Why Anarcho Capitalism is impossible

[bolil]

Ok. Ask the American colonists facing the most powerful military known to that time. Or is there an excuse for every example where armed peasants defeated the mighty superpower?

You say America, he'll say the french. You say the IRA, he'll say...?

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

If you have no military then another country's government will take over your land and all of a sudden you're under control of a super tyrannial government. Civilian militas can't compete with organized taxpayer funded militaries.

Have Anarcho Capitalists never considered this?

You really are new here?

 

[RandRevolution]

Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me.

Regardless, that's a tiny city. Say China or the US wanted it - they could easily get it. It's just more trouble than it's worth so they don't bother. Now say you have a country as big and resource rich as the US and it's an anarcho capitalist state - they're fucked.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Okay. I'll bite.

They have. Time and time again. Would you like a reading list?

Let's open up our imagination and find ways to solve these kinds of problems. Entrepreneurs tend to be good at this.

Have you considered the lack of incentive and surety in invading an area with no government, tax structure or knowledge of enemy weaponry?

He won't read anything. He is one of Obama's internet warriors trying to gather info and spread state propaganda.

 

[acptulsa]

You really are new here?

Obviously--he still has his arrogance. That's the first thing we all lose here.

Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me.

You didn't know the Soviets tried and failed to conquer Afghanistan? You didn't know we've been there for eleven years now?

You, son, are mighty ignorant to be here lecturing people on what is and isn't possible. Hell, you need a few years of education just to get to where you'll know when you've been proven a fool. That's what the situation is.

 

[bolil]

It's not impossible, but not likely. With favorable terrain and a robotic arsenal, you could theoretically maintain a thriving anarcho-capitalist state.

You leave out the most important facet of any guerrilla operation: local support.

 

[Czolgosz]

Damn near impossible to beat guerrilla tactics.

 

[RandRevolution]

Ok. Ask the American colonists facing the most powerful military known to that time. Or is there an excuse for every example where armed peasants defeated the mighty superpower?

That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't they have the Afghan military defending them in some way? Explain the situation to me.

Regardless, that's a tiny city. Say China or the US wanted it - they could easily get it. It's just more trouble than it's worth so they don't bother. Now say you have a country as big and resource rich as the US and it's an anarcho capitalist state - they're fucked.

d00d, this subject has been debated around here so many times, it's ridiculous. Your arguments have been dealt with. Just do a forum search.

 

[staerker]

True, pure Anarcho-Capitalism can never be obtained. The coercive will always exist. That does not mean you should condone their behavior. ?

edit: the invading government is in the wrong for the same reason as the standing government.

 

[bolil]

That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.

War never changes. Pilots, Tank drivers, drone controllers all need to eat an sleep. Pilots, Tank drivers, and drones don't control territory boots on the ground do. They always will.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[AuH20]

Hmmmm, really? How much do you know about the Korean war? We tried that total war scenario and China called our bluff.

There is no military in the world than can defeat, without prohibitive losses, a local force with popular support. They best they can hope for is to win battles.

There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.

 

[acptulsa]

That was back then when technology was limited and war was completely different as a result. Do you think a 2nd American revolution could really be successful in this day and age? The money you raise from voluntary donations won't compare to theft on a grand scale, good lucking affording fighter jets, drones, tanks, etc.

Why do you think they no longer build battleships and battlecruisers? Because heavy artillery is of no use on the high seas? Hardly.

They don't build them any more because a billion dollar ship can be sunk by a few hundred thousand dollars each aircraft.

If you don't understand how this is pertinent, you're in so far over your head that you should save your breath.

d00d, this subject has been debated around here so many times, it's ridiculous. Your arguments have been dealt with. Just do a forum search.

Life's too short to search the forum. He's much too impatient to embarass the living snot out of himself.

 

[RandRevolution]

Obviously--he still has his arrogance. That's the first thing we all lose here.



You didn't know the Soviets tried and failed to conquer Afghanistan? You didn't know we've been there for eleven years now?

You, son, are mighty ignorant to be here lecturing people on what is and isn't possible. Hell, you need a few years of education just to get to where you'll know when you've been proven a fool. That's what the situation is.

Don't be condescending.

I'm asking about this city in particular, what is the situation going on there, why did he post it as an example?

You can't compare the US occupation of Afghanistan to trying to take over an archo-capitalist state. If anything this would be in favor of my argument - the Taliban, the militia group, clearly are losing to the organized taxpayer funded military.

 

[acptulsa]

Don't be condescending.

I'm asking about this city in particular...

Let's see. How do I find a non-condescending way to say, 'That's not a city it's a nation, Einstein'?

 

[bolil]

There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.

I do not disagree with you on that, but that only a state run military can protect people from aggression. Militias are an alltogether better way to go about defense.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

There was no concerted will on the part of the political class to neutralize the Vietnamese's ability to maintain and wage war. That's why the war was lost from the beginning. The ROEs were backward in most cases. Hills were claimed and then often discarded weeks later. Key ports and trails were left out of the war plan. The entire campaign was one costly war expo as opposed to a strategic operation.

Seems like you're saying that a centrally commanded military structure is inefficient and prone to bad decisions. I would say that a LOT of veterans, including veterans of the "last good war", WWII, would agree with you.

 

[RandRevolution]

Why do you think they no longer build battleships and battlecruisers? Because heavy artillery is of no use on the high seas? Hardly.

They don't build them any more because a billion dollar ship can be sunk by a few hundred thousand dollars each aircraft.

If you don't understand how this is pertinent, you're in so far over your head that you should save your breath.

I don't get your point here. Sure you can shoot down planes and sink ships. If anything that's going to hurt the militias, they can't afford to keep buying ships and planes. Sure they can shoot down the enemy's stuff but that's only after they've done a ton of damage and the taxpayer funded military will be able to afford new ones unlike the militia.

 

[RandRevolution]

Let's see. How do I find a non-condescending way to say, 'That's not a city it's a nation, Einstein'?

I read wikipedia and it says it's a city, is it not? Can you explain the situation to me and why it's an example of how anarcho capitalist militaries work?

Please don't be condescending. We're people who agree with each other on almost everything and are debating the disagreements we do have, it's not necessary.