Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Anarcho-Capitalism and Statism

rated by 0 users
This post has 23 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 274
Points 5,675
My Buddy Posted: Sat, May 1 2010 3:12 PM

I am currently a Minarchist, though I am still open to persuasion from Anarcho-Capitalists.

 

I don't have time to go over my main problems with A/C, so I will put up my first (and probably largest) issue:

 

How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society defend itself from a state seeking to take over with force? For example, Germany dissolves the state and becomes Anarcho-Capitalist, but Social Democratic France goes to "restore order" and invades Germany, possibly putting some local German statists in charge. Without a government of some kind to defend Germany, the Germans would probably be conquered in short order.

  • | Post Points: 125
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Sat, May 1 2010 3:19 PM

In the absence of statist trade barriers, businesses would trade goods to Germany. This is the best war deterrent

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 414
Points 6,780

So one should become enslaved to a State in order to avoid being enslaved by a State?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 274
Points 5,675

Better to be enslaved by a small state (ideally one that is voluntary, minimalist, and paid for by either donations or by politicians themselves) then a giant one out to make everything from vacations to the internet a "right".

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Sat, May 1 2010 3:40 PM

but the best option is not to be enslaved by anyone. I choose that option. I saw what happened with a "small state" in USA broken heart

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 752
Points 16,735
Sage replied on Sat, May 1 2010 3:46 PM

See the articles under the tag "national defense" here.

AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025

My Buddy:
How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society defend itself from a state seeking to take over with force?

What do you think of this?

The Private Production of Defense Hoppe

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 274
Points 5,675

States still have the advantage of "legitimacy" in the eyes of other states, as well as the ability to steal the kind of wealth for an army that few PMCs or similar groups could get.

 

However, lets assume the invaders ARE weaker then the PMC defenders.

 

What if the invaders (using their aforementioned ability to steal wealth) simply pay off the PMCs or hire them to help in the conquest? It would become an idealogical conflict within the country as well as in invasion (so to speak) which the invaders would win.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 414
Points 6,780

Buddy: "Better to be enslaved by a small state (ideally one that is voluntary, minimalist, and paid for by either donations or by politicians themselves) then a giant one out to make everything from vacations to the internet a "right".

So if a stateless area was taken over by a small state it would be ok?

PS There is no such animal as a voluntary state.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 144
Points 2,230
Josh replied on Sat, May 1 2010 4:02 PM

I'll repeat, trade deters violence.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Sat, May 1 2010 4:05 PM

My Buddy wrote:

How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society defend itself from a state seeking to take over with force?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800

So what you're saying is that your conversion to an-cap hinges on whether or not you think the defense system would be preferable (based on your values) in an an-cap society?

So what is a preferable defense system according to your values?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 274
Points 5,675

A small state (as in an actual small state by our standards, not a silly Conserative psuedo-empire) wouldn't invade a stateless area due to it's voluntary nature.

 

Thus far, there has been no such animal as an Anarcho-Capitalist state either (barring Iceland about 700 years ago, which was more a fuedal-ish state, and Somalia, which was lacking the "Capitalist" and was re-statitized a couple years ago)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

Private institutions are more effective/efficient than public institutions, so a private military or militaries would be better at defending its customers than a public one.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 414
Points 6,780

Voluntary = private organization, business, etc... Not a state.

If you believe in a voluntary organization that provides defense services, you my friend, are an Anarchist. Welcome to the club. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 10
Points 140
I think that nothing would be able to prevent it in the short term. In your example if Germany instantly dissolved into an ancap society and France invaded a month later nothing would be able to stop them except for the individual people in Germany. They may win, they may not. Impossible to know. Over the long term the situation is different and Hoppe did explain how this would possible. As far as "converting" to anarchism. I did not based on whether it was feasible or not but based on whether is was morally superior based on the non-aggression philosophy. I believe that it is. So effectivness against other aggressors doesn't matter to me.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 176
Points 2,330
Jackson replied on Sat, May 1 2010 6:43 PM

I am currently a Minarchist, though I am still open to persuasion from Anarcho-Capitalists.

I'm convinced that an-caps are like force users. that is to say that one must be born with a power in the force to be trained in it. no amount of trying will ever turn chewbaca into a jedi or sith. likewise, you have to be born an ancap. you either hear the logic and go, kicking and screaming, towards its conclusions, or you remain a statist. you can't persuade, debate, or convince statists to be ancaps.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390

"it is better to trust one’s defense to an organization motivated by something more than pecuniary profit, whether this be love of justice, or homeland, or pride, or duty, etc. – to depend on individuals who, for whatever reason, are willing to fight at all costs, to their own deaths if need be. If I get to choose who defends me, I’d rather have a bunch of crazy Texans in an Alamo or a General McAuliffe at Bastogne, rather than someone who checks with the accountants to see whether firing the next shot at the enemy or at me would bring more profit."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 414
Points 6,780

"it is better to trust one’s food production to an organization motivated by something more than pecuniary profit, whether this be love of justice, or homeland, or pride, or duty, etc. – to depend on individuals who, for whatever reason, are willing to supply my bread at all costs, to their own deaths if need be. If I get to choose who serves my dinner, I’d rather have a bunch of crazy Texans in an Alamo or a General McAuliffe at Bastogne, rather than someone who checks with the accountants to see whether giving me extra mustard would bring more profit."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390

Your point being?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 414
Points 6,780

I have an irrational fear of free market bread and I don't understand economics so I want a state to feed me.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Wibee replied on Sat, May 1 2010 8:49 PM

Josh, I would think there would be embargo.  

It would be harder for france to gain control.  First off, there would be no monopoly on military or police forces.  

OP, your concerns don't fit well with history.  When the US colonies declared independance, The enemy was Britian.  

When the US had the civil war, a war where any country could have inteviened and conquered.  Intervention in the war was unpopular with other countries.  Because their citizens were anti-slavery.  

There may be counter-examples to this.  But these are examples that stick out to me. 

Sorry for the misspellings, Mises hates Opera.  

 
Josh wrote the following post at Sat, May 1 2010 4:19 PM:

In the absence of statist trade barriers, businesses would trade goods to Germany. This is the best war deterrent

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 467
Points 7,590

If there is no dispute there would be more wealth per capita in libertarian society...

I think there will be a lot of affluent people with land interests who will be happy to voluntarily fund some concept of geographical defense.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 550
Points 8,575

My Buddy:
States still have the advantage of "legitimacy" in the eyes of other states, as well as the ability to steal the kind of wealth for an army that few PMCs or similar groups could get.

But the state would not have legitimacy in the eyes of the free society, which in itself makes invasion and subjugation a headache for the expanding state.

In that vein, Carl Watner suggests an alternative, and IMO more libertarian, form of societal defense here.

scineram: What is your point, exactly? A defense agency in a free society, as well as the employees of that agency, need not be motivated purely by pecuniary profit. Really, is any action ever motivated solely by the desire for a monetary profit?

"People kill each other for prophetic certainties, hardly for falsifiable hypotheses." - Peter Berger
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (24 items) | RSS