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

The "Anarchy Extreme"

rated by 0 users
This post has 42 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 342
Points 6,665

That was probably one of the most cordial endings to an internet discussion I've ever seen.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 63
Points 1,035
Michael replied on Fri, Jul 23 2010 11:17 PM


However, if there is little crime in the area and profits cease to be made, won't their be cuts in the security forces (like personelle etc.) thus weakening the security forces ability to ward off criminals in the area who might wish to plunder the citizens.. I'm not saying there would cease to be guns but thier may not be enough guns to counter an invading force.

A cut in staffing of specialist "security forces" doesn't equate to a weaking of security: people can defend themselves (and the former security people are still there, too, right?).  And if "the area" in the above is smaller than the entire world (or solar system, or wherever there are people), help can be hired from outside, too.


The idea behind my question was really a means by which I can understand how the security forces will operate in various situations. In war, things can and do happen that are unexpected. Assuming that the security forces are the towns main defense against professional plunder's or invading forces, the question arises as to how the security companies will handle a crisis such as this one. The thing I was trying to really understand is the strategic nature of the security forces not so much the specifics. I was concerned that the security forces would merely apply a fabian strategy in order to defend the people. This strategy has proven ineffective in many wars in the past and I saw disaterous consequences for the security force if such methods were employed.

TThe question was merely made to gather information not make stand (as I yet have one). Sieben has already helped to come to a conclusion I can find exceptable. However, Z through a monkey wrench for me to consider on the issue of security and anarcho capitalism.

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup.You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend. -Bruce Lee
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 946
Points 15,410
MacFall replied on Tue, Jul 27 2010 12:25 AM

I don't see the point in arguing semantics at length, but I tend to lean toward the idea that the concepts of state and government are separate, and that anarchists must oppose the former, but not necessarily the latter. That is, there can be such a thing as a non-state government, being an apparatus that enforces law (preferably law respecting property rights) but which can make no law; and which has no confiscatory powers, and which does not have a territorial monopoly on the services it provides.

Generally though, I don't like to use the term government to describe such an apparatus, because to most people the concept is as heavily linked to the state as anarchy is to chaos and lawlessness. So how about this: I am a voluntaryist, and I favor polycentric order.

Pro Christo et Libertate integre!

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (43 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS