Political Theory

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Sage — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:22:38 GMT

Anonymous Coward:

That worked out pretty well for Afghanistan...

USA: We want BinLadin

Afghans: Um, yeah, there are international laws and treaties dealing with extraditions and all that, what evidence do you have exactly?

USA: Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence, you have 48 hours to turn him over.

The rest is history.

It would only give them an excuse to invade more than anything else.

Then there's the pesky NAP.

I don't see how Afghanistan/USA is relevant. Osama wasn't president...

On NAP: the key point is that the belligerent government is the aggressor. Thus, the assassins are acting purely in self defense.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

ama gi — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:24:39 GMT

Adam:

I've been thinking about this a lot, so now I'd like to throw it open to discussion:

The only way I could see anarchy persisting is if there were no militaristic, expansionist governments nearby. If there were they would probably give into the temptation to come in and steal land and resources.

I read in one of the essays in "The Myth of National Defense" that you should set up a community that is more valuable to its neighbors left alone than messed with. The neighboring governments will resist the urge to take it over because they know they will make more money by leaving it alone and trading with it. This might work; but what happens when you get a government that decides (wrongly) that it should expand into your community? I think this sort of mentality can and does arise from time to time; so you have to be able to stop it.

It seems that to stop such a militaristic government, you have to band together enough people to resist them. That takes a charismatic leader and an organized military. The problem is: once such a leader steps up, how can you assure they will give up their power and return everything to normal once their job is finished? I could easily see such a charismatic leader arguing that their mere status as a leader acts as a deterrent against future invasions, and they would be right. What if that leader decides that they don't want the terms of their tenure open to the decision of the free-market, so they use their army to crush any competition that crops up? Once you have no competetion, you can charge whatever you want for your services and be as wasteful as you want. Such a leader could only be put down with a lot of bloodshed, and then you might just repeat the cycle. As long as there is outside pressure from militaristic neighbors, this will just keep happening.

Now that I think about it, you don't even need a nearby militaristic government, you just need a charismatic rich person from the community who can rally people behind a bogus ideology and buy a military.

I worry that if you try to maintain anarchy, you will have power struggles resulting in war after war after war which will be just as bad or worse than the wars we have under our democracy (the U.S.A.)

How do you avoid this?

I like the idea of citizen's militias. Each city (or a group of cities) could have their own all-volunteer unpaid militia. The militia would basically be a mutual-defense alliance between all of the members, giving every member an incentive to join. It could enforce law and order in its local area (i.e., take down armed robbers and serial killers), and could form alliances with surrounding militias to guard against foreign invasion. When enough alliances are formed, they can pool their resources and purchase tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, even nukcs. It would be an unstoppable force--and all voluntarily funded. Because it would be voluntarily funded, it would not be disposed to engage in foreign intervention; nobody wants to waste their money.

The militia would be widely dispersed, guarding every inch of territory, and the most populated areas would have the most protection. Plus, since it would involve unpaid volunteers, you wouldn't have to worry about the rich taking over; the soldiers would refuse to fight, or join the opposition.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Anonymous Coward — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 03:32:04 GMT

Sage:

On the subject of defense against governments, I really like the assassination argument:

If a foreign government becomes belligerent, private insurance companies could just offer a bounty on the aggressive president's head. Also, they could offer high level protection within the free territory for assassins - kind of like a witness protection program.

Thus, everyone working for the aggressor government has an incentive to kill the leader. I think this would scare off any potential imperialists, and encourage other governments to be peaceful (and disband).

That worked out pretty well for Afghanistan...

USA: We want BinLadin

Afghans: Um, yeah, there are international laws and treaties dealing with extraditions and all that, what evidence do you have exactly?

USA: Evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence, you have 48 hours to turn him over.

The rest is history.

It would only give them an excuse to invade more than anything else.

Then there's the pesky NAP.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

liberty student — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:37:45 GMT

Stranger:
You should not wish for that.

I don't think he was.

Stranger:
Things could get worse.

All the more reason to start marching for liberty.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Solredime — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:29:17 GMT

Sage:

On the subject of defense against governments, I really like the assassination argument:

If a foreign government becomes belligerent, private insurance companies could just offer a bounty on the aggressive president's head. Also, they could offer high level protection within the free territory for assassins - kind of like a witness protection program.

Thus, everyone working for the aggressor government has an incentive to kill the leader. I think this would scare off any potential imperialists, and encourage other governments to be peaceful (and disband).

Haven't heard that one before, but sounds great!

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Sage — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 20:19:21 GMT

On the subject of defense against governments, I really like the assassination argument:

If a foreign government becomes belligerent, private insurance companies could just offer a bounty on the aggressive president's head. Also, they could offer high level protection within the free territory for assassins - kind of like a witness protection program.

Thus, everyone working for the aggressor government has an incentive to kill the leader. I think this would scare off any potential imperialists, and encourage other governments to be peaceful (and disband).

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Stranger — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:54:33 GMT

fsk:

Based on my estimates, the collapse is 20-50 years away. I see momentum building towards an economic revolt against the way things are currently organized.

You should not wish for that. Things could get worse.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Stranger — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:53:13 GMT

The threat of a foreign invader is just one risk against many that you must insure against. If a neighboring state is highly militarized, any defense providers will have to maintain a large armament itself in order to secure its assets. As such it will be more expensive to purchase security in regions with aggressive neighbor than regions without, but once the threat has been defused, competition will force demilitarization and prices for security will fall, as it should be even under collective security (democracy).

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Nitroadict — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:10:25 GMT

fsk:

If a substantial number of people own a gun and know how to use it, then an invasion is not profitable.

Many people falsely believe that, without government, there would be total chaos. That is pro-government propaganda.

Yes & No; while it certaintly serves the government to perpetuate such a belief, I think it's much more rooted in the combination of familial authority at home, and a paternalistic State in which individuals look up to as a surrogate parent: Liberals looking towards the State as benevolent parent looking out for their interests, Conservatives looking towards the State as the ultimate authority.

I find a lot of that type of attitude is reinforced throughout pop culture & in society in general, but to argue where it originates would be similar to arguing whether the "chicken or the egg" came first.

I wouldn't want to say that based on that, striving for anarchy might be pointless as such people might be inclined to concentrate power towards oligarchies in order to re-create the role of a Parent for society (a new State), but I would definitley point it as a mental block that many would have when it comes to imagining a world or their own society without government.

On a bleaker note, arguing against the existience of government and/or The State sometimes feels like trying to convince a junkie to imagine not having their fix daily.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Solredime — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:51:13 GMT

As long as there will be enough people to spread the message, yes.

Otherwise, we'll see a reformed fascist or communist government rather than freedom. It's happened before, cunning bastards were in the right place at the right time to channel grief into political power.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

fsk — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:03:15 GMT

Based on my estimates, the collapse is 20-50 years away. I see momentum building towards an economic revolt against the way things are currently organized.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Solredime — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:54:28 GMT

Adam:

I guess I don't ever see that happening. You?

There was also something in "The Myth of National Defense" about allowing secession, in which case you could have a pocket of anarchy existing within the boundaries of a country, but I certainly don't see the U.S.A. allowing that to happen.

Almost certainly not in our lifetime. Experience says that the more problems a government causes (next great depression) the more it will grow. However, I recommend you read up on Agorism, or the "New Libertarian Manifesto" by Konkin. Those are so far, together with education, the best ideas I see.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

fsk — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:38:30 GMT

If a substantial number of people own a gun and know how to use it, then an invasion is not profitable.

Many people falsely believe that, without government, there would be total chaos. That is pro-government propaganda.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Adam — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:34:20 GMT

The only way I see anarchy forming in the first place is if the vast majority of the population becomes radical libertarians.

I guess I don't ever see that happening. You?

There was also something in "The Myth of National Defense" about allowing secession, in which case you could have a pocket of anarchy existing within the boundaries of a country, but I certainly don't see the U.S.A. allowing that to happen.

Re: How do you maintain anarchy in the face of militarism?

Solredime — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:27:08 GMT

The only way I see anarchy forming in the first place is if the vast majority of the population becomes radical libertarians. At which point in time, people would be far far less susceptible to bull****. Besides, the main indoctrination machine that makes people so gullible is the state and the public education system. Without it, people would be far more skeptical. Thus I find it unlikely that once anarchy is achieved within a community, that statism will once again rise.

As for foreign governments attacking, this is entirely possible. However, they will encounter a level of guerilla warfare around 10x higher than what happened in Vietnam. Imagine everybody armed, and a host of PDAs and insurance companies desperately interested in preserving their customers. It might happen, but I don't think it would end well for the invader. And no, an organised military with a charismatic leader is precisely what you don't want. The only chance a militarily inferior force has against a superior invader is decentralised guerilla warfare. For the same reasons that centralisation is inefficient in everything the government does, this also applies to the military. I can envisage this working perfectly well if competing PDAs organise pockets of resistances.

But even if once anarchy is achieved, it can be reversed, this does not invalidate anarchy. It's like a doctor saying to you he can remove a skin cancer, and you answer "Well there's no point, after all, it might come back again." (I got this last part from some other forum).