As to the question of common caliburs, I'm fairly certain the market would choose a mix, just as it does in other areas. Take computing, for example. Most personal computers operate under the Windows on an Intel chip. Some people buy MacIntosh, some people install Linux, and this margin of early adopters and tinkerers keep that central standard on its toes without fragmenting the platform beyond a level of essential utility. I suspect the same would be true with firearms: economies of scale being what they are, most people would use the cheaper, easier to use, more popular guns and ammo. But you'd still have a margin of tinkerers and early adopters looking for something more effective or just plain cool, testing out other ideas.
As to where average citizens would receive military training in more advanced weaponry, my thinking is that the Anarcho-Capitalist assumption is that people aren't complete morons. Even in the absence of a coercive state, you'd still have a lot of people seeking to support some kind of military establishment. A community's top level military capacity could be a voluntarily funded corps that would act as a "first response" force, while the people at large are busy getting themselves ready to join the fight.
To address your own scenario, we have, first, to address the likelyhood of the scenario, and the precise form it would take if the US were an anarchist zone rather than a semi-republican police state. You have to ask the question, why are they invading? There's no need to knock out our ability to respond if they should attempt to assert control over Taiwan, for example. There's no US president backed by a US military to selectively press for human rights reforms. There's no immigration policy preventing the peaceful arrival of Chinese immigrants, nor a trade policy preventing Chinese merchants from trading peacefully or Chinese businessmen from establishing operations. There is very little incentive to invade in force.
And even if they did, there's no central authority to knock out with military force; any invasion faces the question of "where do we strike?" They could temporarily take territory, but the expense of maintaining that beach-head (this is a trans-Pacific operation, after all) would most likely be more than could be extracted from the area. In the absence of psychologically satisfying victories against clear targets, I wonder how long the Chinese government could justify the expense, before the drain on resources emboldened their own foreign and domestic enemies. It was Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu who warned that protracted warfare weakened the State and emboldened what is sometimes translated "The Feudal Lords". It was the Spartans who discovered the hard way that when the soldiers are away, the Helots revolt.
Finally, a free society is heavily enmeshed in trade with its neighbors. The Chinese would face not only higher expenses, but declining revenues as a result of disrupting trade between the former United States and China.
Gewehr98:My only question to all of this is; where would one (any private citizen) receive the training required to operate today's weapons? That is to say, where would a citizen go to learn how to operate an F-22, or an Abrams tank? Would the market rise to fill this roll long before any perceived invasion of the Anarchist..."state"? Or would it be last minute training?
Anyone can in fact go to a private organization to learn how to fly a plane. They do exist, and the licensing is for the gratification of the state. As far as learning to fly an F-22 is concerned, if a private organization had access to this kind of weapon (which they very much do not, at least the kind used for war), it would benefit them to teach people how to fly them.
Gewehr98:This is actually something I've always wondered about, as well. Citizens banding together and using privately owned firearms, and those provided by other citizens is all well and good. But this also presents a logistical problem. Would the market select a common caliber of firearms, and also supply the ammunition to feed those firearms? What about munitions? It is no longer the 17-1800s, where battles are fought with cannon, musket, and horse.
The military chooses common calibre weapons all the time. There is common weapons, then also weapons for specific jobs. In the hands of private citizens, I don't imagine that would change. A very common calibre weapon is a 9mm. There is a bunch of manufacturers that produce 9mm guns and ammunition. Something like this would most likely be common place in a private community/organization, but the market would fill individual needs as well. If the need arose for .45 ACP for instance, the market would fill that. And as production of these guns becomes more common, the price would also fall, allowing for more firearms of the desired calibre to end up in more hands.
Gewehr98:So let's expand the scenario a bit. Let us say the US is Ancap "state", now let us say the Chinese and whoever else decide to invade tomorrow, with no warning. Would the markets fill the gap of early warning systems (radar, SOSUS nets, etc), and would they also fill the market for land/air/sea based fighting platforms without a standing army to fill the demand?
Since war does not benefit anyone but the state, there might very well be no reason for invasion. In an open market, we would of course be more than willing to exchange goods and services with anyone willing to pay money or resources for them. And if for some reason a nation state felt like invading, they would have to deal with a completely armed society. Every American would not only have their right to bear arms secured, they might very well be encouraged to own a gun or guns. Also, I would imagine the majority of people would in fact become proficient at using their guns as well. That changes things signicantly as far as plans for invasion are concerned. We are talking about 325 million armed ready citizens, a complete nightmare for any invasion force. It would make America completely unassailable.
Thank you both (Justin, and DA for your answers).
Also, we are not talking 325 million armed citizens. We have to take into account the old, sick, and children.
As far as why there would be such an attack in the first place, we are only assuming the US was an Ancap state. We are not assuming the rest of the world is as well. So any number of imperialist powers may have reason for a seemingly unprovoked attacked. Germany's attack on Luxembourg during WW2 is a good example. It was a neutral nation, with no intention of entering into war with Germany.
As history has shown us, people, whether they be in our country, or another, are hungry for power and land. In my uncompleted scenario (thanks, broken edit button) we were assuming China had some crazy plan for world domination, starting first with the US.
Once again, though, thank you both, this is an area where I was really struggling to comprehend the ancap approach, as I had not seen any relevant material on the subject.
Gewehr98:Also, we are not talking 325 million armed citizens. We have to take into account the old, sick, and children.
You are absolutely right, sorry, I get a little excited about the subject, thanks for setting me strait.
Gewehr98:Once again, though, thank you both, this is an area where I was really struggling to comprehend the ancap approach, as I had not seen any relevant material on the subject.
It was more than a pleasure. I used to struggle a bit with this concept myself. I used to want to believe it so bad, but I was not completely sure about how many things would be accomplished. Keep reading. Eventually, you will see the entire world in terms of this very thought pattern. In a lot of cases, it is almost simplistic to imagine how it would work without state intervention. There is a shortage of material in the main stream, but it is slowly making itself known. Some people are far too fearful, ignorant, or a combination of both to even entertain the idea that less is more when it comes to state intervention.
Is the state morally defendable if rational egoism is more important than the non-aggression principle?
alimentarius: Is the state morally defendable if rational egoism is more important than the non-aggression principle?
I am afraid I don't really understand the question. If your primary concern is your own welfare, then the state is going to be your largest obstacle in doing what is best for yourself. It's not like egoism exists only where the non-aggression principle does not. You can be a firm believer in the non-aggression principle and do what is best for yourself. It more or less takes recognition that getting what you want through violence is not good for yourself or society.
No one brought up common law (or customary law) or Merchant Law? These are two examples of legal systems created and maintained without a government. Common law is especially interesting because it is a process that develops consistent laws and procedures over time, based upon precedent and judgement. Law is "discovered" instead of legislated.
As for investigation, custody, etc., private businesses develop and use standards all the time, and I see no reason why private law enforcement would be an exception.
Here are two outstanding articles on common/customary law. The first explains why society already owes much of its stability to common law and why the State is unnecessary. The second goes deeper into the workings and evolution of common law as a Hayekian spontaneous order - a free market in law.
The Obviousness of Anarchy
The Depoliticization of Law
On the topic of defense, the author writes:
An additional limitation on my argument is that I do not address the questionof national defense. There are two reasons for this. One is the logical one that asociety without government is a society without nations. In this context, “national”defense is a meaningless concept. If you wish, you may see this as an assertion thatan argument for anarchy is necessarily an argument for global anarchy. I prefer to seeit merely as the recognition that human beings, not nations, need defense. The moresignificant reason, however, is that I regard the problem of national defense as trivialfor reasons I will expand upon subsequently.
Why anarchy fails
Fascinating topic.
My one question is: does the NAP always preclude preemptive military force?
For example, if in the future the current West is an ANCAP society, and an external closed rogue state acquires nuclear weapons, are there any scenarios where a PDA (I guess it would be a PAA in this case) would be justified in forcibly dispatching the threat? Or would the ANCAP society's only recourse be to increase defensive measures and/or attempt to exert peaceful economic pressure, until the rogue state actually initiated a conflict?
If a whole society ever went ANCAP, then you would have to assume its citizenry would be fully aware of the dangers of a state system. Being aware of the destruction a state is capable of unleashing, wouldn't the populace generally appraise a rogue state as being a clear and present danger to their property, and possibly be open to contributing towards funding such a preemptive strike?
I guess this raises a larger question. In a mixed system of ANCAP societies and States, would utilitarian ethics like the NAP only apply between ANCAP societies? In what ways should the ANCAP societies take different approaches to dealing with States compared to dealing with eachother?
Anyone who possesses an operational nuke is a threat. We can debate what an "illegitimate state" is (see this), but given a state is deemed illegitimate, anyone, say a private military within the free society, could use force against that state's ruling elite.
There is nothing wrong with people or companies of a free society trading with stated societies. The same basic rules apply as for people within that society. See the above link for what is legitimate market activity.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
So please explain how a Militia can resist against nuclear weapons or against a well trained and organised army? See: the afghans people have no real state. But all these guys can have a new AK and defend their own village against invaders (they are use to, they already did against the Soviets in the 1970-80s). So they form a kind of militia.
However as you can see on TV they cannot defeat the US army. Why? because they have guns against F22 and againts a powerfill army. They only survive because the goal is to "pacify" the region, not to destroy it all.
Militia is a popular defence army, but remains historically highly un-effective against any structured and technologically advanced modern army: see the "republican militia" fighting against dictator Franco supported by Hitler and Mussolini in 1930s in Spain, see Natives armies fighting against Yankees in the US in XIXth century, see anarchists federation in eastern "Juras" montains in France in the XIXth century, see palestinians warriors against Tsahal, see afghan warriors against Coalition Forces... technology and structuration are the keys for military success. Without external military back up from a structurated modern armh, Militia is doomed to loose or to degenerate into a civil war... what do you think?
I'm quite surprise: I'not sure that the "Swiss Army" can ever be considered as a "model" for any efficient defence forces. Historically Swiss generally decided NOT to fight (WW1, WW2, WWhatever)... Swiss soldiers are only famous... for being employed by the Vatican as the personal guard of the Pope. That's all.
Definition: are you talking about "militia"? "conscription"? or "guerilla"? These are different things :
-"conscription" means that all citizens (or randomly sorted citizens) have to give 1 or 2 or more years of their life as soldiers fighting in the national army. It's so in Swiss, in Israel, and in most of the developping countries (including most of the communist countries). Conscription allows the state to (i) generate a feeling of common destiny among citizen as they all participate at one moment to the national defence forces. If any war happen, their duty is to join the army when their cohort is called (usually, trainged guies go first, then newbies, then oldies, then the others). Most of the modern states (Germany, UK, France, Western European countries in general), decided to shift from conscription to professional armies in the 2000s (to save public funds mainly, as well as considering the risk of warfare is lower after the end of the cold war).
-"militia" means that local citizens have access to weapons and can form a local defence gang, in order to defend his/her land. Militia can exist aside the state army or in replacement for the state army when there is no proper state. For example in countries where there is no state you can find militias: Somalia, Afghanistan (no state out of the Capital District), but also in newborn states like the 13 colonies before it became the US, or in countries where the state has been challenged and is still down (after a coup, or after a revolution).
- "guerilla" is just a possible mode among other tactics/fighting strategies. Guerilla is based on small groups of soldiers harassing a regular army through rapid attack-and-disappear actions. Guerilla tactics can be used by both state army (through commando activities) and Militia (as anyway by nature they are formed by smaller groups than a regular state army). Guerilla is usually used by the army with lower resources (in terms of men, weapons, etc) and has a lower cost for the defencers.
any defencers group in the world, wheter it is militia or state regular army, share this same goal of "common goal, which is defense" that cannot be used as a criteria to define what is a Militia...
An additional limitation on my argument is that I do not address the question of national defense. There are two reasons for this. One is the logical one that a society without government is a society without nations. In this context, “national” defense is a meaningless concept. If you wish, you may see this as an assertion that an argument for anarchy is necessarily an argument for global anarchy. I prefer to see it merely as the recognition that human beings, not nations, need defense. The more significant reason, however, is that I regard the problem of national defense as trivial for reasons I will expand upon subsequently.
some remarks as it is uncorrect here:
- "One is the logical one that a society without government is a society without nations"... not so logical as there are a lot of example of Nations without Governments or without a State in this world. Examples? Palestinians, Kurds, Basks, Gypsis, and a few years or decades ago Kosovars, Bosnians, jewishs...
- Anarchy, as a model for political organisation of the society suffers from the need of simultaneous shift to global anarchy (and educated) systems in one shot, as there can't be peacefull co-existence of both anarchists and non anarchists systems at the same time (based on evolution law, anarchist cities or countries are under a permanent treat of being invaded and integrated to non anarchist countries.
historically, anarchist ministers even participated to democratic governments (they gained the Ministry of Justice in the Republican Government in Spain during the civil war (1936-39), or in Russia some years before.
But historically also, all country or region that lived under anarchism for a while (i mean here "organised" anarchism, not "chaos" as it is too often understood) were militarily defeated by a non-anarchist system that invaded them...
It is good to see people bringing up nuclear weapons.
1. I don't see the free rider question as a big problem, because any Heathian Anarchist community that is large enough will have incentive to purchase nuclear weapons.
2. I do think, however, that nuclear weapons are more problematic because to use them will require violating the non-aggression principal. So if Russia nukes us, a security agency must kill innocent people to maintain deterrence. I wish Kinsella would post on this topic.
I think this is an example where one would have to say aggression is a necessary evil.
I made a pretty long post in the appropriate thread about nukes which might interest you re: #2. I don't see why "Heathian anarchy" would exist versus non-territorial-monopolies except in isolated secular communities or maybe a charter city.
"I don't see why "Heathian anarchy" would exist versus non-territorial-monopolies except in isolated secular communities or maybe a charter city."
I think anarchist communities that are large and territorial will have advantages over non-territorial systems.
If you're living next to me and I'm paying for a nuclear weapons system, you're getting the benefits of my system without paying the cost. The Russians won't nuke you because their afraid of my retaliation. So you are a free rider. You and I might both decided to not purchase nuclear weapons systems and just hope some rich guy on the block does so.
On the other hand, if a businessman comes in and turns our block into a gated community, with everyone renting, there are no free riders. So he can pay for the nuclear weapons system that protects everyone on the block. And this principle holds for a block, why not for an area as big as the United States?
To be designed effectively, this large anarchist community might not allow people to live close the edges of the community. That way if a nuclear strike hits an adjacent area, the anarchist community would be (relatively) unaffected. It would then be able to match payments from customers(those joining the community) to the service being provided.(Nuclear weapons protection).
And this principle holds for a block, why not for an area as big as the United States?
It would be a huge problem for a single company to try to legitimately acquire all that land. Read The Myth of National Defense regarding the free-rider problem. I'm sure it's linked somewhere in this thread.
"It would be a huge problem for a single company to try to legitimately acquire all that land"
By huge problem, do you mean it might have adverse results or that it is unlikely it would occur.
I certainly don't think a large company like this would have to acquire all of the land in an area the size of the united states. If they could control 95% they could easily reduce the free rider problem to an acceptable level.
Not necessarily. Darwinism is both a scientific and a philosophical leaning. Austrians could personally brand themselves as Darwinians, but that doesn't necessarily flow into their interpretation of economic data. However, it might. And if it does, you're looking at a very Hobbesian portrait of economic reality.
I just lost 4 paragraphs doing a reply. Screw it.
To all those who have no knowledge of anarchy and are bringing up the same old tired questions; you made me laugh. I suggest you learn the subject before debating it, it is after all just common courtesy.
To all those who actually do know, you folks are more patient and willing to teach than me. Debating (more like smashing with the hammer of truth) hardly seems worth while when they cannot be troubled to do some basic research on their own, that behavior is usually typical of folks who care not to learn because their mind is settled on the issue.
I truthfully don't know if a strong defense from other nations would be possible with an anarchical society. If there was true anarchy and other nations didn't view us as a unified front, I feel like they would be much more likely to try to take us over. If other nations were to drop bombs (or something of the sort) on an anarchical society, they would be doing so just to cause harm and chaos in general. However, this is assuming we can't all 'come together' to fight war against a foreign nation to protect our freedom, which I'm not sure is possibly in your definite of anarchy.
As for the defense from domestic threats, I think that's the last thing we'd have to worry about. With everyone most likely armed to the teeth with weapons, I think everyone would be much less likely to even think about attacking someone else because of the lethal revenge upon which would be ultimately acted due to the lack of formal laws. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.
Overall I believe we'd be better off domestically with every person having weapons of their own, but as far as security from foreign nation goes, I think we're way better off how we are now.
"I truthfully don't know if a strong defense from other nations would be possible with an anarchical society. If there was true anarchy and other nations didn't view us as a unified front, I feel like they would be much more likely to try to take us over. If other nations were to drop bombs (or something of the sort) on an anarchical society, they would be doing so just to cause harm and chaos in general. However, this is assuming we can't all 'come together' to fight war against a foreign nation to protect our freedom, which I'm not sure is possibly in your definite of anarchy.
Overall I believe we'd be better off domestically with every person having weapons of their own, but as far as security from foreign nation goes, I think we're way better off how we are now."
I don't get your argument that in an Ancap society, everyone would just sit on their thumbs as we're bombed to oblivion. There will still be large, global companies who will have plenty to lose if their customers are killed and the infrastructure destroyed. We are too accustomed to thinking that only the coercive territorial monopoly of the state is capable of defense. Certainly if companies are no longer able to free-ride on the public dime for their military protection, they will have to make provisions to procure their own.
Moreover, the state maintains its forces primarily to defend itself, not its subjects. Private defense would have much more incentive to focus on limiting monetary damage rather than guarding government power centers.
I suppose we have different visions of how an anarchist society would play out.
I suspect one large security company would dominate the regional market, so it would be just as effective as the statist regime is now.
There's a big difference between a company and a state, for instance profit motives. I think that your suspicion is highly suspect. There's huge variation in cultural values among most geographic areas, especially the ones who might adopt libertarian anarchy first. Besides that, there is reason for people to demand that multiple firms may handle a case along a chain of arbitration, think conflict of interests.
PirateRothbard:I suspect one large security company would dominate the regional market, so it would be just as effective as the statist regime is now.
The reason this won't happen is because people don't agree to unenforceable contracts...
Along with Walter Block, I hold that inalieable rights can be traded away. Obviously you disagree with this. However it we allow inalieable rights to be traded away, then there is an obvious method to which the contract could be enforced. If you don't pay a fee for security, we will do "x" to you.(X being whatever you agreed as a punishment for non payment in your security company contract. It could be imprisonment, whipping, stockade etc).
But really, I think there are other methods to which the contract could be enforced. If you don't pay the security company, the company could have a clause in the security contract that transfers all of your property to the company upon nonpayment.
And if that doesn't work, there are othe rmethods. For instance, the company could label you "unwelcome" and penalize its customers unless they choose to refuse to allow you on their property.
I don't think multiple firms are neccesarily more benign than a large regionally dominant firm. One large firm can have a corporate charter than avoids conflict of interests. The firm could have branches of the company, mandated by the corporate charter, labeled the judiciary, executive, legislative. It could also have regional subsidiaries with a clear division of power in the corporate charter.
Personally, I would prefer to work with a security company that resembled the previous statist institutions in its structure(though of course, not in its use of aggression). It would be more familiar in its workings to the shareholders and customers. The company could also be a non-profit, chartered so shareholders could only have one vote.
1/ How do you prevent this "use of agression" which would be a permanent risk fo all?
The security company you are refering, as any group of human being, may look after many other interests than just "making profit". Some does not care about profit and money, but in other goals which are refered by our cultures as "un-rationalistic": religions, reward in the afterlife if you bomb a train station, destroying the enemies targetted by your superior, or for revenge, etc. If company just run for profit on an exclusive way, why do companies follow social rules and accept to limit their own profit making and direct individual interest? Why children don't try to sell their parent's weeding rings in order to increase their profits? Why companies don't just kill competitors in order to gain markets?
Not so sure that all cultural backgrounds and social rules would just vanish and that the world would convert into a perfectly rational bunch of individuals with no other goal than making profit. The same can be applied to the "firm" from your comment: how can you ensure that it will only follow rationalistic behaviours? one answer is that the day it will not, then we'll be slave or dead, without any possible balance of power against this firm.
2/ How do you distinguish this security firm in Monopoly without any will of aggression, from a state with monopoly of coercition in its territory but peacefull goals?
"Along with Walter Block, I hold that inalieable rights can be traded away."
Um,
Inalienable:
Perhaps you should call them something else.
Angurse: "Along with Walter Block, I hold that inalieable rights can be traded away." Um, Inalienable: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; Perhaps you should call them something else.
Maybe he is just trying to run a hustle.
Hate the game, not the player.
I started to read the essays by Hermann Hoppe and early on I came across I came across a passage about how the government will always act the same when charged with protection. The passage is "a government's answer will always be the same: to maximize expendentures on protection - and almost all of a nation's wealth can be consumed by the cost of protection - and at the same time to minimize the production of protection." What struck me is that this doesn't characterize any country in Europe that I know of, some countries in Asia doesn't fit either. A million miles off the mark. The quote is on p. 8, and I haven't read the whole thing, but right off the bat it feels like hyperbole. I also don't understand what it means to minimize the production of protection.
Opinions on these essays?
It's a matter of time.
For instance, the US total defense budget is now standing at ~$1 Trillion, or ~7% of GDP. It has been creeping up over time. There is no indication that this volume will shrink, despite a falling real GDP.
Europe and many Asian countries have been isolated from military expenditure effects by US global hegemony for the last 60 years.
You should read Hoppe's analysis in a more historical context -- obviously any country which has been consumed by military expenditures has little time left (consider N. Korea), so at any given moment, virtually all stable countries will have relatively low military expenditures. At that point at which military expenditures cripple the country, it tends to implode, and the nation is usually "reset".
A prime example of this is the European Dark Ages, which dragged much of Europe into economic oblivion following the implosion of the Roman military-state via inflation and the legislative countermeasures (the book Fourty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls covers this topic).
The hungarian defence budget has been steadily decreasing for a decade as per GDP.
Anarchy and free markets begin to work better as awareness of relevent information increases. So there is a dependency upon an infrastructure of information technologies.
Do Austrians/libertarians subscribe to natural selection and/or evolution? If so, do they think natural selection can work in non-living fields? Like medicine, monatary policy, government services etc.
Of course. Natural selection is a fact. And it is at work everywhere there is reproduction with random mutations, and a non-random selection mechanism. I don't imagine where you are going with this and I am curious.
I think the poster meant Social Darwinism as a social policy. As in not helping the poor.
If so, do they think natural selection can work in non-living fields?
Machine learning uses some genetic algorithms. So yes, it could.
Do you think it's possible that if a single anarchist society flourished for at least a couple of years, e.g. a seasteading platform, all governments would face the risk of collapse within the next decade?
Because it would be proven that anarchism brings more prosperity, and governments would be proven to be merely parastic entities? In that case, defense wouldn't be much of a problem, because everyone would have great revulsion towards an entity that cheated them to such great heights, and statism would begin an inevitable decline towards complete collapse. Just a theory.
HERE is a post I saw about defense in an anarchistic socuiety.
Fourty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls