Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[Cabal]

They get conquered by another state, and the conquer-ers handle national defense for them.

Translation: Since it is [supposedly] inevitable that some State will want to [for some theoretical, speculated reason] invade the territory of NA (even though there would be no centralized government system in place to conquer by which to seize control of the resource of tax livestock), at the cost of their own resources, and 'take us all over'--an endeavor which, in the past, has proven a failure in the absence of centralized government (reference Great Britain); it is in our best interest to instead submit to rulers of our own choosing, assuming them more benevolent because they are born within a certain geographical location.

Error. Logic fail. Error. Abort, abort, abort.

 

[Madison320]

Translation: Since it is [supposedly] inevitable that some State will want to [for some theoretical, speculated reason] invade the territory of NA (even though there would be no centralized government system in place to conquer by which to seize control of the resource of tax livestock), at the cost of their own resources, and 'take us all over'--an endeavor which, in the past, has proven a failure in the absence of centralized government (reference Great Britain); it is in our best interest to instead submit to rulers of our own choosing, assuming them more benevolent because they are born within a certain geographical location.

Error. Logic fail. Error. Abort, abort, abort.

I love this idea that without a state there wont be anything to invade. Did you think the invaders want to take over the government? LOL! They want the stuff! They want to drive your car, swim in your pool, rape your daughter, that sort of thing.

What difference does it make why countries (or geographic areas) are invaded? It happens. And it's easier if there's no military force. That's all you need to know. That's why there aren't any anarchies which blows your theory out of the water. Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I love this idea that without a state there wont be anything to invade. Did you think the invaders want to take over the government? LOL! They want the stuff! They want to drive your car, swim in your pool, rape your daughter, that sort of thing.

What difference does it make why countries (or geographic areas) are invaded? It happens. And it's easier if there's no military force. That's all you need to know. That's why there aren't any anarchies which blows your theory out of the water. Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.

This is a very superficial view. If you just take something (say a car), it's gone. However, using the State apparatus, you can make slaves of masses of people and they will make as many cars for you as you want (or they'll suffer the consequences of your tyranny). If some foreigners are just interested in "taking stuff", they could easily be beaten back (rationally self-interested property owners would demand the means for defense). "Stuff" is temporal. Human livestock, however, can exploited for many generations (just about indefinitely).

This is why it is aptly said that "The State is a criminal gang writ large". This is why no invading State is content to pillage and leave. They prefer to make conquered territories satellites. (think of the permanent bases in Afghanistan)

ETA: This uncontrollable nature of the State is why there are no "successful" minarchies (as minarchists define "successful").

 

[Black Flag]

Go on...

I would like you to explain your ideal society.

How would laws protecting individual rights be "force"?

What "Right" are you protecting?

Would you agree the only justified use of violence is to protect yourself from an initiation of violence?

 

[Travlyr]

What "Right" are you protecting?

Would you agree the only justified use of violence is to protect yourself from an initiation of violence?

Please explain how laws of the land are violent.

 

[TheTexan]

Please explain how laws of the land are violent.

I earn a living, the state takes it from me by force.

You may say the Constitution does not allow this, but I say - oh it does, because it is happening, now.

 

[Travlyr]

I earn a living, the state takes it from me by force.

You may say the Constitution does not allow this, but I say - oh it does, because it is happening, now.

Who is obeying the Constitution?

 

[Black Flag]

Please explain how laws of the land are violent.

Do you believe you have a right to attack me because I cross the street in the middle of the road?

 

[TheTexan]

Who is obeying the Constitution?

We are obeying the Constitution. They aren't. The contract is broken, but there is nothing we can do about it. Without a dissolution clause built into the contract, this will happen, every time.

 

[Travlyr]

We are obeying the Constitution. They aren't. The contract is broken, but there is nothing we can do about it. Without a dissolution clause built into the contract, this will happen, every time.

Article VI Clause 3

 

[Travlyr]

Do you believe you have a right to attack me because I cross the street in the middle of the road?

Where in the Constitution is that law?

 

[TheTexan]

Article VI Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That's not a dissolution clause.

Without a way to dissolve the contract (i.e., secession), this Oath is entirely unenforceable. I think the evidence of this should be quite clear by now

 

[Black Flag]

Which is why anarchists will never answer the question of why there are no successful anarchies.

There are no successful States either.

That's the problem with Statists - they apply their perverted measure of success to others, but refuse those same measures upon themselves.

 

[Travlyr]

That's not a dissolution clause.

Without a way to dissolve the contract (i.e., secession), this Oath is entirely unenforceable. I think the evidence of this should be quite clear by now

Until 1963 elected officials and appointed judges were bound to their oath with a penal bond.

 

[Travlyr]

There are no successful States either.

That's the problem with Statists - they apply their perverted measure of success to others, but refuse those same measures upon themselves.

Even Lysander Spooner KNEW the importance of limited government. Even Lysander Spooner knew that. Why don't you?

 

[TheTexan]

Until 1963 elected officials and appointed judges were bound to their oath with a penal bond.

You realize that our elected leaders stopped caring about the Constitution long before 1963, right?

 

[Black Flag]

Who is obeying the Constitution?

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

By what right do a bunch of strange men so declare upon themselves their just compensation to take my property without my consent?

 

[Black Flag]

Even Lysander Spooner KNEW the importance of limited government. Even Lysander Spooner knew that. Why don't you?

Because I think for myself and do not let the dead Lysander do that for me.

 

[Travlyr]

You realize that our elected leaders stopped caring about the Constitution long before 1963, right?

Yes. April 1861. The American government was overthrown.

http://moneyfactory.gov/historytimeline.html

 

[Black Flag]

Where in the Constitution is that law?

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.