Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Swordsmyth]

It's not provable that mercenaries are historically outnumbered by volunteer forces?

It is not provable that an aggressor state's combination of mercenaries, volunteers and and conscripts are outnumbered by anarchists or tribals willing to defend their territory.

And I notice you didn't respond to A or B.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Is your point that a community has to be protected from mercenaries by a compulsory state?

A state is required to provide protection from enemies and criminals foreign or domestic, that includes mercenaries hired by foreign states.

Men are NOT angels and we can't have perfection in this world so we must seek the best practical outcome.

 

[otherone]

It is not provable that an aggressor state's combination of mercenaries, volunteers and and conscripts are outnumbered by anarchists or tribals willing to defend their territory.

And I notice you didn't respond to A or B.

A and B are inconsequential. Your superior force would defeat ANY inferior force, whether statist or stateless. Making service compulsory doesn't overcome tactical inferiority. And your argument, btw, is not simply for the state, but for empire. Which is where the US sits today.

 

[otherone]

A state is required to provide protection from enemies and criminals foreign or domestic, that includes mercenaries hired by foreign states.

Men are NOT angels and we can't have perfection in this world so we must seek the best practical outcome.

Which means you support the violation of individual rights. The needs of the collective, in your mind, supersede the individual. I'm not critical of your opinion, just realize that for you, and the majority of people, security outweighs liberty.

 

[Swordsmyth]

A and B are inconsequential. Your superior force would defeat ANY inferior force, whether statist or stateless. Making service compulsory doesn't overcome tactical inferiority. And your argument, btw, is not simply for the state, but for empire. Which is where the US sits today.

?????

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
The aggressor state keeps a standing army with superior training and equipment to your anarchic society's supposed numerical majority, how is that not consequential?


B. after they start the war they conscript
Your supposed numerical superiority is countered by conscription after the aggressor uses their standing army to start the war, how is that not consequential?

You admit that the state and empire are two different things, how is my argument in favor of empire? I have never argued for my state to conquer foreigners.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Which means you support the violation of individual rights. The needs of the collective, in your mind, supersede the individual. I'm not critical of your opinion, just realize that for you, and the majority of people, security outweighs liberty.

There is no liberty without some security, just as there is no security without liberty.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you know what my case is at this point? Or have you come in on the tangential nit-picking?

...

My point is that the same people who choose to fight for a state would choose to fight voluntarily in a stateless society.

Let's suppose that's true: the stateless society would draw as many volunteers in its defense as would the state.

Now, in addition to the volunteers, the state may have conscripts.

Tell me how many conscripts the stateless society will have.

 

[otherone]

?????

A. quality vs. quantity: anarchic militias and tribal warriors lack the training and equipment to compete
The aggressor state keeps a standing army with superior training and equipment to your anarchic society's supposed numerical majority, how is that not consequential?

As an aside, google the American War of Independence. In addition, the founders understood that a standing army was a danger to liberty. The government tried to institute a national draft in 1812 but it was defeated.

B. after they start the war they conscript
Your supposed numerical superiority is countered by conscription after the aggressor uses their standing army to start the war, how is that not consequential?

I don't know what you are saying here. That an aggressor state will draft soldiers to counter a larger voluntary force? And the only way to counter this is the state?

You admit that the state and empire are two different things, how is my argument in favor of empire? I have never argued for my state to conquer foreigners.

Your argument for security fails when confronted by empire. Empire is needed to counter empire. Your state standing army will fall to a macro-state. Unless you are talking Greco-Persian wars, which actually, ironically enough, was won by volunteers.

 

[otherone]

...



Let's suppose that's true: the stateless society would draw as many volunteers in its defense as would the state.

Now, in addition to the volunteers, the state may have conscripts.

Tell me how many conscripts the stateless society will have.

Historically you will find that those who defend their homelands are far more willing to fight than those expected to serve overseas. Even during the Civil War, volunteers far outnumbered draftees. Recognize as well that the US was not a state when the militias defeated your beloved Mad King George.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Historically you will find that those who defend their homelands are far more willing to fight than those expected to serve overseas. Even during the Civil War, volunteers far outnumbered draftees. Recognize as well that the US was not a state when the militias defeated your beloved Mad King George.

Who was/were the defender(s) in WWI, for instance?

Considering that who is the defender is a function of local propaganda, could it be...everyone?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Which means you support the violation of individual rights. The needs of the collective, in your mind, supersede the individual. I'm not critical of your opinion, just realize that for you, and the majority of people, security outweighs liberty.

Heh. Clever try.

Let us define.

Anarcho-Capitalism - Stateless society, with government services.
Minarchy - A society with a minimal state and restricted to the enforcement of property rights.

Also, what is the difference between a government and a state? Specifically, please, for the benefit of all casual readers. Thanks!


Additionally, let us offer operating definitions moving forward. Let's start with libertarian. I offer that to be libertarian is defined by being against government-over-man. I offer as clarification that libertarians are against government-over-man because they fear government-over-man. I contend that any government, any power, any authority, any hierarchy whether public or private needs only to exist in order to be feared. Do you agree? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Do trustees in either ideal, specifically Anarcho-Capitalism vs Minarchy have more of a right to the term libertarian than the other? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

 

[Raginfridus]

Men are NOT angels and we can't have perfection in this world so we must seek the best practical outcome.

The conduct of angels and abstracts have no rule outside the Psyche.

 

[Swordsmyth]

As an aside, google the American War of Independence. In addition, the founders understood that a standing army was a danger to liberty. The government tried to institute a national draft in 1812 but it was defeated.

Without the regulars that the colonial states and the continental congress payed for and the military intervention of the French state we would have lost in spite of an ocean separating us from the Brits source of supplies and troops.

Only some of the founders believed that a standing army was a danger to liberty, that is why we got a compromise that required the army budget to be re-approved every two years, the navy received no such limits.

I don't know what you are saying here. That an aggressor state will draft soldiers to counter a larger voluntary force? And the only way to counter this is the state?

Yes, you will need to have well trained and equipped troops to hold off an enemy that will counter your asserted numerical advantage with conscripts and will certainly have well trained and equipped troops.

Your argument for security fails when confronted by empire. Empire is needed to counter empire. Your state standing army will fall to a macro-state. Unless you are talking Greco-Persian wars, which actually, ironically enough, was won by volunteers.

Only near-peer status is required, as DeGaul said of France vs. the Soviets: we only need the ability to rip an arm off.

If you can keep your freedom oriented society secure for long enough you should out-grow all your potential enemies without conquest or plunder as well.

And you again supply a counter example to your own claim, but it is actually irrelevant, to be specific the Greek warriors were professionals and their "volunteer" status was dubious, Sparta was military cult and the other city states required membership in the army and the ownership of expensive military equipment if you wanted citizenship and voting rights (a poll tax and a draft rolled into one), those who did not or could not do so were ruled by those who did.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Recognize as well that the US was not a state when the militias defeated your beloved Mad King George.

The colonies were not states? They collected taxes.

The continental congress was not a state?

 

[otherone]

Without the regulars that the colonial states and the continental congress payed for and the military intervention of the French state we would have lost in spite of an ocean separating us from the Brits source of supplies and troops.

Only some of the founders believed that a standing army was a danger to liberty, that is why we got a compromise that required the army budget to be re-approved every two years, the navy received no such limits.





Yes, you will need to have well trained and equipped troops to hold off an enemy that will counter your asserted numerical advantage with conscripts and will certainly have well trained and equipped troops.





Only near-peer status is required, as DeGaul said of France vs. the soviets: we only need the ability to rip an arm off.

If you can keep your freedom oriented society secure for long enough you should out-grow all your potential enemies without conquest or plunder as well.

And you again supply a counter example to your own claim, but it is actually irrelevant, to be specific the Greek warriors were professionals and their "volunteer" status was dubious, Sparta was military cult and the other city states required membership in the army and the ownership of expensive military equipment if you wanted citizenship and voting rights (a poll tax and a draft rolled into one), those who did not or could not do so were ruled by those who did.

The example provided was for the purpose of illustrating that non-compulsory service has been successful historically against superior state forces, regardless of conscription (slavery) and mercenary foes.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The example provided was for the purpose of illustrating that non-compulsory service has been successful historically against superior state forces, regardless of conscription (slavery) and mercenary foes.

And it did nothing of the kind.

 

[otherone]

Anarcho-Capitalism - Stateless society, with government services.
Minarchy - A society with a minimal state and restricted to the enforcement of property rights.

Also, what is the difference between a government and a state? Specifically, please, for the benefit of all casual readers. Thanks!


Additionally, let us offer operating definitions moving forward. Let's start with libertarian. I offer that to be libertarian is defined by being against government-over-man. Do you agree? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

Do trustees in either ideal, specifically Anarcho-Capitalism vs Minarchy have more of a right to the term libertarian than the other? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

I'd prefer to avoid over-simplistic labels. IRT your definition of "Minarchy", what you've described is not a state. In reference to what constitutes a "state", I gave an explicit definition in an earlier post in this thread. Your other questions concern labels, not ideologies.

 

[otherone]

And it did nothing of the kind.

???
Didn't you claim that a voluntary force could not stand up to a superior, compulsory aggressor?

 

[Swordsmyth]

???
Didn't you claim that a voluntary force could not stand up to a superior, compulsory aggressor?

Their "volunteer" status was dubious, Sparta was military cult and the other city states required membership in the army and the ownership of expensive military equipment if you wanted citizenship and voting rights (a poll tax and a draft rolled into one), those who did not or could not do so were ruled by those who did.

 

[otherone]

The colonies were not states? They collected taxes.

The continental congress was not a state?

The continental congress was not a state.