In any case, even if they object, their jurisdiction ends 14 miles out. Even the coast guard can't go after us barring suspecting piracy or something. And I expect all of the early people who are to be part of this to be US citizens, which will make it much harder for them still.
Malachi:In any case, even if they object, their jurisdiction ends 14 miles out. Even the coast guard can't go after us barring suspecting piracy or something. And I expect all of the early people who are to be part of this to be US citizens, which will make it much harder for them still. the rest of your post is good, but this is just crazy talk.
Perhaps. But it's not so crazy when you consider the history of Sealand, a platform 14 miles off the coast of England, that has been one guy's sovereign territory for a couple decades now. From there they've been broadcasting pirate radio in defiance of the local authorities, and even had a couple outright battles, with people lobbing molotovs back and forth, shooting gun across the bow as warning shots, etc., etc.
And that's without any positive aspect like trying to be a net energy producer that would benefit the whole country.
Ultimately, I understand the risks and am going to do my best to pull it off and grow it so fast that they fail to smother the infant in its cradle.
Jargon,
And you don't think that could be a coincidence? Influential men work in influential areas and achieve fame there, what makes you so sure that this isn't the case?
Yes. It could be a coincidence that executives from certain interconnected corporations, thinktanks and banks end up in positions of power and the events of world history happen to enrich them.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Well, I'm glad that we agree
Wouldn't a better question than this one: "Is X a non-zero possibility?", be this one: "How likely is (1-X)?"
Alright, what do you believe the probability to be?
97.28% approximately. Would you like to know why?:P
Srsly bro? I think that if you have it any higher than a 97.24 that you're being pretty f***ing unreasonable.
Anyway yea, go for it.
Does there need to be a state for small communal militias to arise?
I think that in ancapiland, virtually every citizen will become militia as there is no standing army to protect them. So in addition to PDA's there would be the ordinary citizen armed with their privately owned guns.
And every citizen that which is a militia has to only protect his or her private property, or their neighbors as well (if they choose todo so, for strategic reasons, for example if the statist army invades, and you only protected your house, but didnt help your neighbors, you can get encricled, and thus supply lines can become cut off).
Just because everything in ancapiland is privately owned does not mean that citizens can come together and make their own communal militias (remember as long as it is voluntary, it is ancap).
Any other thoughts?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
The American revolution is actually a decent model for ad hoc military resistance. It was fought largely by private citizens, especially initially, who felt they were defending themselves against aggressions and invasion.
Then, someone stepped up who had war experience and said, "I'll volunteer, be the general, follow me, and I'll even fund the damn thing myself":
George Washington.
I think in a free society that most people would feel comfortable with multiple layers of protection, from personally owning a pistol to various 3rd party protection agencies.
The counter argument tho is that france helped them.
Which actually wouldnt be really a counter argument because on my original post it was assumed that it was possible for a state to lend military aid if it was friends with ancapiland.
@Kelvin Silvia
I would be skeptical of taking such defense agencies as taken for granted.
Yeah, France helped them. And that turned out to be pretty awesome, because the French troops fighting with them saw that freedom was possible, took that realization back to Europe and started the French revolution for freedom. Which was unfortunately ill-fated due to lacking a broad-based libertarian-educated populace. They thought people were free if they elected their rulers, so they elected Napolean :P
So, such can be a model for influence.
@ Neo - Are you poking fun at my arbitrary percentage or what? Anyways, why? From having read Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton and Rothbards' history, I discovered that there were three powerful families, around which corporate and state power orbited in the early 20th century: Morgan, Rockefeller, and Rothschild. Their interests were not always the same but they often cooperated. For example: Rock and Morgan mutually seized banking power with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, when Chemical Bank, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank, Banekrs Trust, First National Bank, and City Bank bought a controlling majority of the federal reserve. So could it just have been coincidence that these men who worked in these banks, which were criss-crossed by marriages, shares, law firms, and men simply working at 3-4 of them, which were controlled by Morgan, Rock, or both, all got together to influence politics so that the Fed was in place and that they would own it? I guess it could be. But the thing is: that doesn't make any sense. Only a devotion to trying to sound "reasonable", "rational" or "balanced" (read: socially acceptable) would lead one to conclude that power and profit landed at the feet of these corps of ambitious, rich, educated and connected bankers and lawyers by the grace of god and not out of their own machinations. We might similarly conclude that all of those Soviet peasants and workers were trying to sabotage their country.
I don't think that I can convince you here and now, nor am I particularly concerned with doing so. I just wanted to say my piece. I can recommend you certain works of history if you are curious.
@ Kelvin - Sure people will own guns. They could have their militias. History has supported the notion of popular guerilla wars, but where? In agrarian societies with an underdeveloped division of labor and thus lower level of interdependency. In societies which were ideologically cemented towards repelling invaders. The north vietnamese won their war at immense personal cost. They got the shit bombed out of them and their country poisoned by toxic weapons.
Do you really think that defense agencies are going to stock up on tanks, anti-air equipment, battleships, missile defense systems, etc. during peace time? Why would they? It would be utterly unprofitable until the time came to use them. The competition principle would likely rule out the possibility of profit-seeking entrepeneurs buying tanks. It would be advisable come war time, but what then? The enemy state has already mobilized. What are you going to do? Ship in tanks and train tank operators while your land is being ravaged? Is that any kind of strategy?
If Ancapistan wants to be independent as well as free, it would require an ideologically pure society of nuclear weapons possessors and a delivery system. These people would basically be the national defense, and one would have to depend on them for moral correctness. What happens if a state infiltrates this crew of people and steals the Big Red Button? After all, it would be AnCaps only line of defense, if that were the line they would choose.
So in reality ancapistan has a bad chance of defending itself against a murderous human eating state?
So therefore we must assume that for our true goal to be achieved, all parts of the earth have to be ancap pieces of land (no state exists whatsoever).
Militias can be a far more effective means of defense than an organize state military.
Statist argument-
Not when you have a ravaging professional military with tanks, bombs, planes, and formal training, vs a mere militia
SkepticalMetal: Militias can be a far more effective means of defense than an organize state military.
The reason why the U.S. created a professional army is because of the failure or inefficacy of the militia in the War of 1812. In my opinion, the issue of national warfare is the biggest practical issue with anarcho-capitalism. You cannot ignore the economies of scale, the massive organizational structure, and the technology at the inter-national level of warfare. National defense should be the main reason for the federal government's existence. Of course, it's become far too dictatorial, controlling, and imperialistic.
Kelvin Silva: So in reality ancapistan has a bad chance of defending itself against a murderous human eating state? So therefore we must assume that for our true goal to be achieved, all parts of the earth have to be ancap pieces of land (no state exists whatsoever).
I expect voluntary subscriptions and ad-hoc groups to replacement politicians, taxes, and the resulting supposed "mass action" of the existing political process.
So, for an ancap area to have a military, what has to happen is that the people there have to feel the need for a military strongly enough that they're willing to voluntarily fund the buildup of a military service ('service' actually used in its proper, economic/business, sense).
This business would then accept employees and train them in military concepts. They might indeed go so far as to invest in tanks and jets and the like as prudence dictates.
Historically this is indeed how militaries have built up, but more on a city-state level. The history of Venice and Athens shines brightly in that respect. What swept the city-state concept away was the Nation-state concept.
That's our challenge, to meet that level of organization with an ancap equivalent. Could one particular protection service become so successful that an entire nation would contribute voluntary payments to it for the abstract quality of military protection? Or maybe a few competing ones?
Well, we'll see how things play out. Most places wouldn't need military protection at all really, above their own individual personal protection strategies.
@ shackleford
The War of 1812 was unjust. It was aggression. If you want aggression, then a military is what you need. If you want a defense composed of people who care about defending their property and their loved ones, a militia is best suited.
Yeah, granted the militia are made up of ideologically driven, dirt poor, self-sufficient farmers with absolutely nothing to lose and are far more numerous and well suited to their terrain than the invaders.
Vietnamese didn't win out of the virtue of not owning tanks and missiles. They won because they were tough as hell, and US troops weren't.
Was it? The British were seizing American ships and stealing American sailors and drafting them into their own navies. Is that not aggression?
Incidents happen like this all the time between states. I think that the U.S. wasn't using diplomacy, and there were numerous people in Congress who were anxious to test the newfound military strength of the United States.
And if used adequetely, militias could bring any army to it's knees. Take a look at the Chinese Civil War. Mao recruited a bunch of agrarian peasents, and they bled the KMT Army dry through their tactics. So in the end, it's not about the size of the force, it's about the tactics and the will.
The Viet Cong, at their core, were an organized militia.
Except it wasn't an incident, it was habitual and disrupting trade.
On Vietnam: This is all kind of besides the point anyways. The US was engaging in a bizarrely restrained warfare until the Nixon administration because they were held back for political reasons. When Kissinger got in the white house, they started bombing the shit out of Cambodia and Vietnam and crippled Cambodia really more than Vietnam:
Exhibit 1: http://api.ning.com/files/5lLMNkrpfQIEMBfwn3WF7rPdYaYho8KIt2bglrU5xRjlxKe-6AEKKTO5EoKCSHeseXswHK3bPg8CU3DtOFONzyj7RMwtSiWN/Cambomb6573.JPG
The US had clear air superiority and could have easily crushed the Vietnamese in a half a year, but that wasn't politically possible or the strategic aim of the war. Just realize that states can engage in Total War. Anarchic territories cannot and must rely on hiding, which becomes less and less feasible with the developing military technology, such as drone-bombers w/ thermal imaging.
So what's going on in the Middle East right now? The insurgent groups are using Maoist tactics. Draw them into the countryside and bleed them dry. And even with all this fancy U.S. technology, they continue to pick off soldiers because it's all about tactics.
Oh and also this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine
Is it really the intention of the US to destroy our enemies though?
EDIT: Thanks for the link to the UkAnArmy
Well if we're going to think about that, then shouldn't we also think about the intentions of the statists who invade our voluntary society? Invasion is a wrong term - being that you can't necessarily invade a voluntarily society in general. So if they were to "invade," it would mean invading our property. Now since that is so, I'm assuming they are an imperialistic state looking to further their Empire by annexing in the society, similar to Japan's 35-year imperialistic expansion. So they don't necessarily want to "destroy" us per se. They want to impose their will on us. Naturally, with a lot of liberty-minded people, an organized revolt would form, probably through the private militias formed in the free market.
The difference is that our territory would be a medium-term of delegitimating Statism. The war with the muslims does nothing of the sort, in fact it increases their authority. The muslims have been radicalized into a people who need to strike back at the US and Israel and provide an excellent narrative for increased military spending and infringement of civil liberties. With the anarchists, not so. To let them hang around and do their thing is to lose the intellectual ground which justifies their power. One would only have to look to Ancapistan to see that, wow, yes, it does indeed work. With the muslims, that is not an issue as muslim ideology in no way challenges authority at a fundamental level and provides a nice drawn-out dependable source of conflict
"Are you poking fun at my arbitrary percentage or what? Anyways, why?"
Yes I am, I thought it would lighten the mood, and I kind of thought that's what you were going for when you gave me the decimal point of a percentage.
I understand why you believe what you believe, thank you for explaining your thought process.
On the matter of militia and military:
Militias will do better wherever and whenever the environment in which they function better suits them. This will depend upon three major separate factors: The environment, the will, resources, and strategy of the invading force, and how the militia deals with this. In Vietnam, for instance, there was a perfect storm of the militia, with a great environment for guerilla tactics, an enemy who was unable to really "invade" or "occupy" for any number of reasons, and the militia had a great strategy and an extremely strong will to carry on fighting.
I would like to point out, however, that it would appear none of the militias which we are talking about; Vietcong, Afghani terrorists, and colonial militia, actually succeeded in preventing their homelands from being invaded, and all experienced exceedingly high losses. What is extremely relevant, however, is that all of them did at least moderately well even though they were quite poor, and we would probably assume that the anarchist society would be fairly wealthy, and in our day there are fairly cheap ways to make tools which can annihilate very expensive pieces of equipment.
The US was engaging in a bizarrely restrained warfare until the Nixon administration because they were held back for political reasons. When Kissinger got in the white house, they started bombing the shit out of Cambodia and Vietnam and crippled Cambodia really more than Vietnam:
The US had clear air superiority and could have easily crushed the Vietnamese in a half a year
but that wasn't politically possible or the strategic aim of the war.
Just realize that states can engage in Total War.
Anarchic territories cannot and must rely on hiding
which becomes less and less feasible with the developing military technology, such as drone-bombers w/ thermal imaging.
because one major problem with optics is Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF) issues. For example, while there are glint tape and ir (infrared) beacons for night vision, those technologies are still emergent with regard to thermal (I got some thermal glint tape at a trade show but my understanding is that its not issued yet). The last time I heard of anybody using thermal signals they put two 9v batteries terminal to terminal in a sock.
thats kind of irrelevant because you could easily suggest that they develop a thermal beacon, that's achievable. But it still doesnt help you identify the enemy, just friendlies. As for night vision, I can still remember my squad being forced to patrol while each of us was wearing an ir strobe. It was extremely difficult to use my optics whenever one of my guys was anywhere in my field of view. And we looked like an airport runway, it was impossible to miss us through night vision. All my concerns were dismissed, so you can imagine my anger when I found out that insurgents were using digital cameras for low-cost night vision. Patrols that are lit up and blinking like that have no chance of surprising the enemy. Not to mention practical equipment issues (most of the force is still wearing pvs-14's mounted on shitty mounts attached to ill-fitting helmets). You have to go all the way to pvs-21's for a solution to the blooming, because somebody can saturate your optic with radiation and you wont be able to see anything through the optic. All this equipment is heavy, requires training, integration, and support, and tend to interfere with the mission rather than facilitate its accomplishment (I'd like to see a procurement officer try to do any observation or firing from the prone while wearing a helmet and nv device). Dont forget about thermal crossover. A little anecdote to wrap it up, rumour has it that the instructors at the scout-sniper basic course wear orange jumpsuits for the portion of the course where the students try to locate the instructors. As they say, concealment is 95% microterrain and all of those optics are line-of-sight. I will admit that some thermals, like those on the sabre anti-tank missile system, are good enough to recognize faces. But I dont quite remember how far out you can do that. Sabre isnt man-portable anyway.
How about switzerland. I think switzerland would be a good topic of discussion.
Its right smack dab in the middle of europe (ww1, ww2, cold war, various 19th century wars) and hasnt been in a formal war in almost 200 years.
Mainly due to neutral policy, and that the terrain is hard as fuck to invade. Ive read that virtuall every citizen is armed and trained,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland
The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammo[3]).
The above is a given due to the nature of anarchist societies (most citizens will own weapons).
Though they have military conscription in switzerland, this is not a major issue, because in ancapiland, if there is a war, virtually every citizen will have to fight 1 way or another or else they will lose their private property.
If ancapiland resides in a hostile region prone to military attack, private road companies could theoretically wire each rode, bridge or overpass with explosives in case of an event of invasion, thus making it 9999X harder for a country to invade. (doubt this will be likely)
Switzerland is a brilliant example of the power of a militia. However - they employ conscription, something that I despise.
@ Neo - sorry, the "anyway, why?" sentence was meant to be referring to myself.
@ Malachi - well you've been in the military clearly and this is interesting to get a perspective from someone who's familiar with its equipment.
On strategic assets: wouldn't these be obvious in Ancapistan, as free capitalism would be conducive to a higher division of labor meaning less people doing subsistence farming stuff? Wasn't Vietnams relative poverty actually an aid to their war in that it meant that their strategic assets were well dispersed or invisible?
On Air Superiority: what about the bombing of the cambodian border where north vietnamese were sneaking in supplies? What about the Agent Orange campaign?
On Hiding: makes sense.
Generally don't you think that a war in Ancapistan would be devastating, and especially so because free trade and advanced division of labor are not suitable for warfare?