Ban-Evader:You can leave the US and renounce your citizenship at any time. Does this make a society voluntarist?
What are you calling "a society"?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
What do you think is the actual vs. intended purpose of a military?
To oppress the libertyloving proletariat.
Ban-Evader:To oppress the libertyloving proletariat.
How about you give me a straight answer for once? Or is that too difficult for you?
Autolykos: Aren't warlords just smaller states?
Aren't warlords just smaller states?
To serve the president and his cronies.
I see your premises, Phi, and raise you the fact they only hold in a specific society that may or may not exist in the real world. But okay, if those premises are correct, then the rest of your argument holds.
Yet, all of your what-ifs are pertaining to (as is the entire focus of the thread, essentially) a hypothetical free society. So again, in a free society... You have yet to form a valid argument against said society. If anything, your arguments are actually unfavorable to the current model of the world.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Malachi:A state is a social fiction that has legal personhood, like a corporation. The state and the corporation were invented about the same time. A warlord is a person who has the allegiance of mean-at-arms and the means of conducting warfare. One is a person, the other is a social fiction.
Yeah, I tried editing the post, but the amazing forum software wouldn't let me. Let me rephrase: isn't warlordism just statism on a smaller scale?
Yes. That's the irony.
Ban-Evader:To serve the president and his cronies.
Let's try this again. How about you give me a straight answer for once? Or is that too difficult for you?
Just so you know, I have no problem repeating this ad infinitum.
Let's try this again. How about you give me a straight answer for once? Or is that too difficult for you? Just so you know, I have no problem repeating this ad infinitum.
Alright, let me give it a shot. The actual purpose was already given. The purported purpose was to kill anyone attacking the country.
Ban-Evader:Alright, let me give it a shot. The actual purpose was already given. The purported purpose was to kill anyone attacking the country.
Where exactly was the actual purpose already given? And do you really think that the purported purpose is to specifically kill anyone attacking the country?
Where exactly was the actual purpose already given?
I'll go with Malachi's explanation.
And do you really think that the purported purpose is to specifically kill anyone attacking the country?
That's what guns are for.
Are guns the only weapons that military forces possess? Is the purpose of a gun only ever to kill specifically, as opposed to e.g. wounding or even just scaring off?
Autolykos: Malachi:A state is a social fiction that has legal personhood, like a corporation. The state and the corporation were invented about the same time. A warlord is a person who has the allegiance of mean-at-arms and the means of conducting warfare. One is a person, the other is a social fiction. Yeah, I tried editing the post, but the amazing forum software wouldn't let me. Let me rephrase: isn't warlordism just statism on a smaller scale?
Are guns the only weapons that military forces possess?
Nope
Is the purpose of a gun only ever to kill specifically, as opposed to e.g. wounding or even just scaring off?
Sure, you have a point there.
My understanding is that, historically, warlords have typically been tribal leaders, so there's also typically a sense of shared identity under warlordism (namely that of the tribe).
Autolykos: Are guns the only weapons that military forces possess? Is the purpose of a gun only ever to kill specifically, as opposed to e.g. wounding or even just scaring off?
Ban-Evader:Sure, you have a point there.
So then you agree that the purpose of guns isn't only ever to kill specifically, which means the purported purpose of a military isn't only ever to kill specifically - which contradicts what you said previously. So what would you now say the purported purpose of a military is?
Auto, what was your point with the gun thing?
>The purported purpose of a military is?
To deter attack, I guess.
Answer my question, Evader of Bans.
Nevermind, you did answer it. This awesome forum isn't letting me edit my posts.
That was my answer. Are you typing?
But what's with the "I guess"? Are you just telling me what you think I want to hear? I'd rather you tell me what you really think.
The intended purpose of the military is to defend society.
Come on, ask me what society means.
Malachi:The way I define the terms, tribes are aborigines, or people inspired by primitivist ideas to live in a neotribal setting, or somesuch. I consider a warlord to be an actual person. If we are talking about tribes, they arent states either, rather they are a people, and the tribe has no social fiction. Thats a generalization, I wouldnt doubt that some tribes had a collective social identity that was all of them and none of them, just like I wouldnt doubt that some tribes had forms of coercive government. I will add that I dont see the relevance in comparing these antecedent forms of social organization to states. Maybe thats why I keep digressing.
In a nutshell, I think the state is far more ancient than you think it is. I can elaborate on this tomorrow.
Ban-Evader:Come on, ask me what society means.
I don't care how predictable you think I am. Yes, I would like to know just what you mean by "society". I already asked you once before. While you're at it, you can also tell me what a military is intended to defend "society" from.
I am an American fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
Defend society from any threats .
Very funny, Ban-Evader. So out of the five definitions for "society" in that link, which one are you using here?
I'm not sure where this is going, Auto.
Anyway, if the world was like Phi wanted it to be and people had a specific culture conducive to it, then sure, his idea would work. But I'm talking about a world that doesn't necessarily have those characteristics (ie, the real world).
Going back, it isn't clear why ancaps expect agencies to engage in certain types of anticompetitive behavior (like elimination of aggressive agencies), but not other types of anticompetitive behavior. Claiming that consumers will chose other agencies ignores the point that those choices would be eliminated by anticompetitive behavior.
Well keep in mind, mustang19, that there are people that do believe in liberty and property and understand economics. Those people wish to have their society now. What's funny is the State refuses to let us be in peace. And that's the point. The State is in NO ONE'S interest. They are parasites and needs every host possible. Would you be opposed to a state or two in the union seceding and becoming free societies?
If the people in that state decided that they wanted to secede, yes.
*As in, yes, I would support them in their succession if they wanted to secede (without reinstating slavery or anything).
Correct, no slavery. But what if it was a county? Or a city? Or a town? Or just an individual with his own property?
Sure, if it was any kind of reasonable social grouping that could provide for itself. You should be free to not pay taxes as long as you're not using dollars.