural rights would not be supported under anarchism because there wouldn't be an scripts or laws to support my rights.

I see what you are trying to do, but that is a whole different discussion.

It's not a different discussion. The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.

Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported for free in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.

But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.

Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!

 

[No Free Beer]

Ron Paul is quite possibly minarchist. He is not an anarchist.

In this video, a lot of the texts that were posted (from his books) are taken way out of context. And I do not have the time to go down the line and explaining all of his meanings. But, to show you that I am genuine, I will use one - Force: All he was saying there was that an initiation of force on anyone, whether it be by an individual or the state, is considered a violation of someone else's property and rights. To put it differently, whether your neighbor comes over and hits you, or the government abused the 4th amendment, it is that initiation of force that infringes on your rights. This is something completely different than the protection of contracts and rights by a Constitution.

Also, with regards to the national security portion of this video, I could just as easily provide you with a video to that shows Ron explain that one of the roles of the federal government is to protect us. Us as citizens of the United States.

So again, his views are being taken out of context, something that is not hard to do with anyone and everyone.

 

[RiseAgainst]

Invader A would quickly and easily take over much more than Block A. Claims that the "investment" will always be greater than the return ignores thousands of years of invasions, not to mention any crime of theft on a smaller scale.

Because apparently in your world, time stops. Here in the real world, time is a continuous line (at least as we practically know it at present, given theoretical physics may be playing with theories otherwise). Investment doesn't stop at invasion plus one milisecond. In order to retain the resource on must now become the defensive, further investment must be made. The fact that these 'invaders' have not held on to their newly acquired 'property' in perpetuity speaks contrary to your claim, and necessitates the ever widening and expanding of the empire for the protection of itself. Your proposal ends in empire, as it necessarily must. Is this what you want? If not, start looking for a better way and stop shoving guns in peoples faces.

This has been tried before. Ever heard of Minerva? Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation

"The Republic of Minerva was set up in 1972 as a libertarian new-country project by Nevada businessman Michael Oliver. Oliver's group conducted dredging operations at the Minerva Reefs, a shoal located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji. They succeeded in creating a small artificial island, but their efforts at securing international recognition met with little success, and near-neighbour Tonga sent a military force to the area and annexed it."

A minimalist government for the purposes of 'national defense' and common contract enforcement has been tried before. Ever heard of hhe United States of America? Oops!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Please don't try to pin Rick Santorum's idea of "defense" on me.

Then don't preach an ideology which necessitates it's existence.

As for the other responses I prefer reading your own words, not being referred to a book.

Ah, I see. So then you are not interested in any actual understanding or knowledge, only in flexing your rhetorical skills and waving your epeen around?

If you asked for the solution to a complex mathematical equation, which I could not myself solve, and I provided you with a source which contained the solution, is that solution invalid simply because I, your humble servant, did not deliver it to you of my own cognition?

Grow up.

 

[TheTexan]

Ron Paul is quite possibly minarchist. He is not an anarchist.

Debatable.

 

[No Free Beer]

It's not a different discussion. The Constitution has not worked to restrain the govt from violating the rights of the people. The state works with impunity in its endless foreign and domestic wars, it wastes resources on pet projects, and it destroys any notion of "rights" via personal behavior prohibitions, eminent domain, and taxation.

Your "natural rights" wouldn't be supported for free in a stateless society. But they aren't supported for free now. You have to pay exorbitant amounts for sub-par service, to enforce "rights" that you don't necessarily agree with.

But your rights would be supported in a responsive manner by voluntarily funded, efficient institutions that care about the well being of their subscribers. You would get the best price for the best service, or you could switch providers.

Sounds better than enormous prices for the crappiest service imaginable and a prohibition of switching providers!

I would not put the full blame on the Constitution, rather on the politicians and the citizens of this country. What did Thomas Jefferson once write, "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

It's because our politicians have abused it and we, as a society, have been to lazy too check up on them (politicians).

Is the Constitution perfect? No, absolutely not. Nothing is.

 

[RiseAgainst]

What? You are absolutely denying ten thousand years of recorded human history if you are claiming that taking over another country provides no pay-off. There are resources, there is money, there are people to exploit, there is land, etc, etc, etc. If America decided to carpet bomb all of Kuwait, take it over, and steal all of Kuwait's oil reserves and begin producing, they have benefited. How would individual people in Kuwait be able to defend against a better prepared and large military that use force

The answer is that they cant, and that is the proof that anarchism fails as a reasonable goal for society. You could argue we have anarchy right now. You have absolute freedom to do what you wish to do, but under anarchy, there is no expectation that you will not receive violent consequences for not doing it. In anarchy, the majority or the most powerful take power and impose their will on others, and the individuals have no power to stop it other than to convince those in control to be reasonable, or work together and force each other to work against those that wish to do worse harm than your current government does. Anarchy leads to government.

What is anarchy's response to a military invasion? It is either to try and fight them off as individuals(which considering the fact that we don't have any major anarchist areas in the world right now except in relatively remote or unstable areas, proves pretty much doesnt work), let themselves get taken over and exploited, or join together, agree on imposing a justifiable and relatively small amount of violence and force on each other to create a standing army of their own, recognize common borders, and defend their "country."

Thank you for the stirring argument for nihilism. I myself don't take to the philosophy of nihilism, however I certainly acknowledge that outside of anarchism it remains the only logically consistent alternative.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Debatable.

Not really.
He has never advocated anarchy.

 

[kuckfeynes]

It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.

 

[Domalais]

The weapons that the Afghans have? I don't need a foreign government to supply me with AK-47's. RPG's for that matter, either, if it weren't for the FFL restrictions.

How much do anti aircraft missiles go for? I may have to pool some funds for that one, but no, we have the means to supply ourselves with our own arms, thank you very much.

You can afford some of the weapons. You can't afford the intelligence and training.

 

[No Free Beer]

Debatable.

No, it's fact.

Proof: He talks about the US Constitution and how we need to follow it.

If we were to support your opinion about Ron and his views, you would essentially be saying he is a phony and he is disingenuous. Would you not?

 

[RiseAgainst]

Do you really want to live in a country where you're constantly under attack, whether it's successful or not?

If you want to live under a "State", then you are under attack 100% of the time, and it is successful 100% of the time.

I think the problem with anarchists is that they take government protection for granted. "Hey, nobody's attacked us for years! Why do we need a military?"

I think the problem with statists, is that they take government violence for granted. "Hey, it's not me they're oppressing, it's those people over there, and well they deserve it."

Keep in mind I'm all for limited government. 99.9% of the time I'm arguing for less government.

Keep in mind 99.9% of the time you're arguing for a pink unicorn.

 

[No Free Beer]

It boggles my mind how people can have such strong convictions against socialized health care, but socialized defense and justice are not only legitimate but necessary. Everything is a product or service. From birth control to anti aircraft missiles to murder trials. Anarchism is the only truly consistent position for anyone who acknowledges the superiority of the market over central planning.

Last time I checked, we have a volunteer military. Our military is also supported by the constitution.

Ya dig?

 

[TheTexan]

Not really.
He has never advocated anarchy.

"Anarchy" is a politically unpopular term. His views, however, are entirely consistent with it.

Government is the initiation of force, which he indisputably recognizes. He is also indisputably against the initiation of force. Do the math.

 

[No Free Beer]

"Anarchy" is a politically unpopular term. His views, however, are entirely consistent with it.

Government is the initiation of force, which he indisputably recognizes. He is also indisputably against the initiation of force. Do the math.

You ignored my post. If you didn't, you wouldn't have responded this way.

 

[TheTexan]

No, it's fact.

Proof: He talks about the US Constitution and how we need to follow it.

If we were to support your opinion about Ron and his views, you would essentially be saying he is a phony and he is disingenuous. Would you not?

I also support following the Constitution. If you make a piece of law, at least follow it, for fucks sake.

Proves nothing.

 

[No Free Beer]

I also support following the Constitution. If you make a piece of law, at least follow it, for fucks sake.

Proves nothing.

That is completely contradictory to what you have been saying this whole time...

Ron Paul is ADVOCATING a return to Constitutional government.

If he was an anarchist, or whatever less provocative term you prefer, he would ADVOCATE for that instead.

Game. Over.