Why Anarcho Capitalism is impossible

[AuH20]

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.

Political decisions prolong (as well as start them) wars and suffering. It has happened in every war and seems to worsen with every new conflict.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

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.

Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??

Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?

 

[bolil]

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.

One does not magically create a plane by buying it, but by building it. There are very clever people out there, and lotsa the real geniuses resent the state. Planes and ships do not control territory, boots on the ground do. (Cause planes cant be there all the time, and no nation could afford the gas to keep them there all the time). Boots on the ground need to patrol.

 

[nano1895]

Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??

Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?

Suppose they don't want to rule, they just want the land. Like westward expansion in the 1800s.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Political decisions prolong (as well as start them) wars and suffering. It has happened in every war and seems to worsen with every new conflict.

Indeed. That speaks to the shortcomings of a centrally commanded defense/military. One would think that Afghanistan would be a cake-walk for the US military; yet we see that this massive, lumbering institution, with all its power and technological advantages, can't really figure out how to subdue this tiny, poor, disorganized country. It's like trying to press mercury down on a counter.

 

[AuH20]

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.

Yes, largely because of proximity and major logistic obstacles facing the federal government.

 

[Acala]

A truly anarcho-capitalist society would be so productive, it could afford an effective military out of voluntary donations. But it wouldn't need to because the rest of the world would depend on it for so much and have nothing to fear from it.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The North Vietnamese were saved by political treachery and MiC shenanigans. In a total war scenario focused on Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor, they would have been lucky to last a year.

Unless you're the Romans at Carthage or the Germans invading the eastern front executing every man, woman, and child you come across, most wars have some higher political/strategic end. Nuking or bombing the dikes and thus flooding the the country would defeat any political purpose and any chance for local popular support. It would also dissolve support at home if you have any representative government. When you engage in total war and mass execute civilians it leaves a bad taste and fosters resistance movements like Russian partisans. The Vietnamese won because of their will to resist and leadership of General Giáp.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

[/B]

Suppose they don't want to rule, they just want the land. Like westward expansion in the 1800s.

The westward expansion of the US was into a very vast and sparsely populated area; we're discussing how a foreign state would overrun and occupy an anarcho-capitalist area.

 

[RandRevolution]

Are you starting with the premise that an anarcho capitalist region is going to be less wealthy than a centrally commanded state??

Speaking of which, how does this centrally commanded state go about occupying and ruling a region that does not have a government in place?

There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc

 

[The Gold Standard]

There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc

Sure they can, if the donations come from wealthier people, which they would.

 

[RandRevolution]

One does not magically create a plane by buying it, but by building it. There are very clever people out there, and lotsa the real geniuses resent the state. Planes and ships do not control territory, boots on the ground do. (Cause planes cant be there all the time, and no nation could afford the gas to keep them there all the time). Boots on the ground need to patrol.

It costs a lot of money to build those planes.

Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be fucked. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the fuck out of those boots on the ground.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Fighting off the biggest, most heavily taxpayer-funded, most organized military the world has ever seen for over eleven years now...

You know, there is also that Texas Revolutionary War thing where a Texas Army of far inferior numbers defeated Santa Anna, the self professed Napoleon of the West, while 65 Texas Rangers kept the Comanche Indians (bad ass Native Americans) at bay.
These were the same Comanche Indians who, as a force of a 65,000 manned Calvary, intercepted a Spanish force of 35,000 professional soldiers years before the Texas Revolutionary War slaughtering and preventing them from traveling north to conquer the newly created nations of the United States and Canada.
In other words, professional armies, generally speaking, have never been known to be worth a cold bucket of warm spit.

 

[Acala]

You could also have security forces that charge fees. For example, if you want your property protected, you pay an annual fee. If you don't pay the fee, your property will not be defended in an invasion. The more property you have, the more you will want to pay a security force to defend it.

 

[bolil]

It costs a lot of money to build those planes.

Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be fucked. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the fuck out of those boots on the ground.

It doesn't cost money to build a plane, but to buy one. To build one requires a technological recipe and resources. You are reading what I've written earlier, thats okay. Im done with this give the forum a search and be relieved of ignorance in this matter. Welcome to the forum.

 

[Acala]

It costs a lot of money to build those planes.

Boots on the ground do matter which is exactly why an archo capitalist state would be fucked. They can't draft soldiers like the government militaries can do. Not to mention they'll be able to afford more tanks and drone bomb the fuck out of those boots on the ground.

You don't have to draft when liberty is at stake.

 

[RandRevolution]

It doesn't cost money to build a plane, but to buy one. To build one requires a technological recipe and resources. You are reading what I've written earlier, thats okay. Im done with this give the forum a search and be relieved of ignorance in this matter. Welcome to the forum.

Building a plane costs money. Do you disagree?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

There will be more prosperity but voluntary donations can't compare to taking as much money as you want straight out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

What are you basing this conclusion upon?

They just declare that nation part of their government, enforce their laws, etc

There is quite a bit more to it than that, logisitically. Who is going to enforce the laws? Who is going to organize whatever form of government they wish to impose? Where are they going to get the tools (weapons) to maintain that rule? Are they going to keep open long supply lines back to the invading country? Their military is going to have to stay encamped in the victim region; how is that going to be effectively maintained? How are they going to force the victim region to continue to be productive, the presumptive aim of such an invasion?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

In other words, professional armies, generally speaking, have never been known to be worth a cold bucket of warm spit.

:thumbs:

Very often they're impressed into duty, or are doing so as a last resort. They have very little motivation. They're often very poorly commanded.

Generally speaking, history shows that such armies aren't good for much of anything, except doing away with huge numbers of human beings.

 

[bolil]

Building a plane costs money. Do you disagree?

Oh fuck it. No, building a plane does not cost money. Buying a plane does, paying workers to help might. Building a plane requires A. A recipe and B. Material.

Do those things cost money? Again, not necessarily.

You know you wannabe socrates types are poorly received, everywhere.