Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[mczerone]

With force, yes.

So you are back at square one.

We're not at square one. We're at the first point of conflict.

You say one unaccountable agency should have a monopoly on force, subject only to the will of tyrants.

I say that competing agencies should each be free to use justifiable force, subject to market pressures of stable customer bases, competition, and the looming threat that another agency will judge the force to be unjustified.

Force sometimes is rightly used. The State shouldn't be the decision maker.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.

Sounds like cops to me.

 

[mczerone]

One point for consideration is that if the enforcers were any good, they would (A) be well armed, and (B) have no hesitation in using those weapons - otherwise they wouldn't be much good at what they do. At some point the enforcers realize that they don't need to work for the peanuts you pay them, they can just steal your stuff because they can.

Yeah, that's what the State does.

But what if you weren't bound to one agency? What if you could go to Brinks and say "my old agency is trying to take my stuff, will you defend me from Wells Fargo?"

 

[mczerone]

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.

So how do you find "good" solutions to the problems of societal management?

Do you lock a given geographical area into a monopoly system so that everyone thrives or dies together with no market signals showing how well the system is working?

Or do you allow people to freely choose, constantly getting feedback from others in their community who have chosen other paths, to see how well their system holds up against different options?

Just because there are no "perfect" systems doesn't mean that we should settle on the status quo instance of imperfection.

 

[RiseAgainst]

For tribalism to exist, there needs to be those who are not members of the tribe. And while those of the tribe enjoy 'voluntary interaction', those who compete for resources with the tribe most certainly do not. You know....like prison gangs.....

I'm confused, are you agaisnt competition?

 

[mczerone]

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.

Every time he says "We should question the role of government" he is advocating anarchy. Every time he voted as the sole "no" vote in congress, he was advocating anarchy. Everytime he says that wars don't solve problems he is advocating anarchy. Every time he appeals to his religion in guiding his morals, he is advocating anarchy.

He's saying, in essence, "you enemies of anarchy have this Constitution that limits your tyranny. I'll work within your system and I'll use any tools provided to me to hold you to that document."

 

[UMULAS]

We are for Competition, hence why we have a market.

Sorry RiseAgainst, but Anarchy = ideology

Ideology =/= Reality

I'm still waiting for you to refute my post...

 

[PierzStyx]

An armed population is the very best defense. A very well armed population.

Ask the Russians about attacking Afghanistan..

or observe the abject failure of the US doing the same stupid thing.

Now think of a country the size of the US if there was NO arms control and folks could have anything they wanted.
That is defense.

But the Russians killed many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of Afghans that wouldn't have needed to die if they'd had a more organized front against the Russians.

 

[No Free Beer]

Precisely..."to hold you to that document."

That document means there is government.

 

[PierzStyx]

Every time he says "We should question the role of government" he is advocating anarchy. Every time he voted as the sole "no" vote in congress, he was advocating anarchy. Everytime he says that wars don't solve problems he is advocating anarchy. Every time he appeals to his religion in guiding his morals, he is advocating anarchy.

He's saying, in essence, "you enemies of anarchy have this Constitution that limits your tyranny. I'll work within your system and I'll use any tools provided to me to hold you to that document."

Way to 1. Not understand anarchy and 2. Put words in the man's mouth. Nothing you said is true.

 

[mczerone]

If all you say is true why are aren't there any successful anarchies in existence?

The same reason there weren't any democratic republics before the Founders seceded from the throne.

It doesn't mean they wouldn't be successful - there just needed to be a sparking event to shift the paradigm.

If your argument were sound, why aren't we bowing to the Queen?

 

[mczerone]

Precisely..."to hold you to that document."

That document means there is government.

Yeah, and if it were the charter for Blackbeard's pirate ship, it would mean that pirates exist. It doesn't mean that I couldn't hold it up to Blackbeard and say "you agreed not to rape and pillage the mainland".

Recognizing that govt exists doesn't mean you aren't advocating for it's abolition.

 

[RiseAgainst]

We are for Competition, hence why we have a market.

You have no idea what a market is if you think anyone has one.

Sorry RiseAgainst, but Anarchy = ideology

Ideology =/= Reality

Sorry UMULAS, Statism=ideology. You fail your own test. Reality is not something that just is, it is the result of what was, and as such can be influenced to be what will be.

I'm still waiting for you to refute my post...

What, this gem?

Look, many communists and anarchists read a lot and think a lot, why? So that way they can try to perfect themselves on their ideology. Anarchism is just another ideology that would work if

: There would be no enemies
: No one would sin
: There is infinite resources
: Everyone lives happily together

Just like Anarchism, Socialism, Fascism, Communism, and 100+ ideologies, they only work in one's mind.

And you saying I don't think is very weak since I did think about the consequences of Anarchy; call me crazy, but I love policeman, fireman, regulated food, highways, public schools and much more. Though I lean into libertarianism, I still believe that we should have a state.

You believe in statism, an ideology. And then you tell me ideologies do not work? Cognitive dissonance, they name is UMULAS.

You haven't thought through anything, you're reactionary and emotional. You throw out the same boring, tired, weak minded straw men that have been put to bed by thousands of years of actual thought by some of the greatest minds on earth. But I know, reading is so difficult, and it might actually require you to open your mind and expose your cognitive dissonance to painful air.

 

[mczerone]

Way to 1. Not understand anarchy and 2. Put words in the man's mouth. Nothing you said is true.

1. How don't I understand anarchy? What am I missing?

2. What exactly is Ron advocating when he calls on members of congress to put their own money up to honor Rosa Parks with a medal instead of using the state to issue it? What exactly is he advocating when he says that the needy and the philanthropists should use community organizations and churches instead of state welfare systems? I admit that I'm inferring his true motives from his actions, but my conclusions are entirely supported by the evidence.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

But the Russians killed many thousands, hundreds of thousands, of Afghans that wouldn't have needed to die if they'd had a more organized front against the Russians.

But the Afghans had pretty primitive weapons. (Mostly AK's and mortars, IIRC) As Pete pointed out, we have quite ready access to far more (and far better) weaponry.

 

[Noble Savage]

The problem is that humans were created as nomadic hunter gatherers not sedated mass consumers.

 

[onlyrp]

And why couldn't I hire a private enforcer of those contracts?

You definitely can. So it'll boil down to who has more money or better guns, wouldn't it?

 

[TheTexan]

Any government is only a representation of its people. Because most people by nature like to control others, most governments such as ours are going to be tyrannies. It used to be that those who value liberty and freedom could set sail for distant lands to separate themselves from these people, and this works until tyranny lovers invariably move there and turn it to shit.

Now there's nowhere to go. Everywhere is a tyranny. This is why you don't see any anarchies today.

We need to stake out some land somewhere and raise the flag of Liberty, masters be damned.

 

[mczerone]

The problem is that humans were created as nomadic hunter gatherers not sedated mass consumers.

Elaborate?

With our new communication technologies there is less need for war. We don't take our tribe leader's word for things when he says that the other tribes are non-human savages.

We can talk to anyone, trade with anyone, and see that the Warpigs are the only savages. People the world around just want to peacefully make their livings. And we can do that as sedated mass consumers or nomads as long as we recognize that each person is a person.

 

[mczerone]

You definitely can. So it'll boil down to who has more money or better guns, wouldn't it?

Not really. There might be one "big" defender/enforcer, but if it started being tyrannical, all of the rest could cooperate to resist the aggression.

And if you were really scared of this happening, maybe you'd invest in two or three enforcers to make sure that there was always some parity.

But even in the worst case scenario, you'd be left with nothing worse than today.