... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
Meistro: What are the qualities that enable a nation to mount a national defense? From a superficial perspective one could say simply the size or quality of that nation's army. But is this so? Let us attempt the reductio ad absurdum and imagine what would happen if the totality of a society was pressed into military service, in order to mount the most impressive national defense. Of course for a short while you would have military might per capita which is quite impressive but with all of the factories turned idle, or even simply focused on the production of tanks and jet fighters, the nation would eventually (and probably after not too long a duration) crumble. Thus we can see there is a trade off between military prowess in the present day and military prowess in the future. Agreed A key component of a nation's ability to successfully fend off an invader stems from it's economic health. If we contrast a stateless society, one with free immigration, a system of libertarian law focused on restitution for the victim instead of the vague goals of punishment and rehabilitation, the total separation of state and economy with, for example, the heavily interventionist nations in anglo north america today, you will see that ceteris paribus, the stateless society will be radically more prosperous and more populous. As I've drawn attention to earlier on this forum, the choices of "free" immigration or "restricted" immigration is a dichotomy created by state's borders. A stateless society will not necessarily have "free" immigration simply because there is no state, it only means that there will be no federal restriction on immigration. It does not follow from this, then, that there will be no communities which oppose immigration according to their powers of private property. But this is an inessential point to the argument. Just as swords can be beaten to plowshares, the reverse is true, and the nation which is wealthier and which has a great population will also be able to produce a greater fighting force should the unfortunate occasion of war be made necessary. Of course my opponent does not propose the status quo. What he proposes is the nightwatchmen state. More or less. I wouldn't mind a department of culture, department of water-utility, and a national statement of reigning law. Just as the massive intervention by our governments into our societies is harmful to the economy, so would the interventions and grants of monopoly privilege my opponent recommends. Indeed because the industries my opponent suggests should be nationalized are so vital to a nation the damage would still be quite severe. A night watchman state is incompatible with nationalized industry; I don't advocate it. Defense industry may remain private; only, its one customer will be the state-military spending the money of the taxpayer. Ultimately the production of (for example) flip flops and alcohol are trivial in comparison to the provision of justice and policing. Grants of monopoly privilege by the state to the state itself will result in poorer results. We simply have to observe how the so called justice system of today operates to understand how tragic it is to leave this industry in the hands of the state, where there is no incentive for innovation and no recourse for incompetence. Mostly agreed. The inefficiencies which result from state monopolies in those areas broadly classified under the nightwatchmen state will mean that hypothetical nation A) the stateless society will be more prosperous than hypothetical nation B) the limited government society with state monopolies on policing, justice and national defense (and, I suppose, some sort of taxation agency to account for all the coerced payments). I hadn't advocated monopolies on policing or courts. Even leaving aside the likelihood that a nation with a state which has allocated to itself a monopoly on violence and decision making would likely degrade into a highly interventionist state if not outright socialism (the former inevitably leading to the latter) you would certainly have the society with a state being less prosperous than the one without, and therefor being less able to mount a national defense when the time comes where it is necessary.
A key component of a nation's ability to successfully fend off an invader stems from it's economic health. If we contrast a stateless society, one with free immigration, a system of libertarian law focused on restitution for the victim instead of the vague goals of punishment and rehabilitation, the total separation of state and economy with, for example, the heavily interventionist nations in anglo north america today, you will see that ceteris paribus, the stateless society will be radically more prosperous and more populous.
Just as swords can be beaten to plowshares, the reverse is true, and the nation which is wealthier and which has a great population will also be able to produce a greater fighting force should the unfortunate occasion of war be made necessary. Of course my opponent does not propose the status quo. What he proposes is the nightwatchmen state.
Just as the massive intervention by our governments into our societies is harmful to the economy, so would the interventions and grants of monopoly privilege my opponent recommends. Indeed because the industries my opponent suggests should be nationalized are so vital to a nation the damage would still be quite severe.
Ultimately the production of (for example) flip flops and alcohol are trivial in comparison to the provision of justice and policing. Grants of monopoly privilege by the state to the state itself will result in poorer results. We simply have to observe how the so called justice system of today operates to understand how tragic it is to leave this industry in the hands of the state, where there is no incentive for innovation and no recourse for incompetence.
The inefficiencies which result from state monopolies in those areas broadly classified under the nightwatchmen state will mean that hypothetical nation A) the stateless society will be more prosperous than hypothetical nation B) the limited government society with state monopolies on policing, justice and national defense (and, I suppose, some sort of taxation agency to account for all the coerced payments).
Even leaving aside the likelihood that a nation with a state which has allocated to itself a monopoly on violence and decision making would likely degrade into a highly interventionist state if not outright socialism (the former inevitably leading to the latter) you would certainly have the society with a state being less prosperous than the one without, and therefor being less able to mount a national defense when the time comes where it is necessary.
Granted. But you've left out an important part: by how much? What is the difference in accumulated wealth between a society with a national military and a society without one? And while we're at it, how should this wealth be measured? The idea is absurd, as wealth is a notion of human action, of resources at the disposal of an individual, not of a nation. And as for the measurement of a society's wealth which has no central representative, the question is even stranger?
Is that society richer which equal on every level with the statist one, except that its citizens have more flip-flops, frying pans and refrigerators? And if so, what relevance is there in this difference which pertains to war. Let us assume for the moment that measurements of national wealth are spotlessly logical. Volungrad (stateless society) has wealth N+2, whereas Zhiagrosia (state society) has N-1 wealth. But the wealth differential of the former is constituted by luggage, kitchen appliances, fancier cars, the use-specific capital necessary to produce it, and some non-specific capital and the differential of the latter is constituted by diversions away from these consumer preferences and into the production of tanks and warplanes. Volungrazia is a wealthier place, wealth referring to the quantities of goods suited towards satisfying consumer preferences. Zhiagrosia is poorer but more well equipped for war. It seems now to us, that a country can be poorer but more well equipped for war because the penalty on growth of capital caused by taxation and diversion into military equipment is not particularly important as the capital which would have formed will be, in part, specific towards consumer goods or at least costly to convert to military purposes. The remaining part that isn't specific towards consumer goods does constitute an advantage over Zhiagrosia, but it is outweighed by Zhiagrosia's pre-emptive concentration of capital specific towards military purposes. Zhiagrosia has an immediate advantage of productive capacity with no conversion necessary. Volungrazia, in war time, will have to convert capital, if it can, towards purposes of military equipment. Thus I reject the notion that a richer society is necessarily better suited towards war than a poorer society, in so far as the latter's is still an unfettered market society capable of accumulating capital at a near-same rate as the former.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
1. I don't really like the writing style you use here.
2. Your entire argument is a lot longer in the way that you express it than it really needs to be. You could sum it up in two paragraphs tops. This is particularly true because you're primarily just asserting claims rather than demonstrating why they are true. For instance in the final paragrpah you seem to be trying to make a comparison when really you're just reiterating what you have been saying all along without simply summarizing this.
3. What's most important to the debate, which you have not addressed is this. If the matter was really as simple as "society A has no state and therefore they are richer and can buy more defense than statist society B", then the whole question would just be one of what society maximizes the PPF and wealth in general. This is something that Jargon has dealt with above. However, the matter is more complicated than this since we ultimately end up at the public goods debate, where theoretically a stateless society could have the productive potential to build a vastly more efficient military than the statist society, but due to failures in the societies' incentive strucutre the actual military which would be produced would be vastly inferior to the military developed in the statist society.
Also, I must confess I do not see a difference between a government military, or the government contracting out their military obligation to "private" companies. That is to say I do not see the difference between the government hiring a man to work in their organization and the government hiring a company to do work for their organization. To me these are the same things, it's an artificial arbitrary distinction; faux privatization.
That's why I advocate that the state declare a reigning legal code, the idea being that judges have to enforce the state's law as the law of the land. If a judge gives a ruling which contradicts the state's law, then it follow that the military or an agency of the treasury would hold him in contempt of the supreme law of the land. You're right that, if there were a state with a handful of functions but law wasn't among them, a judge may rule against taxation and thus the state would have no revenue streams. But the design here isn't a polylegal system. It's a single legal code with multiple proprietors, backed up by either the military or the treasury (presumably the treasury because putting those powers in the hands of the military isn't very libertarian).
Also, I must confess I do not see a difference between a government military, or the government contracting out their military obligation to "private" companies. That is to say I do not see the difference between the government hiring a man to work in their organization and the government hiring a company to do work for their organization. To me these are the same things, it's an artificial arbitrary distinction; faux privatization. This difference is that it's hard to fire public employees and easy to fire private ones. There's a higher degree of quality control in private industry as presumably there would be more than one company producing all of the equipment (which would be the case under a nationalized defense industry). It's the same reason why any industry of consumer preference is better executed by a system of multiple producers rather than by a system of a single producer Land & Liberty The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger | Post Points: 5