"minarchists are matured anarchists. its the next stage that a lot of anarchists here have not arrived in yet. when one realises that security production is paradoxial, one grows out of it. He who protects you, Owns you. You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion."
Lol nice argument. Bro.
He who protects you, Owns you. You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion.
It is impossible to protect one who does not demand protection
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
aervew:minarchists are matured anarchists. its the next stage that a lot of anarchists here have not arrived in yet. when one realises that security production is paradoxial, one grows out of it.
Really interesting perspective... I could be wrong, but I think the more natural maturity (right or wrong) is from minarchism to anarchism. Most, if not all, ancaps I know started at some level of statism (socialist, american republican or democrat, etc..) then moved intellectually toward freedom to minarchism. This, I suspect, is because they have learned that Liberty is the only true policy that human beings thrive in, but they still cannot imagine a world sans the state. So, they arrive at the classical minarchist position and fallacy because of this fear. They still want to leave, at the very least, defense up to the state. "After all," they think, "No private firm would take up a business with the kinds of losses that war brings." They do not think about the fact that it is for this reason that war only comes with the state. It cannot come in any degree resembling the kind of war we see today. Once the minarchist sees that his framework is inconsistent and foolish, the makes the logical jump to market anarchy. I am sure there are people out there who were ancaps and moved to minarchism, however I know 0 personally. Every ancap I know was at one point or another a minarchist. However, once they moved to market anarchy, they never left. Regardless of your view of minarchism or anarchism, I think it is without a doubt that you see more minarchists move to market anarchy, than ancaps who move to minarchy.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
xarthaz aervew:He who protects you, Owns you.
Substantiate. But obviously you don't believe in the self-ownership principle. Why am I not surprised?
xarthaz aerview:You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion.
Substantiate. And how does one pay for extortion, exactly?
By your reasoning, however (as much as I can make sense of it), all forms of insurance are also necessarily forms of extortion. You seem to make no distinction between allowing harm to happen to a person and actually causing harm to a person.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
So, they arrive at the classical minarchist position and fallacy because of this fear. They still want to leave, at the very least, defense up to the state. "After all," they think, "No private firm would take up a business with the kinds of losses that war brings." They do not think about the fact that it is for this reason that war only comes with the state. It cannot come in any degree resembling the kind of war we see today. Once the minarchist sees that his framework is inconsistent and foolish, the makes the logical jump to market anarchy.
War only poses a problem for anarcho-capitalism as long as there are foreign States. And under those conditions, it is indeed an insurmountable problem. Even if an ancap society could produce the kind of forces necessary to fight a war (it could), it still cannot fight a war without violating its own principles, as it is impossible to fight a war without either ignoring ethics altogether or making ethical judgments about collectives, rather than individuals.
But if we are theorizing about an ideal, we are free to suppose that anarcho-capitalism is global in scope, removing any concerns about war. Basically, war is a problem for the implementation of anarcho-capitalism in a world of States, but it is not a theoretical problem for anarcho-capitalism.
The real problem is dispute resolution.
Vietnam was hardly anarcho-capitalist, and last I checked, America retreated from that war.
And then there was the America Revolution. I'm sure that some of the rebel colonists did some unsavory things, but they didn't have to bomb England willy nilly in order to win.
Vietnam was hardly anarcho-capitalist, and last I checked, America retreated from that war. And then there was the America Revolution. I'm sure that some of the rebel colonists did some unsavory things, but they didn't have to bomb England willy nilly in order to win.
I'm not sure if I see your point. If you mean that guerilla warfare is a viable defensive strategy, I agree. But keep in mind that "defensive" in the context of warfare does not equate to "defensive" in the context of libertarian ethics. War always involves aggression in the libertarian sense of the word.
Yes, war requires an aggressor, but there is no reason why the libertarian society must be the aggressor. And in a war of defense, there is no reason why the defender must necessarily have to use aggression.
The point is that societies that are at an extreme disadvantage have been able to win a war against invaders. A libertarian society can do the same.
aervew replied on Sat, Jun 9 2012 3:11 AM minarchists are matured anarchists. its the next stage that a lot of anarchists here have not arrived in yet. when one realises that security production is paradoxial, one grows out of it. He who protects you, Owns you. You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion. Minarchist just acknowledge that the political is part of human live just as the economic and cultural is. However they try to limit the polical within their own societies.
Minarchist: War only poses a problem for anarcho-capitalism as long as there are foreign States. And under those conditions, it is indeed an insurmountable problem. Even if an ancap society could produce the kind of forces necessary to fight a war (it could), it still cannot fight a war without violating its own principles, as it is impossible to fight a war without either ignoring ethics altogether or making ethical judgments about collectives, rather than individuals. But if we are theorizing about an ideal, we are free to suppose that anarcho-capitalism is global in scope, removing any concerns about war. Basically, war is a problem for the implementation of anarcho-capitalism in a world of States, but it is not a theoretical problem for anarcho-capitalism. The real problem is dispute resolution.
If war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society, than postulating away the issue will not do. Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map. There is no shying away from the issue of war for a serious anarcho-capitalist.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. I would think that an ancap society would have fewer enemies, since war is the health of the state and the state would be nonexistent under ancap social contexts. An unprovoked war is rather unlikely, imo. But even if the society was invaded, everyone would be armed and dangerous, this is one reason the British lost the battle for American independence. Just my 2 cents.
[Nevermind. Sorry about that.]
I, for one, would very much appreciate an elaboration of all that.
Autolykos: Merlin:If war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society, than postulating away the issue will not do. Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map. There is no shying away from the issue of war for a serious anarcho-capitalist. What have I told you about making claims of certainty about the future? Yet you continue to do it. Why is that? Is it really so hard to stop doing it?
Merlin:If war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society, than postulating away the issue will not do. Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map. There is no shying away from the issue of war for a serious anarcho-capitalist.
What have I told you about making claims of certainty about the future? Yet you continue to do it. Why is that? Is it really so hard to stop doing it?
@Merlin
It's true that your first statement was "if, then". However, you did make a claim of certainty about the future in the following statement, which I will quote:
Merlin: Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map.
Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map.
The statement of certainty here is that any society that sheds the NAP will necessarily be able to overwhelm other societies that do not. Not only that, but you claim that the first society that does this will be able to become an empire.
These are claims of certainty given the situations you postulate. I also see no reason why any of these claims of yours are true.
Not at al I say. What I’m saying is: let us make an assumption. Let’s just assume that a NAP-observing society works as we think and hope it will, with the exception of defense, where it fails. Let us just assume that.
What was said was that if somehow the whole globe would go ancap, than this assumed issue with an ancap society (inability to defend itself against a regular army) would not mater. So, defense was said to be an issue of implementing anarcho-capitalism, not of anacho-capitalism per se.
What I say is that this interpretation is not correct. If anarchic societies are defective in defense, even if the whole globe is anarchic it just will happen, sooner or later, that a small commune somewhere will go militaristic. Perhaps a small gang, perhaps a large and aggressive extended family, perhaps a bnch of convicts. And in time, such a small militaristic society shall grow since the rest of society will not be able to confine and defeat it. What the hell, if ancapistan is defenseless against organized violence, PDA themselves will sooner or latter get it!
So, again, I made a what-if analysis: if anarcho-capitalism really is unable to properly defend itself in regular warfare, even assuming a global anarchic community will not do away with the problem, as it is bound to eventually bring anarchy down. Of course whether anarchist really are so defenseless against a regular army, that’s an other debate. here i just assumed so for the sake of the following analysis.
Merlin:Not at al I say. What I’m saying is: let us make an assumption. Let’s just assume that a NAP-observing society works as we think and hope it will, with the exception of defense, where it fails. Let us just assume that. What was said was that if somehow the whole globe would go ancap, than this assumed issue with an ancap society (inability to defend itself against a regular army) would not mater. So, defense was said to be an issue of implementing anarcho-capitalism, not of anacho-capitalism per se. What I say is that this interpretation is not correct. If anarchic societies are defective in defense, even if the whole globe is anarchic it just will happen, sooner or later, that a small commune somewhere will go militaristic. Perhaps a small gang, perhaps a large and aggressive extended family, perhaps a bnch of convicts. And in time, such a small militaristic society shall grow since the rest of society will not be able to confine and defeat it. What the hell, if ancapistan is defenseless against organized violence, PDA themselves will sooner or latter get it! So, again, I made a what-if analysis: if anarcho-capitalism really is unable to properly defend itself in regular warfare, even assuming a global anarchic community will not do away with the problem, as it is bound to eventually bring anarchy down. Of course whether anarchist really are so defenseless against a regular army, that’s an other debate. here i just assumed so for the sake of the following analysis.
Looking back at that post, I think I now understand what you were trying to say. It wasn't clear to me that you were carrying the clause "if war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society" beyond the first sentence. Now that it is clear to me, I can follow and agree with your argument.
I humbly stand corrected.
I see no reason to make those assumptions. As I pointed out to minarchist, Vietnam successfully repelled America, and the American colonies successfully repelled Britain.
Sometimes the invaders win, sometimes the defenders win. I see no reason to assume that an ancap society must necessarily always lose to an invading force.
GotLucky, I think Merlin's point was simply to show the logical consequences of making such an assumption. I don't think he necessarily holds to that assumption himself.
It really comes down to whether the NAP is enforceable. I, for one, believe it is.
True, it would logically follow. But it would also logically follow if I assumed that ancap societies would always win wars that they would be able to successfully repel any statist invaders.
I just don't see any reason to make these kinds of assumptions.
My reason for the post was that Minarchist wrote that the ability of an anarchic society to win a regular war was not that important, and that even if that was the case anarchy could still function. My idea was just to show that anarchy’s defensive abilities are absolutely vital to its survival, and that the issue cannot be brushed aside as a problem of implementing anarchy, but is the vital make-or-break when it comes to statelessness. At least it look like that to me.
Suppose a State aggresses against some people living in Libertopia. Do ALL denizens of Libertopia now have the right to go after the aggressive State, or just the particular denizens of Libertopia who were actually attacked? Do they have a right to go after ANYONE belonging to the aggressive State, or just the people who actually carried out the attack? What if the people who carried out the attack were conscripts?
For Libertopa to fight a "war" in any traditional sense of the word is impossible insofar as Libertopia upholds its own libertarian principles.
The point is that societies that are at an extreme disadvantage have been able to win a war against invaders
Yes, and can you point out one singular example where any society has ever defended itself from foreign invasion without using aggression? Remember, the fact that "the society" was attacked first does not therefore mean that all acts of violence by members of that society against the invaders are therefore defensive.
Think of it, you are a libertarian general (hired by the DRO or whatever) to defend some region. You have at your disposal some number of soldiers. But none of these soldiers can shoot at any enemy soldiers unless they have been personally victimized by said enemy soldiers. It's an absurdity.
Minarchist: Suppose a State aggresses against some people living in Libertopia. Do ALL denizens of Libertopia now have the right to go after the aggressive State, or just the particular denizens of Libertopia who were actually attacked? Do they have a right to go after ANYONE belonging to the aggressive State, or just the people who actually carried out the attack? What if the people who carried out the attack were conscripts? For Libertopa to fight a "war" in any traditional sense of the word is impossible insofar as Libertopia upholds its own libertarian principles. It will either uphold its principles and lose, and drop them and (possibly) win.
It will either uphold its principles and lose, and drop them and (possibly) win.
By this reasoning, nobody ever has the right to hire a PDA, because after all, the agents of the PDA weren't attacked, were they? And yet, you'll find that libertarians somehow seem to like the idea of PDAs.
Libertarians have long held that victims can sell their claims to others, as well as hire others to fight on their behalf. In no way would a libertarian society have to violate those 2 ideas in order to defend itself against an aggressor.
Minarchist: Yes, and can you point out one singular example where any society has ever defended itself from foreign invasionwithout using aggression? Remember, the fact that "the society" was attacked first does not therefore mean that all acts of violence by members of that society against the invaders are therefore defensive.
Yes, and can you point out one singular example where any society has ever defended itself from foreign invasionwithout using aggression? Remember, the fact that "the society" was attacked first does not therefore mean that all acts of violence by members of that society against the invaders are therefore defensive.
I don't need to. It's logically possible. Anyway, are you saying that the American rebels who killed English soldiers were aggressing against them? Sure, some of the colonists did aggress against other colonists, but as I said, there is no reason why they had to do it in order to win the war. And the colonists certainly did not travel to England and murder English civilians in order to damage the hearts and minds of the English.
Minarchist: Think of it, you are a libertarian general (hired by the DRO or whatever) to defend some region. You have at your disposal some number of soldiers. But none of these soldiers can shoot at any enemy soldiers unless they have been personally victimized by said enemy soldiers. It's an absurdity.
I have no idea where you got this idea that libertarian soldiers would have to be shot at first by the invading soldiers. The act of invasion is aggression.
The first part sounds like a ridiculous argument.
Which part is the "first part" and why does it sound ridiculous?
The second part assumes that the means for warfare are mainly or only material.
Again, second part? I assume you mean this: "Even if an ancap society could produce the kind of forces necessary to fight a war (it could)" I was indeed referring to the material factors required for warfare, but there are indeed non-material factors: e.g. the willingness amoung soldiers to murder people they never met.
And the last part is borderless naive on the one hand
Borderline, you mean? And how so? And again, which part are you talking about?
...while making a good point in the direction that wars can only be fought collectively and with collective-holistic assumptions.
So we agree on this point?
I mean, if you are urged into war and due to your strangulation have crush the enemy party, will you at all cost avoid damage to private property. Won't your mercenaries walk across the lawn of a private property owner to get into a better position for defense or attack?
I think that is exactly what would happen: denizens of Libertopia, if hard-pressed during wartime, would start making exceptions to their principles.
By this reasoning, nobody ever has the right to hire a PDA, because after all, the agents of the PDA weren't attacked, were they? And yet, you'll find that libertarians somehow seem to like the idea of PDAs. Libertarians have long held that victims can sell their claims to others, as well as hire others to fight on their behalf. In no way would a libertarian society have to violate those 2 ideas in order to defend itself against an aggressor.
Fair enough, a victim can transfer his right to retribution to anyone he likes (such as a DRO), but who will the DRO use violence against? The person who actually aggressed against the victim? Or just some guy wearing the same colored uniform?
I don't need to. It's logically possible.
It is logically possible for pigs to fly.
Anyway, are you saying that the American rebels who killed English soldiers were aggressing against them?
If an American soldier kills a British soldier by whom he has not previously been victimized (or who has not previously victimized the person for whom the soldier is an agent], then, yes, he commits an act of aggression. This is not a criticism of the War for Independence, it is a criticism of war as such.
Sure, some of the colonists did aggress against other colonists, but as I said, there is no reason why they had to do it in order to win the war. And the colonists certainly did not travel to England and murder English civilians in order to damage the hearts and minds of the English.
See above; there is aggression in soldiers killing soldiers, forget about civilians or atrocitities et al.
Statopia attacks Libertopia, there are victims. These victims hire a DRO to get justice. The DRO can go after the actual individuals responsible (e.g. some pilots) AND/OR the people for whom those individuals were agents (i.e. the leadership of Statopia). But the DRO CANNOT go after random members of the military of Statopia.
Not at al I say. What I’m saying is: let us make an assumption. Let’s just assume that a NAP-observing society works as we think and hope it will, with the exception of defense, where it fails. Let us just assume that. What was said was that if somehow the whole globe would go ancap, than this assumed issue with an ancap society (inability to defend itself against a regular army) would not mater. So, defense was said to be an issue of implementing anarcho-capitalism, not of anacho-capitalism per se. What I say is that this interpretation is not correct. If anarchic societies are defective in defense, even if the whole globe is anarchic it just will happen, sooner or later, that a small commune somewhere will go militaristic. Perhaps a small gang, perhaps a large and aggressive extended family, perhaps a bnch of convicts. And in time, such a small militaristic society shall grow since the rest of society will not be able to confine and defeat it. What the hell, if ancapistan is defenseless against organized violence, PDA themselves will sooner or latter get it! So, again, I made a what-if analysis: if anarcho-capitalism really is unable to properly defend itself in regular warfare, even assuming a global anarchic community will not do away with the problem, as it is bound to eventually bring anarchy down. Of course whether anarchist really are so defenseless against a regular army, that’s an other debate. here i just assumed so for the sake of the following analysis.
Good points.
I'm answering this one first:
Minarchist: It is logically possible for pigs to fly.
You'll have to show me which kind of pig you are talking about. There are certain qualities necessary to be considered a pig, and none of them seem to have wings as one of the many criteria. What exactly are your premises? Are you in a spaceship with no gravity? But we usualy call that floating and not flying.
Minarchist: Fair enough, a victim can transfer his right to retribution to anyone he likes (such as a DRO), but who will the DRO use violence against? The person who actually aggressed against the victim? Or just some guy wearing the same colored uniform?
Minarchist: If an American soldier kills a British soldier by whom he has not previously been victimized (or who has not previously victimized the person for whom the soldier is an agent], then, yes, he commits an act of aggression. This is not a criticism of the War for Independence, it is a criticism of war as such.
Minarchist: See above; there is aggression in soldiers killing soldiers, forget about civilians or atrocitities et al. Statopia attacks Libertopia, there are victims. These victims hire a DRO to get justice. The DRO can go after the actual individuals responsible (e.g. some pilots) AND/OR the people for whom those individuals were agents (i.e. the leadership of Statopia). But the DRO CANNOT go after random members of the military of Statopia.
Okay, now I'm going to quote a passage from my post, that you did not bother to address:
gotlucky: I have no idea where you got this idea that libertarian soldiers would have to be shot at first by the invading soldiers. The act of invasion is aggression.
Furthermore, if you saw a woman being raped on an alley, would it be unjustful of you to defend her? The only possible way that it would would be if the woman didn't want to be helped. But that wouldn't be rape, would it? If american soldiers were slaughtering my neighbors in Libertopia, no, I wouldn't violate the NAP if I helped them.
Everything is logically possible which is not logically impossible (i.e. self-contradictory). There is nothing self-contradictory about a pig flying. Gravity and wings have nothing to do with it, those would concern physical possibility. As for how I define a pig, that's a fair point, but defining a pig in such a way that it lacks what we know is physically required for flight would does not mean that it's logically impossible for pigs (thus defined) to fly - as, again, that invokes physical possibility. The only definition of "pig" which would make it logically impossible for pigs to fly is one which includes "inability to fly" as an inherent property of being a pig. Anyway....
I brought up flying pigs to point out the weakness of saying something like "well, it's logically possible" when asked for some empirical evidence of whether something is likely or not. If I'm designing a libertarian society, I want a little more assurance about it's ability to defend itself than "it's logically possible."
Sure, but aggression against whom? And by whom? Who exactly can be held responsible for this aggression? What military options would the Libertopians actually have? Sure, they can mow down invaders crossing the border, and target the leadership of the enemy forces, but what about enemy forces who have not actually engaged in aggression, such as forces that might be massing for (but have not actually launched) an attack?
Minarchist: If I'm designing a libertarian society, I want a little more assurance about it's ability to defend itself than "it's logically possible."
If I'm designing a libertarian society, I want a little more assurance about it's ability to defend itself than "it's logically possible."
I gave you two examples of non-libertarian societies fighting wars of defense without aggression (barring colonists killing fellow colonists). If non-libertarian societies can repel an invasion without needing aggression to do so, then I see no reason why a libertarian society could not do so either.
Minarchist: Sure, but aggression against whom? And by whom?
Sure, but aggression against whom? And by whom?
The people of the community the army is invading. What size is the army? Is this just a gang army of 80? Well, the gang isn't aggressing against a great many people. But an army of thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? The larger the army, the more people it must be aggressing against. And as it has been pointed out, libertarians can band together, hire PDA's, help each other, form militias, that sort of thing.
Minarchist: Who exactly can be held responsible for this aggression?
Who exactly can be held responsible for this aggression?
The people who are aggressing.
Minarchist: What military options would the Libertopians actually have? Sure, they can mow down invaders crossing the border, and target the leadership of the enemy forces, but what about enemy forces who have not actually engaged in aggression, such as forces that might be massing for (but have not actually launched) an attack?
What military options would the Libertopians actually have? Sure, they can mow down invaders crossing the border, and target the leadership of the enemy forces, but what about enemy forces who have not actually engaged in aggression, such as forces that might be massing for (but have not actually launched) an attack?
Here is Block's excellent definition of the NAP:
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.
Armies massing at the border are threatening other nations, and nations are made of individuals. By threatening the initiation of violence, these armies are guilty of aggression.
If only those of the enemy who actually engage in aggressive violence can be held responsible and targeted, I see no viable way to fight a war. Though, as you say, those who threaten aggressive violence can also be targeted, but whether this adds much to the ability of the anarcho-capitalists to strike at the enemy depends entirely on how broadly you would define "threaten."
I don't know, it's all speculative. It would be interesting to derive rules of engagement based on the NAP, and then look at some historical military campaigns and war-game it: how would they have done if they had followed these rules, etc.
I still have my doubts...
@Minarchist
Grouping up with thousands of people to kill other thousands definitely applies to threat. Unless you are arguing that some guy was there, dressed up like a military man, guns in hand, but in fact wasn't willing to kill anybody. If that is the case, I don't think that this help the case for state defence, nor refutes NAP if this guy is drop dead by a libertarian. There is no perfection. The guy was just stupid to do that.
Yeah, it is interesting to imagine how these scenarios would like, but I think it is important to not forget that what actually happened in wars was not particularly good. In fact, they were all horrible. Standing up for state defence because allegedly ancap societies could not handle wars is a circular argument, imo. You are trying to defend yourself and your kind against something that you don't want (war) with the very thing that causes wars (state). If ancap societies really can't defend themselves against armies, then there's no way out.
Standing up for state defence because allegedly ancap societies could not handle wars is a circular argument, imo. You are trying to defend yourself and your kind against something that you don't want (war) with the very thing that causes wars (state). If ancap societies really can't defend themselves against armies, then there's no way out.
To clarify, I'm not a minarchist in the usual sense of the term, as I'm for a stateless society (albeit a special kind of stateless society). See my profile for a brief description of my views. (Yes, I realize it's confusing that my name is "Minarchist")
Anyway, yes, the State is the source of war, of course. And I'm not defending the State, I'm merely for a different method of implementing the stateless society: i.e. a method which doesn't pit a lone stateless society against a world of hostile States.
To clarify, I'm not a minarchist in the usual sense of the term, as I'm for a stateless society (albeit a special kind of stateless society). See my profile for a brief description of my views. (Yes, I realize it's confusing that my name is "Minarchist") Anyway, yes, the State is the source of war, of course. And I'm not defending the State, I'm merely for a different method of implementing the stateless society: i.e. a method which doesn't pit a lone stateless society against a world of hostile States.
I understand. I read your profile. Do you mean that only one institution should be able to resolve conflicts? Or do you mean that law should uniform, e.g, the NAP for all?
I'm all for finding new, non-agressive-against-non-agressive (that was long) ways to solve problems. Let us not underestimate the power of the free iniciative though. One can never know what kind of inovations the market will bring to the table.
I think it is possible to have a natural monopolist in the legal services business: i.e. a single organization, but one which does not have any coercove powers. This would better assure uniform libertarian law than a competitive market for legal services, in my opinion. I'm in the process of working out the details of such an organization, which I hope to post here soon.
"I think it is possible to have a natural monopolist in the legal services business: i.e. a single organization, but one which does not have any coercove powers. This would better assure uniform libertarian law than a competitive market for legal services, in my opinion. I'm in the process of working out the details of such an organization, which I hope to post here soon."
I'd like to see how you get around Rothbard's comments of how natural monopolies are an impossibility in freed markets.
:Edit: This is not sarcasm by the way.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Minarchist: If only those of the enemy who actually engage in aggressive violence can be held responsible and targeted, I see no viable way to fight a war. Though, as you say, those who threaten aggressive violence can also be targeted, but whether this adds much to the ability of the anarcho-capitalists to strike at the enemy depends entirely on how broadly you would define "threaten."
Consider that even today, in this statist world, there are agreements to the "rules of war". States agree that certain people are off-limits, such as civilians or medics. Now, states violate these rules all the time, but states also don't believe that aggression is immoral, so what else would you expect?
So, would a libertarian nation target civilians? Of course not. But your question was targetted at "the enemy", which I can only assume to mean the members of the invading army. Well, I doubt that a libertarian army would target medics. Why? Well, it is clear that medics are non-aggressive. Of course, it is always possible that an individual in the libertarian army might target medics, but he would be breaking the NAP, so there is no reason to assume this course of action would be widespread, and there is nothing preventing the family of the victims from pressing charges after the war is over.
Of course, that is probably an unlikely outcome, but what can I say? The NAP is a legal code, not a moral code. The NAP is just a legal version of the golden rule. Not every person in a libertarian nation is going to be a stand up citizen. But, considering it would be a nation based upon the NAP, those sorts of war crimes would be very limited, and they are not even necessary to defeating the invading force.
And the more I think about it, it's not entirely clear that the medics are not aggressive. Consider 2 people break into your home. One of them fights you, but the other does not. The one that doesn't fight makes sure that the other one can continue to fight. Is the second person fair game for you to fight? Of course! He has invaded your house, and he is actively making sure that his partner in crime can continue to aggress against your person.
So, it might be the case that even medics are fair game in an invading army. I haven't thought about it a lot, but it seems that they are aggressing.
Minarchist: I don't know, it's all speculative. It would be interesting to derive rules of engagement based on the NAP, and then look at some historical military campaigns and war-game it: how would they have done if they had followed these rules, etc.
I covered some of this in the above portion, but the important thing to keep in mind is that the invading army is by definition violating the NAP. So, there probably aren't that many rules necessary for defending against an invading army. More or less:
1) Repel the invaders
2) Don't aggress against civilians
EDIT: I didn't write anything about the rules of war for an invading force, so here it is:
An invading army cannot invade without violating the NAP. Any rules of war based on the NAP are obviously going to do nothing for them. But what about a small strike force? Well, theoretically, if the force is small enough, it could get around a city or nation without using aggression in order to accomplish its mission. So, the rules:
1) Don't aggress against anyone, civilians or otherwise.
I guess that's it. If the libertarian nation is sending a force into a state, well, then there really isn't any need to follow the NAP, as the state doesn't follow the NAP anyway. Just being there violates the laws of the state. And who is going to bring charges against them in their home nation? If the force goes to another libertarian nation, then so long as they don't break the NAP, it is unlikely to be a problem.
Minarchist: I still have my doubts...
There are two things to keep in mind. The first is that drastically "underpowered" armies have been able to successfully repel "overpowered" invaders. The second is that defending armies can lose, even today in the statist world. Consider Nazi Germany. It had a very powerful army. But it did lose.
There are no certainties.
There are two things to keep in mind. The first is that drastically "underpowered" armies have been able to successfully repel "overpowered" invaders. The second is that defending armies can lose, even today in the statist world. Consider Nazi Germany. It had a very powerful army. But it did lose. There are no certainties.
The odds against Germany/Axis were pretty bad from the beginning, since the available population, resources and industrial capacities were outnumbered multiple times. The German Army may have been well-trained, disciplined and determined, but in the end it was shear economics of scale that decided the war. And of course the lack of determination of using chemical weapons, which were available but never used. They stuck to the conventional mechanical arsenal for some funny reason. You should write National Socialist Germany. The NAZI term was specifically designed to distract from a connotation.