Political Theory

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:29:01 GMT

Battlefield ballistic missiles can, and frequently are, armed with conventional warheads. Furthermore, the platform is capable of supporting KE warheads, which are basically solid concrete (for point targets) or steel rods (for area targets). Additionally the chinese have an anti-ship "carrier killer" ballistic missile with KE warhead called the df-21d that is considered to be a game changer for naval warfare. I could have mentioned cruise missiles but they are considerably more expensive than ballistics.

this is just spitballing, however. Weapons systems dont make or break ideologies. "oh teh noes, they have the mind reading computer! They can finally purge all nonbelievers until no one is left!"

I'm not trying to make light of your position, I just dont see it. Government requires complicity. Although I will concede that, when subject to reductio ad absurdum, supporting my position requires me to resort to what amount to axioms for me.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Merlin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:37:48 GMT

Did we just come full circle? Nukes not allowed, we’re talking conventional warfare. If we factor in nukes than yes, a small freely financed agency can defend against a huge army. As I’ll never tire of repeating, nukes will oen day be remember as the technology that broke nation-states.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:21:06 GMT

Why are we even talking about(not talking about) g-a anyway? This is about territorial defense, and a firm can do that better than a military. Why? Calculation argument. Also, see "battlefield ballistic missile"

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:39:33 GMT

In the interest of not derailing the thread, I will simply state that we understand each other now. Guerilla anarchism is a subject that I consider dangerous anyway. Big bad brother, you know. I dont have to type it out in this thread in order to, you know, already know what will happen. Its praxeological.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Merlin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:33:54 GMT

Malachi,

I see what you mean. Of course modern warfare is not about one pivotal battle where all is lost or gained. But I do not think that guerrilla warfare or other forms of irregular warfare would be tolerated in a civilized society, and that a society that has progressed beyond the point of self-sufficient farmers would rather submit to an invader (with the exception of spectacularly savage ones) than tolerate the breakdown of order that guerrilla action entails.

A civilized society, I think, would prefer to wipe out the invader at the border. If it can’t, it would prefer to submit. I know these are very broad statements, and I’m not bringing much to argue for these conclusions, but that would really derail the thread.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Merlin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:28:08 GMT

Autolykos:

Merlin:
I don’t, neither do you. I guess a small army wouldn’t stand a chance, you guess it would.

The syntax of your earlier statement was that of a gnomic statement. So it certainly didn't sound like a guess to me. If you're backpedaling at this point, please be explicit about it.

I do not know why our discussions always follow a rather predictable pattern.

Now, I tend to be very explicit when I’m expressing certainty on some point, and I can assure you that that statement was not one such instance. I’m only as ‘sure’ that a small defense force would be destroyed by a larger one in the sense that I’m ‘sure’ that the euro will go to hell: I wouldn’t invest in either the euro or a small defense force set to battle a conventional army. That is it.

Autolykos:

Merlin:
And please, let us not slip into a definition thing on what it means for an agency to operate rationally. We all know our Mises.

Right, which is why I was confused by your apparent use of "rational" and "irrational". Per the Misesian definition of "rationality", any agent is rational, because all action is rational. So the notion of a "huge irrational army" makes no sense to me in that context. That's why I asked you to explain the necessarily different context you were working from.

I did not mean to express irrationality of ends, but of means, which was what we were discussing with Malachi. A compulsively financed army would not operate in a marketplace for its end service, thus would not be able to rationally allocate the means at its disposal to maximize the service rendered, except in very coarse terms. That is it.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Autolykos — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:14:28 GMT

Merlin:
I don’t, neither do you. I guess a small army wouldn’t stand a chance, you guess it would.

The syntax of your earlier statement was that of a gnomic statement. So it certainly didn't sound like a guess to me. If you're backpedaling at this point, please be explicit about it.

Merlin:
And please, let us not slip into a definition thing on what it means for an agency to operate rationally. We all know our Mises.

Right, which is why I was confused by your apparent use of "rational" and "irrational". Per the Misesian definition of "rationality", any agent is rational, because all action is rational. So the notion of a "huge irrational army" makes no sense to me in that context. That's why I asked you to explain the necessarily different context you were working from.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:07:13 GMT

“Can”. Neither of us can prove his point, we can only guess. My guess is that history speaks very clearly: small armies are at a huge disadvantage.

I think you are reading too much into my statements. I know all about attrition warfare. Your first statement seemed to imply that kinetic defense is necessarily costly due to economies of scale. My rejoinder is that the costliness is a result of the institution. They have coercive funding, meaning they have no profit mechanism to tell them what is efficient or inefficient. So you tell me that a large inefficient system can outproduce a small inefficient system. Great. Thats not my point. Private agents tasked with defense who have the time and experience to develop effective systems will necessarily outperform state militaries reliably, repeatedly, and consistently on a long enough timescale. This is so much the case that governments are leading the way in hiring private agencies for certain tasks.

I am sorry I lack the time and interest to define properly all my terms. I assume the other party can tell what I meant.

ok, I am tracking, but my problem in particular is with this issue. It is hard enough to define "war" and "winning vs losing a war" in this day and age. We cannot possibly discuss whether an army got the shit kicked out of it, or a mudhole monkey stomped in its chest etcetera.

in modern warfare, it is helpful, even vital to identify 5 things:

Who is fighting, what they are fighting about, how they are fighting, what these individual people are fighting for, and why they are fighting. Of course this may sound redundant but Martin van Creveld goes on to explain what he means. Basically you have got to understand that war can be viciously expensive, especially offense, technology, and centrally controlled warfare, yet war can be fought defensively, low-tech and decentralized, for basically ideas. This doesnt mean that missiles cannot blow poor people up, it means that there arent many advantages to shooting missiles at poor people, but it tends to bite you in the ass later on down the road.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Merlin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:40:53 GMT

Malachi:

Yes, and they can go broke before they actually manage to beat the shit out of anything except some tax revenues.

“Can”. Neither of us can prove his point, we can only guess. My guess is that history speaks very clearly: small armies are at a huge disadvantage.

Malachi:

Ignoring the calculation problem doesnt make it go away, it means you arent even calculating in theory.

I do not see where you got the idea that I was sweeping the calculation issue under the rug. I acknowledged it is an issue, but I also refuse to sweep all other issues under the rug. The balance is to be seen.

Malachi:

Also, as Autolykos referenced, your terms are beyond informal. "wack shit" in other words.

I am sorry I lack the time and interest to define properly all my terms. I assume the other party can tell what I meant.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Bert — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:37:02 GMT

That just begs the question - what is "the whole nation" exactly?

In the sense you are suggesting, and our modern way, would be the common political boundaries and it's inhabitants. For the sake of argument the USA is roughly an-cap, let's say there's no federal government, but still states in a geographical sense (this land mass is called Virginia, this land mass North Carolina, etc.) If a country attacked this continent as the United States, who would they be attacking? Only the specific geographical locations, but for a super power there's no potential threat from this "nation," because there's no common government to attack, and on the contrary to our current government with it's egalitarian and culturally standardized policy you'd more than likely see regional cultures and customs arise and flourish in their own way. Thus, in a cultural sense, it may vary as well as having no true political connections. Thus you have regions bound by common cultural features, and language. As far as currency goes if there's a private enterprise I wouldn't be surprised if there was a common currency for all mainland states that just so happened to be the best.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Merlin — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:35:58 GMT

Autolykos:

Merlin:
Indeed that is an argument, but of course not some trump argument. A huge irrational army ca still beat the shit out of a smaller, rational one.

How do you know? And what do you mean by "rational" and "irrational"?

I don’t, neither do you. I guess a small army wouldn’t stand a chance, you guess it would.

And please, let us not slip into a definition thing on what it means for an agency to operate rationally. We all know our Mises.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Autolykos — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:25:08 GMT

That just begs the question - what is "the whole nation" exactly?

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Bert — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:23:06 GMT

I don't believe there is such thing as "nation". It has nothing to do with feelings, which are, by the most part a result of constant indoctrination in public schools. And I would argue, that in free society, such thing as "nationalism" etc. would vanish (eventually). The concept "nation" is only useful for those seeking power and wanting to submit people around them into defending the idea of a state, so that's what lithuanian nation is all about, according to me.

Believe, is your belief on physical evidence, or is it just what you feel? You believe nationalism is a result of public schools, and would not exist in a free society. Yet, if someone who's Irish took deep pride and preservation of their ancestral culture and history, they would be a variant of a nationalist, same with the German, Norwegian, Italian, Spaniard, etc. Culture and custom exists in a free society, those deeply involved would be nationalists to those who want to view it from a political or cultural lense.

You are conflicting cultural nationalism with that of a political kind. When people speak of national defense they are referring to that of the whole nation, and in our case the entire USA from an external threat. I'm sure when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor there was a large feeling and application of national defense, that the nation (in our case all groups of people/cultures who live on this land) must defend themselves.

The libertarian or an-cap perspective is how to utilize resources in the most effecient manner for national defense, and in Hoppe's Private Production of Defense he goes into this. They remove the state, and build it up from private defense agencies and insurance companies (which seem to play a bigger role than one thinks) in regards to a national or large-scale defense industry.

Thus, for us, national = the whole nation, and what's the best way to protect the entire nation from an external threat of war and attack? You'll find out if you read Hoppe's book at the convenient price of $5.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Malachi — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:52:33 GMT

Merlin:

Malachi:
economies of scale dont solve the calculation problem

Indeed that is an argument, but of course not some trump argument. A huge irrational army ca still beat the shit out of a smaller, rational one.

Yes, and they can go broke before they actually manage to beat the shit out of anything except some tax revenues. Ignoring the calculation problem doesnt make it go away, it means you arent even calculating in theory. Also, as Autolykos referenced, your terms are beyond informal. "wack shit" in other words.

Re: National Defence? What a heck is that?

Autolykos — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:49:45 GMT

To respond to the OP directly:

MaikU:
Isn't it just another myth invented by statists? Everytime I hear anarchists arguing in favor of so called "national defense" I die a little inside...seriously, why is that? I personally do not give a crap about nationalities, races etc. at least on economical sense, so what is it to defend? How free market society can support "national defense"? Isn't it a statist concept that differentiate "us" from "them"? Isn't it necessary to have a State in order to have a "national defense"?

Enlighten me, please. What anarchists mean exactly when they say "we need to have some sort of national defense"? Why national? Why mere "defense" is not sufficient?

Again, word "national" in my book is another variation of "statist" (adjective).

The word "nation" originally connoted kinship - it comes from the Latin word natio (genitive nationis) which is derived from the verb nascor (infinitive nasci) meaning "to be born". However, kinship groups typically occupied exclusive territories in earlier times, so the word also came to denote a kinship group's territory. As time went on, kinship groups gave rise to more and more descendants, and the original basis of the kinship became forgotten. Kinship was then presumed based on mutually intelligible language.

While nations could still exist (or be presumed to exist) in an anarcho-capitalist society in the kinship sense, I don't think they'd exist in the territorial sense. So to speak of "national defense" in anarcho-capitalism in the territorial sense is ludicrous IMHO.