Suppose an anarcho-capitalist (or minarchist, for that matter) country found itself in a war against a centrally planned, inflationist state. How would it go about defending itself? The inflationist state has at it's diposal virtually unlimited ability, at least for a while, to cause weapons to be produced. What has the anarcho-capitalist country got? Is any of the US' recent experience, say from Vietnam forward, relevant?
I heard the idea thrown around that printing out counterfeit money could be used as a weapon against any invader.
tfr000: Suppose an anarcho-capitalist (or minarchist, for that matter) country found itself in a war against a centrally planned, inflationist state. How would it go about defending itself? The inflationist state has at it's diposal virtually unlimited ability, at least for a while, to cause weapons to be produced. What has the anarcho-capitalist country got? Is any of the US' recent experience, say from Vietnam forward, relevant?
An anarcho-capitalist society also has goods. They just coordinate it differently.
Guess who has more goods and better coordination.
More liberal nations tend to defeat less liberal nations. Hoppe notes this along with the observation that there is a causative component to this... because liberal nations can defeat less liberal nations, therefore, they are more likely to make war. Perversely, the very liberality of democracies is one component of what makes them so aggressive.
Also, for a real-world example of a State versus an anarchy, the Ethiopian war against Somalis is a good example of this... the Ethiopians quickly rolled over Somali towns, only to find them largely empty. The Somali security forces regrouped and pretty much kicked Ethiopia's ass. Now the Ethiopians are back, trying to sucker other African nations to pay for their Somali adventures through the African Union (AMISOM) but it's just not working. The so-called "Transitional Federal Government" in Somalia is a lot like the Green Zone in Baghdad or Kandahar in Afghanistan... a heavily barricaded enclave of bureaucrats who dare not leave and occasionally send out armed convoys to inflict terror on the populace in the name of "fighting insurgents." Who dreams up these strategies? Joint Chiefs? Langley? MI6? Who??
The areas around Mogadishu and southward have become more state-like with the surge in power of the extortionary al-Shabaab group but the northern portion, Somaliland, is still fairly anarcho-capitalistic. And, notably, that is the most peaceful and stable part of Somalia (but I do believe they are still quite poor).
Clayton -
Didn't Great Britian crush anarchist Ireland?
The ancap PDAs would not be dragged into a silly ground war on the invading State's terms. The PDAs would, in an effort to minimize losses, choose the most direct and efficient course of action to protect their client's property, and would very likely take out the leadership of the invading state as one of the first courses of action in any conflict.
Interesting question, though I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much a flexible system that is driven entirely by the individuals within it, therefore, any 'ancap' society is only as strong as the people who inhabit it – as I see it. The centrally planned invader might have resources, manpower, whatever, but it is challenging a decentralised enemy who will; probably know the terrain better; have a much greater desire to stand and fight to the bitter end; have the added advantage of buying equivalent or superior military tech to the invader; or hire PMCs…
For perspective, Soviet Russia easily laid waste to Nazi Germany because of; sustained Allied bombing of industry and civilians in the country's 'hinterland'; the conflicting methods and goals of the German leadership and that Russians, irregardless of social status, were absolutely committed no matter the human cost to repelling the 'teutonic invaders'. Ultimately, the Russians demoralised the Germans through sheer bloody attrition and swept them aside in 1944-45 after France and Italy fell to the Allies.
Both Russia and Germany were centrally planned economies at the time and would have probably bled each other dry in decades of bloody, cruel and vicious attrition warfare – had their been no Allied offensive in the west.
In the case of Vietnam et al, the war was lost due to a myriad of factors that largely stemmed from all-round incompetence, arrogance and the fact that ordinary Americans who weren't in the jungles, rightly, had no taste for military adventurism against Vietnamese peasants. The same can be applied to Iraq and Afghanistan's cases.
Ask yourself this: how could the 'biggest, most advanced military in the world' be stalled for eight years (and counting) by a country with no airforce, army or navy but mere roving bands of fighters? Even after the lessons of the soviet invasion in 1979?
Overall, there is no reason to assume an ancap society would immediately crumble under the treads of a centrally planned army. The survivability of the ancap society would hinge entirely on the character, temperament and goals of the people within it and survive or perish accordingly.
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
Very likely there would be various insurance companies which would hire out private military contractors to neutralize the invaders in the most cost effective manner possible. Some likely methods which come to mind are bribery, assassination, letters of marque, the application of WMDs to invading conventional forces, a heavy reliance on air forces (since it is necessary to have air superiority to make any large scale land offensive possible, ever since WW2), and a propaganda campaign targeted to the opposing countries population.
This is an empirical question that can only be answered through experience, and any aprioristic speculation on this matter is not going to give any answers of much value.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: This is an empirical question that can only be answered through experience, and any aprioristic speculation on this matter is not going to give any answers of much value.
There is a difference between prediction, forecasting, and what you seem to be proposing, the "let's wait and see approach".
Mises:The anticipation of events in the sphere explored by the natural sciences is based upon the categories of regularity and causality. There are in some byroads bridges that would collapse if a truck loaded with ten tons passed over them. We do not expect that such a load would make the George Washington bridge tumble. We firmly trust in the categories that are the foundations of our physical and chemical knowledge. In dealing with the reactions of our fellow men we cannot rely upon such a regularity. We assume that, by and large, the future conduct of people will, other things being equal, not deviate without special reason from their past conduct, because we assume that what determined their past conduct will also determine their future conduct. However different we may know ourselves to be from other people, we try to guess how they will react to changes in their environment. Out of what we know about a man's past behavior, we construct a scheme about what we call his character. We assume that this character will not change if no special reasons interfere, and, going a step farther, we even try to foretell how definite changes in conditions will affect his reactions. Compared with the seemingly absolute certainty provided by some of the natural sciences, these assumptions and all the conclusions derived from them appear as rather shaky; the positivists may ridicule them as unscientific. Yet they are the only available approach to the problems concerned and indispensable for any action to be accomplished in a social environment. Understanding does not deal with the praxeological side of human action. It refers to value judgments and the choice of ends and of means on the part of our fellow men. It refers not to the field of praxeology and economics, but to the field of history. It is a thymological category. The concept of a human character is a thymological concept. Its concrete content in each instance is derived from historical experience. No action can be planned and executed without understanding of the future. Even an action of an isolated individual is guided by definite assumptions about the actor's future value judgments and is so far determined by the actor's image of his own character. The term "speculate" was originally employed to signify any kind of meditation and forming of an opinion. Today it is employed with an opprobrious connotation to disparage those men who, in the capitalistic market economy, excel in better anticipating the future reactions of their fellow men than the average man does. The rationale of this semantic usage is to be seen in the inability of shortsighted people to notice the uncertainty of the future. These people fail to realize that all production activities aim at satisfying the most urgent future wants and that today no certainty about future conditions is available. They are not aware of the fact that there is a qualitative problem in providing for the future. In all the writings of the socialist authors there is not the slightest allusion to be found to the fact that one of the main problems of the conduct of production activities is to anticipate the future demands of the consumers. Every action is a speculation, i.e., guided by a definite opinion concerning the uncertain conditions of the future. Even in short run activities this uncertainty prevails. Nobody can know whether some unexpected fact will not render vain all that he has provided for the next day or the next hour.
In dealing with the reactions of our fellow men we cannot rely upon such a regularity. We assume that, by and large, the future conduct of people will, other things being equal, not deviate without special reason from their past conduct, because we assume that what determined their past conduct will also determine their future conduct. However different we may know ourselves to be from other people, we try to guess how they will react to changes in their environment. Out of what we know about a man's past behavior, we construct a scheme about what we call his character. We assume that this character will not change if no special reasons interfere, and, going a step farther, we even try to foretell how definite changes in conditions will affect his reactions. Compared with the seemingly absolute certainty provided by some of the natural sciences, these assumptions and all the conclusions derived from them appear as rather shaky; the positivists may ridicule them as unscientific. Yet they are the only available approach to the problems concerned and indispensable for any action to be accomplished in a social environment.
Understanding does not deal with the praxeological side of human action. It refers to value judgments and the choice of ends and of means on the part of our fellow men. It refers not to the field of praxeology and economics, but to the field of history. It is a thymological category. The concept of a human character is a thymological concept. Its concrete content in each instance is derived from historical experience.
No action can be planned and executed without understanding of the future. Even an action of an isolated individual is guided by definite assumptions about the actor's future value judgments and is so far determined by the actor's image of his own character.
The term "speculate" was originally employed to signify any kind of meditation and forming of an opinion. Today it is employed with an opprobrious connotation to disparage those men who, in the capitalistic market economy, excel in better anticipating the future reactions of their fellow men than the average man does. The rationale of this semantic usage is to be seen in the inability of shortsighted people to notice the uncertainty of the future. These people fail to realize that all production activities aim at satisfying the most urgent future wants and that today no certainty about future conditions is available. They are not aware of the fact that there is a qualitative problem in providing for the future. In all the writings of the socialist authors there is not the slightest allusion to be found to the fact that one of the main problems of the conduct of production activities is to anticipate the future demands of the consumers.
Every action is a speculation, i.e., guided by a definite opinion concerning the uncertain conditions of the future. Even in short run activities this uncertainty prevails. Nobody can know whether some unexpected fact will not render vain all that he has provided for the next day or the next hour.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
E. R. Olovetto: laminustacitus: This is an empirical question that can only be answered through experience, and any aprioristic speculation on this matter is not going to give any answers of much value. There is a difference between prediction, forecasting, and what you seem to be proposing, the "let's wait and see approach".
No, I am stating that how political systems will form is simply outside the realm of a priori speculation, and anything that does so should be condemned to fire. There is no point to forecasting if one has absolutely no information regarding what one is trying to forecast, and no Mises quote will help you with that.
In fact, that "lets wait and see" approach is all that you can soundly advocate due to the fact that inquiry about the nature of society's institutional structure (and this is truly what the original post is about) is firmly outside of the realm of priori speculation, and only experience can reveal any knowledge about such a question. In order to utilize reason, we must accept its limits, and we must accept the fact that truly no man has knowledge (only hypotheses) about how a anarcho-capitalist society would take shape thus rendering any aprioristic answers to the question posted an abuse of pure reason.
Do you have anything to say about what Mises wrote?
You've basically restated your same proposition, that all understanding in the social sciences relies on the same methodology as the natural sciences. Your scientism is committed to this category error.
Armies and field battles are strictly a phenomenon of territorial warfare.
Suppose that you have a fancy camo uniform, an M1A2 MBT and you declare war on me. Ok. I surrender. Your tank now occupies my driveway. Now what? At some point you have to get out of the tank and go home to your wife and kids and sleep and shop in the grocery store.
The only real danger of armies is that they have a suicidal believe in obedience. As Napolean said, "A man does not have himself killed for a halfpence a day of for a petty distinction." You can't reward a man for dying today with a paycheck tomorrow. No professional soldier is a threat to anyone except insofar as he is inclined to commit suicide for no purpose other than the valuation of simple obedience above all else in the world.
What specific purpose pertaining to the annexation of Somalia could an Ethopian soldier plausibly have? One can hardly imagine such a thing.
tfr000: How would it go about defending itself?
How would it go about defending itself?
Read Hoppe.
I Samuel 8
I re-iterate my point that an an-cap society would only be as 'good' as the individuals who comprised it. Whether they succeed, or fail, is dependant on the circumstances, terrain, available resources, quality of leadership and overall goal; how committed are they really to defending this society?
An an-cap society would have certain advantages over the centrally-planned enemy, the greatest asset being the decentralisation of command, of course.
War is not really a case of "A has this; B has that, so therefore A will win." War is typically fluid after the fighting has begun, as by then, plans are constantly changed to deal with things intelligence didn't know about, equipment jamming, vehicles breaking down, mutiny in the ranks, fatigue, defections…
What is much more likely is that an an-cap society would be subverted from within by enemy agents, using either violence or subtlety. The society would have to be the ultimate exclusive club and restrict entry to those who were either personally known by someone already on the inside, or who had something to offer – those looking for a free lunch need not apply.
AndrewR: I re-iterate my point that an an-cap society would only be as 'good' as the individuals who comprised it. Whether they succeed, or fail, is dependant on the circumstances, terrain, available resources, quality of leadership and overall goal; how committed are they really to defending this society? An an-cap society would have certain advantages over the centrally-planned enemy, the greatest asset being the decentralisation of command, of course. War is not really a case of "A has this; B has that, so therefore A will win." War is typically fluid after the fighting has begun, as by then, plans are constantly changed to deal with things intelligence didn't know about, equipment jamming, vehicles breaking down, mutiny in the ranks, fatigue, defections… What is much more likely is that an an-cap society would be subverted from within by enemy agents, using either violence or subtlety. The society would have to be the ultimate exclusive club and restrict entry to those who were either personally known by someone already on the inside, or who had something to offer – those looking for a free lunch need not apply.
The fundamental distinction is that, within a typical 20th century, Western nation, the character of defense is inherently collectivist. The public, by-and-large, thinks of defense in collectivist terms... the nation as tribe-writ-large. In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalistic society, defense would be of property (assets), not boundaries (except insofar as these boundaries delimit property) or ideological visions. I could imagine a large, multi-billion dollar manufacturing plant - insured to the nth degree against destruction by armed aggressors - surrounded by a community of residential homes not only because there are jobs there but because of the expectation of homeowners that they can "free ride" off the defense of the plant by simply locating near it. In the event of an armed invasion, the occupants would pack what they had time to gather and flee (a bit like fleeing a hurricane or other natural disaster), leaving the defense of their homes and property in the hands of the corporate defense company retained by the defense insurance corporation to protect the manufacturing plant. A few crazies might even stay behind with their guns to protect their property and maybe get a piece of the action (or die). Of course, that's just in my imagination.
tfr000: Suppose an anarcho-capitalist (or minarchist, for that matter) country found itself in a war against a centrally planned, inflationist state. How would it go about defending itself?
Suppose an anarcho-capitalist (or minarchist, for that matter) country found itself in a war against a centrally planned, inflationist state. How would it go about defending itself?
What's an anarcho-capitalist country anyway? Is this short hand for "all people within x geographical territory?" And the war is against every single person and property owner in that territory?
I understand the intent of the question, but I think part of the problem lies with viewing the free society as a country. If the question is just "how will you defend against the entire Russian army nuking your neighborhood to take the gold mine underneath your houses," then I would say that there is nothing we can really do.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
mikachusetts: If the question is just "how will you defend against the entire Russian army nuking your neighborhood to take the gold mine underneath your houses," then I would say that there is nothing we can really do.
If the question is just "how will you defend against the entire Russian army nuking your neighborhood to take the gold mine underneath your houses," then I would say that there is nothing we can really do.
I disagree with this. A natural social order is not incompatible with defense from even large-scale attacks.
ClaytonB: mikachusetts: If the question is just "how will you defend against the entire Russian army nuking your neighborhood to take the gold mine underneath your houses," then I would say that there is nothing we can really do. I disagree with this. A natural social order is not incompatible with defense from even large-scale attacks. Clayton -
You are right about compatibility. I guess what I really wanted to say is that there is no guarantee that any "country" could defend itself. If a region was made up of people like me, we would probably give up very quickly and kill ourselves. A region made up of determined people like Clayton, who fund defense organizations, have economic bargaining chips, etc. might fare very well in a warfare situation.
E. R. Olovetto:You've basically restated your same proposition, that all understanding in the social sciences relies on the same methodology as the natural sciences. Your scientism is committed to this category error.
Honestly, this comment shows that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Accuse my of scientism as much as you want, you obviously don't understand what scientism is if you are accusing me of it as well, but it just goes to show you can't make a coherent point against me (the irony is that topics like this are just as much of an abuse of reason as scientism is).
Furthermore, you are absolutely abusing praxeology by stating that inquiries about the future institutional structure of society is open to aprioristic speculation. In fact, I did address the Mises quote, contrary to what you've stated here:
E. R. Olovetto:Do you have anything to say about what Mises wrote?
I did so here:
laminustacitus:In fact, that "lets wait and see" approach is all that you can soundly advocate due to the fact that inquiry about the nature of society's institutional structure (and this is truly what the original post is about) is firmly outside of the realm of priori speculation, and only experience can reveal any knowledge about such a question. In order to utilize reason, we must accept its limits, and we must accept the fact that truly no man has knowledge (only hypotheses) about how a anarcho-capitalist society would take shape thus rendering any aprioristic answers to the question posted an abuse of pure reason.
In fact, I am absolutely sure that Mises would have agreed with me here, and this was a very important point that Hayek, who wrote The Counter-Revolution of Science, made about the abuse of reason. The future state of society is an empirical problem (for instance, do you really think that praxeology will reveal, for instance, the end of the war in Afghanistan, and what would be its results?), and hence experience is the only means to gain knowledge about it - speculation can be made, but at the end of the day such speculation is nothing but a hypothesis that must be tested against experience.
Next time you respond, Olovetto, I hope you actually know what you are talking about rather than vomiting up some talking-points against empiricism. Maybe you should even read Kant's discussion in The Critique of Pure Reason about the proper sphere of aprioristic investigation (after all Mises is very much a Kantian in his economic methodology), or read Hayek's writings about how speculation like this is an absolute betrayal of reason.
Jesse:Read Hoppe.
Done. Fascinating. A bit of an eye-opener, actually. I now understand why slums exist and what an anarcho-capatalist protection against pollution might be (something for which libertarian doctrine never seemed to have a real answer).
Excellent. Speaking of eye-openers, have you read Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable? It's a little bit off the subject of this thread, but he goes into detail on pollution issues, slums, and many other things. It's available in the literature section, in both audio and .pdf format. I highly recommend it.
The very essence of war, as opposed to simple massacre, is the uncertainty of the outcome. If the outcome of a conflict is known in advance, it is not a war.
The fact is that it cannot be determined if hypothetical anarcho-capitalists could with certainty defeat the state, but that is not an argument against anarcho-capitalism - quite the opposite, it is a proof of the legitimate war-fighting and protective abilities of the anarcho-capitalists that the state could not massacre them with impunity.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
laminustacitus: E. R. Olovetto:You've basically restated your same proposition, that all understanding in the social sciences relies on the same methodology as the natural sciences. Your scientism is committed to this category error. Honestly, this comment shows that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Accuse my of scientism as much as you want, you obviously don't understand what scientism is if you are accusing me of it as well, but it just goes to show you can't make a coherent point against me (the irony is that topics like this are just as much of an abuse of reason as scientism is). Furthermore, you are absolutely abusing praxeology by stating that inquiries about the future institutional structure of society is open to aprioristic speculation. In fact, I did address the Mises quote, contrary to what you've stated here: E. R. Olovetto:Do you have anything to say about what Mises wrote? I did so here: laminustacitus:In fact, that "lets wait and see" approach is all that you can soundly advocate due to the fact that inquiry about the nature of society's institutional structure (and this is truly what the original post is about) is firmly outside of the realm of priori speculation, and only experience can reveal any knowledge about such a question. In order to utilize reason, we must accept its limits, and we must accept the fact that truly no man has knowledge (only hypotheses) about how a anarcho-capitalist society would take shape thus rendering any aprioristic answers to the question posted an abuse of pure reason. In fact, I am absolutely sure that Mises would have agreed with me here, and this was a very important point that Hayek, who wrote The Counter-Revolution of Science, made about the abuse of reason. The future state of society is an empirical problem (for instance, do you really think that praxeology will reveal, for instance, the end of the war in Afghanistan, and what would be its results?), and hence experience is the only means to gain knowledge about it - speculation can be made, but at the end of the day such speculation is nothing but a hypothesis that must be tested against experience. Next time you respond, Olovetto, I hope you actually know what you are talking about rather than vomiting up some talking-points against empiricism. Maybe you should even read Kant's discussion in The Critique of Pure Reason about the proper sphere of aprioristic investigation (after all Mises is very much a Kantian in his economic methodology), or read Hayek's writings about how speculation like this is an absolute betrayal of reason.
ha ha ha ha
I have little time to really consider what you wrote but let me just ask you how you feel about the following. I will try to get back to you tonight. (trying to avoid a snowstorm and have to drive a few hours)
I just want to make sure we are on the same page here. I want you to address my previous point too because you seem very lost. Do you understand the difference between prediction and forecasting?
I suspect that such an ancap society wouldn't even come under the same concepts as utilized in theories of warfare and here's why. Consider how companies setup their infrastructure the world. They need capital and customers. Capital is a complex component holding things like buildings, factories, employees, contractors, and resources (which this component is also complex as it covers a wide array of items onto itself...). Customers are just about anyone that can enjoy the use of a company's product/service, so it can be B2B, B2P, and etc.
Anyways, my point in this illustration is that a company in this example may require at minimum some land to occupy as obviously people and products (or services) need space to be utilized, but the important feature is that it can be any land that fulfill the requirement for the company's purposes. That means a company can literally have its product produced many ways that don't result in a centralized infrastructure. To steal a phrase from RAH in his novel Friday, "Where is IBM?" And that question is very important because a company has no real territory, nor does it need territory. It simply needs capital and customers, all other factors can be described as accidents of its own history.
Thus to attack IBM or any other company requires assassins as it's the brains of the company operations that count (as it does for a military strangely enough). Attacking a single building full of accounts on IBM/company payroll won't hurt it where it counts, it will count it as a loss of operating in a hostile environment and move on. But if you kill off its key engineers or managers, then you can cripple it or have it relent in its operations (forcing it into receivership and liquidation).
Similarly, an ANCAP society would be an animal that is very much independent from territorial claims and concerns, rather it would live or die by its brains and social bonds. If you can eliminate the brains, then it's helpless. If you can eliminate its bonds, it ceases to exist. But all other factors in terms of war, such as fronts and territories have no applicability to it.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
ladyattis: Similarly, an ANCAP society would be an animal that is very much independent from territorial claims and concerns, rather it would live or die by its brains and social bonds. If you can eliminate the brains, then it's helpless. If you can eliminate its bonds, it ceases to exist. But all other factors in terms of war, such as fronts and territories have no applicability to it.
In war, the objectives define the weapons, not the other way around. This is why tanks, fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons are useless against non-state fighting organizations, for example.
War after the state will look much more medieval, consisting mostly of raids, short sieges and random massacres. (Like this battle.)
Stranger:In war, the objectives define the weapons, not the other way around. This is why tanks, fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons are useless against non-state fighting organizations, for example. War after the state will look much more medieval, consisting mostly of raids, short sieges and random massacres. (Like this battle.)
QFT/E.