Question for anarchists - How would you handle national defense?

[Madison320]

I don't agree. If you make the laws for your land, and I make laws for my land, then what is to stop me from saying that anyone, or anything, who trespasses on my land becomes my property? It is my land. I make the law. Common land laws can prevent that kind of immorality.

That's right. And not just land laws, any laws. One important feature of a law is that it needs to be predefined. And the method for selecting a judge needs to be predetermined. If A and B get into a dispute A can't make up his own law and use his judge while B uses his own law and his own judge.

 

[Cabal]

You probably didn't realize how funny your post was!

I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?

What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?

 

[Madison320]

I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?

What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?

Honey, I'm home! I'm gonna be a little late for dinner, I'm going out back to work on the F-16, its got a bad thruster. Did you pick up those Sidewinders on the way to the grocery store?

Your theories have been tested in the real world. They don't work. That's why there are no anarchies. Well maybe Somalia. Depending on which anarchist you ask.

 

[Black Flag]

To respond to the original post and first page of replies, since I haven't done that: an anarchist, armed society is all well and good against an invading army with guns, but what happens when the invading army says "fuck it" and starts dropping bombs?

Why do you assume any group of people -let alone those who understand the costs and price of freedom - would sit around undefended against "bombs"?

Why do you assume that military organization can only occur if it is violent forced upon the people under a nation state?

Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?

 

[Stupified]

So anarchists don't know how to fly jets?

How many people could afford jets? Not nearly enough to protect your borders.

Why do you assume any group of people -let alone those who understand the costs and price of freedom - would sit around undefended against "bombs"?

Why do you assume that military organization can only occur if it is violent forced upon the people under a nation state?

Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?

Because the costs of modern military weapons is unattainable without a pool of resources specifically meant for defense (ie. a federal government). Where are you going to get that money? The rich capitalists? Maybe once, but never again. The Joe Schmoes toiling in the mud? Get real.

Who is going to continuously fund the R&D of the military? The rich capitalists? Hello, men with private armies, we really hope you continue to keep the goodwill in our venerable little society. Please disband your army after the war.



This is laughable.

 

[Wesker1982]

One important feature of a law is that it needs to be predefined. And the method for selecting a judge needs to be predetermined. If A and B get into a dispute A can't make up his own law and use his judge while B uses his own law and his own judge.

This is a common basic elementary objection that has been refuted for literally decades. In fact, there is not one work dedicated to explaining a Voluntaryist society that I can think of that does not address this. If you are genuinely interested, myself and many others would explain it to you and point you towards the other works as well.

 

[Madison320]

Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:

"A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses."

Now I think I understand what she means when she says that statists and anarchists "take the other side of the same coin". She means that both statists and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't differentiate between acts of force and voluntary trade. Statists use government to protect rights but also to violate them. Anarchists use the market for both. Only minarchists differentiate between force and non-force. Minarchists are the only ones who implement natural law.

 

[Madison320]

This is a common basic elementary objection that has been refuted for literally decades. In fact, there is not one work dedicated to explaining a Voluntaryist society that I can think of that does not address this. If you are genuinely interested, myself and many others would explain it to you and point you towards the other works as well.

Refuted on paper, not in the real world.

 

[Wesker1982]

Refuted on paper, not in the real world.

Not true. But before I even bother, you need to answer with a simple yes or no: If you are wrong, would you want to know about it?

 

[otherone]

Why do you assume that military organizations -such as the first ones that this nation created with private funding - is impossible?

So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense? Now I'm really confused.

 

[Wesker1982]

So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense? Now I'm really confused.

You can have organization without centralization. Roderick T Long writes about this and national defense here Defending a Free Nation

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:

"A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses."

Now I think I understand what she means when she says that statists and anarchists "take the other side of the same coin". She means that both statists and anarchists treat all acts the same. They don't differentiate between acts of force and voluntary trade. Statists use government to protect rights but also to violate them. Anarchists use the market for both. Only minarchists differentiate between force and non-force. Minarchists are the only ones who implement natural law.

That's not true. But if it were-why haven't minarchists implemented natural law? (hint: it's not in the rational self-interest of minarchists to actually practice natural law)

 

[Cabal]

Honey, I'm home! I'm gonna be a little late for dinner, I'm going out back to work on the F-16, its got a bad thruster. Did you pick up those Sidewinders on the way to the grocery store?

Your theories have been tested in the real world. They don't work. That's why there are no anarchies. Well maybe Somalia. Depending on which anarchist you ask.

Straw man much?

Provide an example of a test of voluntaryist theory that has failed.

ROFL @ Somalia. Wow. No wonder you get insulted so much. Yo, twenty years ago called, they want their fallacious argument back.

How many people could afford jets? Not nearly enough to protect your borders.

Why would any one person need to be able to afford a jet?

I'm not suggesting individual civilians purchase aircraft and become fighter pilots. I'm not sure why you would think I would suggest such a thing.

 

[Black Flag]

Because the costs of modern military weapons is unattainable without a pool of resources specifically meant for defense (ie. a federal government). Where are you going to get that money? The rich capitalists? Maybe once, but never again. The Joe Schmoes toiling in the mud? Get real.

How about you get real?

What is the largest navy on Earth?

Wrong. Its Maersk - it operates a fleet larger then the combined navies of USA and Russia.

Apple has a budget that would place it in the 26th largest nation on Earth (based on budget).

Exxon has a larger budget than Brazil.

The challenge you have to overcome is your economic illiteracy.

Every gun, bullet, plane, ship and solider of a Nation State is provided by the economic resources of the market place

To stand back to then claim that the economic resources of a market place would be unable to provide what they already provide is rather bizarre.

 

[Black Flag]

Many years ago I read this by Ayn Rand but I didn't totally understand what she meant:

Don't worry. Much of what she wrote is incomprehensible.

Regardless, review this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

 

[Black Flag]

Back to the point:

There is no fundamental economic law, nor capability, nor missing link to why an anarchist society cannot defend itself.

Much of this thread devolves into a dialogue of why anarchist society does not 'pop up' within the current paradigm.

This latter question is wholly irrelevant to the question of this thread; yes, there are many reasons why freedom is so hard to obtain, but none of these reasons dispute the ability of such free men to defend themselves.

 

[No Free Beer]

I see. So you're just another who is content to patronize, and berate everyone who disagrees with you? Why are you here again?

What prevents people from acquiring jets with which to secure airspace and flying them accordingly?

You do the same thing, buddy.

 

[Madison320]

How about you get real?

What is the largest navy on Earth?

Wrong. Its Maersk - it operates a fleet larger then the combined navies of USA and Russia.

Apple has a budget that would place it in the 26th largest nation on Earth (based on budget).

Exxon has a larger budget than Brazil.

The challenge you have to overcome is your economic illiteracy.

Every gun, bullet, plane, ship and solider of a Nation State is provided by the economic resources of the market place

To stand back to then claim that the economic resources of a market place would be unable to provide what they already provide is rather bizarre.

But Maersk, Apple and Exxon don't have weapons do they?

How ironic is this? I looked up Maersk and found that one of their ships has hijacked by ... you guessed it ... Somali pirates!!! What's funnier than that? What you call "the biggest navy in the world" got their ship taken over by some ragtag Somali pirates, who happen to be anarchists! Oh the irony!

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

Maersk Alabama as seen from a P-3C Orion Aircraft during its 2009 hijacking.
Main article: Maersk Alabama hijacking

On the morning of April 8, 2009 the 17,000-ton MV Maersk Alabama was en route to Mombasa, Kenya, when it was hijacked by pirates off the Somali coast. The company confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel had 20 U.S. nationals onboard. This was the first time that the US had to deal with a situation in which Americans were aboard a ship seized by pirates in over 200 years. By noon, the Americans were able to resist the pirates and regain control of the ship. However, the pirates retreated on a covered life boat and held the captain hostage for four days. On April 12, 2009, it was confirmed that the captain held hostage was freed by the US Navy, where SEAL sharpshooters killed three of the pirates. A fourth pirate surrendered earlier due to a medical injury.

Maersk Line estimates that piracy costs the company $100 million per year due to longer routes and higher speed, particularly near East Africa.[22]

As of 2010, all 83 Maersk tankers divert around the Cape of Good Hope south of Africa instead of going through the Suez Canal.[23]

 

[Black Flag]

But Maersk, Apple and Exxon don't have weapons do they?

They sure do .... but they, in this bizarre paradigm, would rather the government do their dirty work.

Why would you expect them to spend money on an army when they already own one?

 

[Madison320]

So a stateless society may have a proviso that allows a central authority to convene for the purpose of mutual defense? Now I'm really confused.

I was going down the same path. Suppose a bunch of anarchists decide to form their own island anarchy. They don't want to end up being annexed by Tonga like the last island experiment so they decide to create a military. Now they need to pick someone to lead this military, so they do what? Have an election? Can you do that in an anarchy?



"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."

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