How Would an Anarcho-Capitalist Society Repel Invasion?

Can Anarcho-Capitalist Defense Forces Replace a Government Military?

The final vestige of someone clinging to government force is often the military. Especially when we’re dealing with folks who may have been more right leaning in their previous political life, the military holds a special place in the hearts of statists. We’ve all been raised our entire lives of course, to believe that the troops protect our freedom. These “heroes” put themselves in harms way to protect us from monsters all over the world, and we are taught that we owe everything to them for so doing.

Thus, it can be difficult for one to realize that militarism is not a heroic station for one to occupy. The fact of the matter is, it’s not even a job, it’s a welfare program for sociopaths. Very difficult to explain that to most people, and while anti-military memes are very popular in anarchist circles, we often find fury like no other from the general public for posting them.

It makes a certain amount of sense to have trouble seeing the military for what it is. None of us have ever seen market based protection services that could possibly do battle with modern military power. Fighter jets, helicopter gunships, missiles, atomic weapons, it hardly seems to make sense for a private entity to own such dangerous weapons. What economic benefit could possibly be gained in a market environment by spending that much money on things that have next to no practical purpose outside of aggression?

Yesterday I addressed crime in a free society, and I originally intended to include invasion by a foreign government in that article as a more thorough piece on defense in general. I decided to split the two subjects when I realized that article was getting rather long and could go on for an eternity. I would encourage you to read that piece first if you haven’t already done so, because understanding the basic structure of protection services as I envision them will go a long way in making sense of what follows here.

This is heavily influenced by Stefan Molyneux’s “Practical Anarchy“, and that book is also an excellent reference.

Where I differ from Molyneux here primarily is in how the State ceases to exist in a given geographic area. Molyneux envisions a multigenerational path to freedom where society basically just evolves away from violence. I do not think this is possible, I don’t even think it is desirable, and it certainly is not going to happen within my lifetime. I aim to see a free society before I die, so hoping against hope that future generations solve this problem, to me, seems dangerous and irresponsible. Those who are alive today, if they can see what is going on in the world, should be working towards bringing an end to this insanity, not leaving it for their children and grandchildren to worry about.

Anarcho-Capitalist Defense

Anarcho-Capitalist Defense

Evolving away from violence will not make for an efficient defense force. I firmly believe it is mankind’s aversion to violence that gives us statism, not his propensity for it. The loudest gun control advocates on Earth will call themselves pacifists, it matters not to them that someone else will go out and do violence on their behalf to confiscate the weapons. They are trying to do away with their own personal responsibility for violence in the world, and so they put that responsibility on the shoulders of the people they call government. Once someone can do away with their own personal responsibility for violence, and still have it carried out, it should come as no surprise to anybody that the worst people on Earth end up doing unspeakably horrific acts of violence on a daily basis.

If people were even only mentally prepared to cope with their own responsibility for violence in the world, there would be no government. They would not look at police and soldiers as heroes, because police and soldiers would be doing nothing extraordinary. “Oh, you shoot bad guys? Me too. Pay for your own drinks”. It is because most people are terrified of violence that they look at police and soldiers as heroes. They can’t imagine defending themselves, and so they look at the people who undertake this responsibility for them as god like. Level that playing field, and all will be right with the world.

It is important to understand this, because how a society defends itself depends entirely on how it comes to be in the first place. If a society simply shuns violence altogether and raises their children to see use of force as evil, if they are willing to tolerate violence being used against them by their own government without defending themselves, then they are terribly unlikely to violently resist a foreign invasion and occupation. In this, the statists would be correct that a free society would simply be overrun by a foreign government, and all their efforts would be for naught. On the other hand, if a people were educated to know that it is moral, and just, and practical to violently resist government force, foreign or domestic, then it would be pretty much impossible for any government to subjugate them.

The source of the quote is unconfirmed, but in pro gun circles you’ll often hear a quote attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto that goes “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Whether he actually said this or not, it still makes a lot of sense. Foreign troops marching down a suburban street, in a heavily armed neighborhood where people were willing to shoot at foreign invaders, would essentially become a shooting gallery. Plenty of people will risk their lives, but almost nobody walks into certain death. Imagine rifles sticking out of every window on a street, and all of them opening fire, nobody, not even a soldier, will walk down that street, no matter what his orders were.

Some of the same people who tell you it would be immoral, or impossible to overthrow their own government, would be the first ones making pipe bombs in their garage to defend it once the marauders in their neighborhood were flying a different flag. Certainly, there isn’t much men with rifles and IED’s can do to defend against air strikes and atomic bombs, but I have yet to see a war in this world where the goal was extermination and the destruction of all resources. Generally, a foreign government invades a place to subjugate the people inside of it and install a puppet government that will extract from them the fruits of their labor for generations to come. This simply would not be possible if the people in that area were unwilling to tolerate it, and prepared to use violence to prevent it.

That being the case, it is pretty plain to see that if a people were ready, willing, and able to throw off their own government by force, a foreign invasion perpetrated upon the same people would be hopeless. The domestic government is dug in, it has the acceptance of the people, it disarms them, it extracts from them the fruits of their labor, it has the people convinced it is an integral part of their lives. As a result, this institution is far harder to do away with than any foreign invasion.

My proposal for doing away with it then, has been to convince a mere 5% of a population that it is moral and just and practical to use violence to defend against the domestic government. I have gone into more detail on it in another article, but the basic premise being that if the average cop writes 10 tickets a day, then when 5% of the population feels this way, a cop will run into one of these people at least every other day. This would make the price of being a police officer certain death. They literally would not survive one week at work, and everyone would know it. Once that was the case, the police would stop showing up for work, because they are coming to get a paycheck, not to die. Again, plenty of people are willing to risk their lives, but almost none are going to walk in front of a firing squad voluntarily.

Without police, the edicts of politicians become meaningless. Twenty armed men could walk into the halls of Congress, erect a gallows, and begin hanging representatives on live TV, if not for police. If that was the state of a society, then before we even begin organizing specialized protection agencies, I hardly think a foreign invasion would even be attempted, much less successful.

The Anarcho-Capitalist Society Begins to Form

As the flies’ eggs begin to hatch inside the bodies of the politicians, the dust begins to settle, and society gets back to life as usual, market forces begin to fill the demand for services once performed by government. As previously discussed, one of those services is protection and security once done rather poorly by police.

We can expect a fair amount of looting from police stations, military bases, and munitions depots to have been done during the transition. Naturally, the protection agencies will seek out these tools to provide a sense of security to their clients, and within a matter of days we could expect security forces to be in possession of real military hardware.

The police and soldiers who were not killed in the transition, they’ll naturally be looking for work. They haven’t been trained in much else, and so we can expect lines to form outside the offices of the protection agencies. There exists no shortage of trained combatants hoping for a chance to do the job, and many of them will be trained in the use of the weapons seized during the transition.

The arms dealers are still in business too, and in the absence of their biggest customer, the US Government, you can expect both that they will be hungry for business, and that they will be all too happy to manufacture weapons in a completely unregulated market. Whether it’s war machines for the protection agencies, or shoulder fired missiles for grandma, the weapons industry will thrive in a free society.

Under these conditions, we can easily see that the men and munitions required for defense are readily available. The question then becomes of their use and organization.

Competition

Among other things, what separates the protection agencies from government is competition. This is what anarchists like about it, and what scares the living hell out of statists, simultaneously. To those who love liberty, competition means being able to leave one company for another when you don’t like the way that company is treating its clientele. Statists instead envision warfare between the agencies, chaos, disorder, and mayhem.

A valid concern, as this sort of requires some savvy entrepreneurs to find themselves in control of the weapons. This brings us back to our pre-collapse propaganda efforts. If the anarchists of the society are convinced that use of force is just a terrible evil thing that no decent person should engage in, then they will not be in control of the military hardware post collapse. They will want nothing to do with it, and the people who take control of the weaponry will once again be power hungry sociopaths who will use the weapons for ill. If this happens, then again, the statists will have won the day, and all our efforts will be for naught.

Luckily, the transition we’re envisioning here is one where my theory prevails, and a large enough minority of people have taken personal responsibility for their role in violence. The same people who brought about the collapse will seek out the weapons and try to form a sustainable business with them.

Engaging needlessly in warfare is not a sustainable business model. Those weapons are expensive, and the best way for a business to make use of them is to let them gather dust and be seen as a deterrent. A protection agency is infinitely better off competing for business by lowering prices and providing a superior level of service, than they are trying to put their competitor out of business by bombing his offices. Those bombs are assets. If he drops them on his competitor, the asset is destroyed and is costly to replace. It also provokes the competitor to fight back, which will cause more assets to be destroyed, more men to be lost, and while those two competitors are out killing each other, the next competitor who remained peaceful, can come in and offer both their clients cheaper services. This cuts into their revenue streams, and weapons are rather useless if you cannot feed the men who use them.

The State by comparison is incentivized to warfare. Warfare unites a nation behind its leaders. War propaganda becomes a political tool that helps keep incumbents in office. Warfare is an excuse to raise taxes, inflate currency, and run deficits, none of which are things a market entity seeks to engage in.

If Acme Protection and Contoso Security open offices in different parts of a given geographic area, they could compete just like any two restaurants, computer stores, or locksmiths. To assume that they would go to war with one another is to assume that chefs are poisoning food, Staples is hacking computers, and locksmiths are committing burglaries. It’s just plain nonsense. The way all businesses compete is through marketing, advertising, price, and service. There is no reason to expect private protection firms would behave any differently.

Cooperation

Though the two (realistically, many, but we’ll talk about two fictional ones for now to make this easier to follow) agencies compete for business within a given geographic area, this does not mean they cannot cooperate when the circumstances require it, such as in the case of an invading army. Verizon and AT&T compete, but sure enough, their customers can call one another without even thinking about who has what carrier. Internet service providers compete, but sure enough we can send email to anyone, anywhere in the world, regardless of their ISP. Bank of America competes with TD Bank, but sure enough, we can both deposit each others checks. Companies in various fields of the construction industry, may find themselves bidding against each other on one contract, then on the next, find their employees performing different tasks on the same construction site.

Both entities benefit from their cooperation by being able to provide a higher level of service than entities that do not cooperate.

Let’s say you have a contract with Contoso Security, and you wish to travel to a place where Contoso has no offices. Traveling to a strange place with no protection could be dangerous, and so you would be more likely to do business with an entity that could provide you with protection while traveling. If Contoso doesn’t make contracts with other agencies in other parts of the world, then Acme would see this as an opportunity to provide a higher level of service than Contoso and gain a market advantage over them. The contract could be reciprocal, that the foreign agency grants protection to Acme and Contoso clients in exchange for Acme and Contoso protecting their clients while traveling in territories they had a presence in.

Thus there is no reason to believe they would not band together to protect all of their clients and interests in the event of a foreign military invasion.

The Invasion

New Hampshire has seceded from the United States, abolished its legislature, and is now known as Ancapistan. What’s left of the United States is none too happy about this. The president says that states have no right to secede, this was settled by the Civil War, and in any case, Ancapistan is in anarchy, and they need the government to help restore order. The president sends ambassadors to meet with representatives from Contoso and Acme, and demand their unconditional surrender.

After the meeting, executives and strategic advisers from both groups meet privately. They know that if the United States regains control of Ancapistan, that they will be put out of business, and most likely put on trial for treason. Their clients will be subjugated, and taxed, a violation of their contract. This is undesirable.

If they do not surrender, the United States military will invade Ancapistan, also undesirable, and likely to result in many deaths and vast destruction of wealth.

The first thing to take notice of here, is that the problem is still government. To say that we should continue to be subjugated, just because freedom implies a possibility of being subjugated some time in the future, is insanity. To have a government today, no government tomorrow, and a government again the day after, is infinitely preferable to having government all week long.

The second thing is, I am a writer and a compute geek, not a military strategist. I read Art of War a long time ago, but frankly I don’t remember much of it. The reason I hire Acme or Contoso in a free society is so they can bring on professional military strategists who are prepared to deal with this crap.

Thirdly, a “minarchist” regime without a standing army would actually have a harder time fighting of the United States than Contoso and Acme would. Our private security agencies have weapons and men ready to fight, the citizenry is intolerant of government, and so they are infinitely better prepared than some do nothing regime that still takes 10% of your income.

In any case, Acme & Contoso decide not to surrender. They send Barack Obama an email, with a YouTube clip of George Bush saying “Bring em on” and prepare for battle. There is a battle, lots of people die, everything is bad. I don’t know exactly what it looks like, I don’t know who wins, and I don’t much care. Maybe Acme & Contoso are so good that they manage to stop the US from advancing. Maybe the US military wipes the floor with them in no time. Maybe there is no massing of forces along the borders, and there is a long drawn out insurgency instead.

The people of Ancapistan either have the wherewithal to expel a government or they don’t. If they didn’t have the wherewithal to do it, then this situation would never have to come to fruition in the first place. If some portion of the population is ready to fight the individual enforcers on the ground, the government cannot take hold in that place. The United States can fight a military force, drop bombs, shoot people, and do all the things governments do in warfare. But if they cannot gain the compliance of the people of Ancapistan, then this will all be a rather pointless waste of blood and treasure for them.

And it’s partly due to that fact, that;

The Invasion Would Probably Never Happen

As previously stated, Ancapistan threw off its government by killing its enforcers until they stopped showing up for work, and could no longer carry out their functions. Ancapistan did not vote out a government, they made the State an impossibility. No military invasion will make the State possible again after that, especially once Ancapistan has seen the benefits of freedom. If the people were willing to fight to obtain freedom, they are going to be more willing to fight to retain it, at least during the first generation or two.

Why Governments Invade

A government does not invade a place to exterminate the people and destroy the resources. They invade either for defensive purposes, or for the purpose of setting up a puppet government that will extract from the survivors their resources and the fruits of their labor for generations to come.

In the case of defensive purposes, there is nothing foreign governments have to fear from Ancapistan, save for the example we set for the rest of the world. We are a peaceful people who are only interested in trade and prosperity. Our weapons are for defensive purposes, we have no interest in fighting wars. If our defense agencies wanted to invade foreign lands, they would have to jack up our service costs, at which point we would just fire them and hire competing agencies that preferred to live in peace. This would put them out of business and prevent their aggressions.

In the case of setting up a puppet government, this is made possible by existing governments, especially ones that disarm their citizenry. If there is no government in Ancapistan, there is no motive to take over said government. There is no power or taxing structure to take advantage of. There is no capitol, or flag, to capture.

Propaganda

In the case of Ancapistan vs. The United States, the propaganda war would be key. The people of Ancapistan share a culture with Americans. In an age of live streaming video, twitter, and blogs, it would be very difficult to hide the horrors of war from the American people when the people being killed are neighbors and family members. Any attempt to portray Ancapistan as a violent horrible place in need of America’s assistance, would quickly be proven false by purely private media outlets with no government influence over them.

Atomic Weapons

It is perfectly reasonable to expect Acme & Contoso would work to obtain nuclear weapons. This probably makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and there is plenty of room for debate as to whether a nuclear weapon could under any circumstances be used by a society valuing non-aggression. The fact of the matter is though, no nuclear power has ever been invaded in the history of mankind. If Contoso and Acme had nuclear weapons, it is unlikely they would ever have to fight a foreign military.

Conclusion

A free society is more than capable of defending itself. Weapons, men, and resources will be bountiful in a free market. The State is the primary limiter of economic output in society, and in its absence, there is next to nothing that cannot be accomplished. Anything the government can do, freedom can do better, including use of force. All that is required, is to free the minds of the people of the society, and once that happens, no army can stop them.

If you value the work I do, please consider donating, or advertising here.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • Matthew Reece

    “Plenty of people will risk their lives, but almost nobody walks into certain death.”
    And we need not worry about the few who do, as this would just be natural selection eliminating the stupid.

    • jaiseli

      ” . . . natural selection eliminating the stupid.”

      A remarkable insight!

      May I humbly offer an alternative consciousness: ” the repentant/righteous repelling the desperate (unprepared) unrepentant” ?

      withOUT prejudice by Steven Roy: Buck

      Expressly reserving ALL “inherent”, “individual” RIGHTS and LIBERTIES accorded per the Declaration of Independence, and prescribed in the written Word as interpreted through the [w]holy Spirit.

      An irascible, incorrigible, reprehensible but now redeemed reprobate.

      Formerly operating on the same “too little, too late” and/or “day late, dollar short” meme of the distracted, dumbed-down, debt-ridden, physically debilitated [by design], MSM-cultivated-on-dung-in-the-dark – mushroom “democrac[ked] majority”.

      NOW operating as a “just Man”, NOT “just [another ordinary] man OR [other] animal”.

      A very unique, special and sentient Man as EACH and EVERY Man and wo[mb]-Man were created in the Beginning.

      A unitary, unanimous majority of [the] 1, [w]holy-owned subsidiary of and humble servant to the Creator.

      Firmly “b[e]rthed” on an unecumbered portion of alloidal soil, county Pinal, in Arizona, one of the constituted republics, of the[se] united States of America.

      Freely choosing to [re]covenant with and “under[ ]stand” the SUPREME jurisdiction of the Creator,

      and fully redeemed – through the repentance process – the appellate jurisdiction accorded by the Redeemer.

      NOT “presumed” to be SUB[-]ject to any commercial/corporate/maritime enterprise without prior full PUBLIC disclosure and documented contractual authorization by this Estate Executor’s undivided apportionment in this worldly space/time continuum.

      Humbly seeking, by considerate, honorable social intercourse/contract and righteous intent, the ULTIMATE Grace best demonstrated by a purported utterance made under circumstance of governement-agent-sanctioned, excruciating, [this worldly] life-ending pain, to wit: ” . . . forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

      Y’all be NOTICED!:

      1) REALIZE – how very special, unique and IMPORTANT is EACH/EVERY Man/[wo]Man’s [this]worldly manisfestation in the Creator’s IMAGE!

      1) RESTORE Covenant – established from the Beginning – with the Creator!

      2) REPENT – and again realize and access the Blessings evident and available since the Beginning!

      3) RESTITUTE – according to each Individual’s FINANCIAL capability and VESTED UNIQUE abilities!

      4) RESOLVE – henceforth to OBEY the HIGHEST Authority, according to the ABSOLUTE, Natural Law[s]

      prescribed in the Word and interpreted thru the holy Spirit, NOT the “legislation” of corrupted, political hacks that is subsequently “codified” by government “WONKs” into endlessly “revised statutes” to be “interpreted” in defacto maritime/equity courts and [selectively] enforced by “offical” government thugs, all to the financial benefit of global [D]elites via corporate “PERSONs”.

      5) RESUME continually – with righteous intent and honorable conduct – your duties and responsibilities the Office of Man, that apportionment of the [original] Estate benifacted and enTRUSTed to you by the Creator at your [this worldly] “in”ception.

      6) RESPECT/obey the SUPERIOR Natural, Absolute Law(s) and SERVE those around you in [real] need, deferring CONSEQUENCE to the Creator!

      PURSUE a self-suffienct, self-sustaining life-style by application of the fundamental “G’s”, the first three to wit:

      a) GROUNDed – unencumbered, arable “allodium”, minimum 50 miles distant all coastal regions, large urban/suburban areas, nuclear plants.

      b) GROUPed – “Where two or more GATHER . . .” [Attempting] to “survive” separately or “thriving” collaboratively as the Creator intended from the Beginning. Stand TOGETHER or be swat-teamed alone. What’s the elemental blessing here?

      c) GUNned – how can you serve other repentants in [real] need with your “preparedness” when gov’t-subsidized “Fast & Furious” armed roving gangs and marauders or the unrepentant, unprepared, desperate but armed Lame-Dream-Tedia (MSM te-LIE-vison) “news”/sports mushroom-cultivated sheeple slugs attempt to take it by force?

      ATTENTION!:

      1) equity/administrative magistra[i]tors / BAR-fly l[ie]wyers

      2) Fraud – no longer, “Federal” – Gov’t SUBsidized state/county/local compromised gov’t “officials”

      3) “Fraud Preserve” (PRIVATELY-owned Federal Reserve) affiliated, debt-dealing, userous LENDers/banksters

      4) government agents, facilitators, [selective] regulators, legis-TRAITORS and bottom-feeding, addled, kuckle-dragging, roided, “official” just-doing-my-job” enforcement thugs:

      Are not your activities being MORE-so RECORDED & DOCUMENTED by the very same evil “authorities” you “serve”, not to mention your government and media-promoted snitching, beggar-thy-trendy neighbor(s)/”work” associates?

      Regardless of your “[gov’t] employer/handler” prevailing in the [temporary] end, what be you or your family/friends/associate’s possible/eventual circumstance?:

      1) a Hitler/Stalin/Mao gulag-style internment camp – if you are one of the “fortunate” sparred.

      2) a Pinochet-style disappeared, NDAA executive-ordered Al-C-I-A-da renditioned or out-right eliminated-by-[apparent]suicide?

      3) a “safe-haven”, “restricted-travel” FEMA camp – only to insure your family’s continued “safety” and not your continued compliance, of course.

      4) rejection or judicious retribution by the ultimately prevailing productive, prepared, resourceful, righteous that you intimidated, coerced, defrauded, sanctioned, parasitized, pillaged, incarcerated, injured and murdered.

      Do you not understand that the “just-doing-your-job” evil you perpetuate may very well be done unto you by the very same psycho-paths with whom you have chosen to associate and/or serve? Perhaps you and/or your “near & dear” are so delusioned, complacently “believing” you have reserved tickets to [one of the] underground luxury complexes or redoubts of comfort and “security”, together with the self-indulgent, aberrant, parasitic, psycho-pathic, eugenisist [D]elites to whom you have chosen to serve directly or indirectly? Do you think that Evil discriminates in the pursuit of its inexhorable perpetuation?

      Are you aware the eventual outcome of the majority that facilitated Hilter, Stalin and Mao’s rise to dictatorial power?

      Do you [continue to] believe that you are part of the wheel and will never become the “grist/grease in the wheel”?

      Is this not just more of the corp-owned “Lame Dream Tedia” distraction from the issues of consequence?

      1) the looting of the shrinking private, working sector’s accrued wealth and REAL asset being transferred out of the country.

      2) Benghazi.

      3) Fast & Furious.

      4) the younger gen’s financial continuing, unmitigated enslavement by undischargeable student loan debts.

      5) physical, mental, financial debilitation, compliments of Monsanto, Big Pharma government corruption/subsidy.

      6) deliberate du[h]mbing-down by the supplanting of “education” with government “Common Core” propaganda/programming.

      7) international drug/arms running/profiteering & terror inciting via “al-CIA-da”.

      8) the super-subsiding of the TBTF (To-Big-To-Fail) financial gangsters by the “Fraud Preserve”

      several times greater than ALL combined serf-subsidizing!

      9) at the least, gov’t agent/thug complicity in OK City bombing, 9-11, Sandy Hook/Aurora CO shootings, Boston Marathon bombing, ad infinitum.” . . . natural

    • AtlasAikido

      Pretty poor protoplasm put together and undone in many ways…Nothing wrong with becoming progressively less stupid as Marshal Rosenberg points out in Non-Violent Communication

  • Matthew Reece

    “A government does not invade a place to exterminate the people and
    destroy the resources. They invade either for defensive purposes, or for
    the purpose of setting up a puppet government that will extract from
    the survivors their resources and the fruits of their labor for
    generations to come.”
    A government could invade a place to exterminate the people, leave the resources mostly intact, and send in its own people to re-settle the area. I could see a government of an overpopulated nation with neutron bombs trying this.

    • Anonymous

      Natural resources are worthless, they need labour to convert them into consumer products, which have value. So eradicating the land just to have natural resources is a pretty stupid move. States invade because they not only get the natural resources but also slave labour to work for them.

      • Matthew Reece

        But if they have the slave labor to work for them in their own territory, which is overpopulated, and a means of exterminating a foreign population so they can move right in and simultaneously decongest their territory…

        • Jace Wright

          Overpopulation is a myth, but I get what you’re saying. The plan wouldn’t work but the government of the country would think it would work.

  • state hater

    The key word that sums up the article is coopetition:

    “Coopetition or Co-opetition (sometimes spelled “coopertition” or “co-opertition”) is a neologism coined to describe cooperative competition. Coopetition is a portmanteau of cooperation and competition.

    Basic principles of co-opetitive structures have been described in game theory, a scientific field that received more attention with the book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944 and the works of John Forbes Nash on non-cooperative games.
    It is also applied in the fields of political science and economics and
    even universally [works of V. Frank Asaro, J.D.: Universal
    Co-opetition,2011, and The Tortoise Shell Code, novel, 2012].”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition

    A slight tweak of your idea would be that proposed by Morris and Linda Tannehill in 1970 in their book “The Market for Liberty” wherein, in order to bypass the free rider problem, insurance companies would run the defense firms as subsidiaries, wherein the costs associated therewith would simply be built into the premiums [in other words, in insuring your house against damage, the insurance company is also taking an active role in protecting said house from damage]:

    https://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf

  • Peter Jeffers

    Read ‘Practical Anarchy’ by Stefan Molyneux for a very well thought out idea for a post statist society. It’s very compelling and completely cemented the validity of an anarchist society in my mind without a shadow of a doubt.

    The simple rational is that war in uneconomic is every sense EXCEPT in a statist society. If you worked up a business plan and sought funding to build an army to invade another geographic region, the maths simply don’t work out. War is expensive, destructive to minds, body and property and rarely achieves anything but political agendas.

    War is only viable when you have a tax base of people being forced to submit their income. If you invade a country with no such system who do you attack? There is no central controlling government to overthrow, no tax base of revenue to plunder, you gain nothing but a few TV’s and a population who will fight a guerrilla war until you leave. In a stateless society the need for war is gone and the incentive for war is zero. The concept of the state as a monopoly on force needs to abolished for human civilization to ever progress past the barbaric, rediculous conepts of violence and war to achieve personal gain.

    • Jon

      And yet economics is based upon the idea of rationality. That a person will never do something which has an opportunity cost greater than other options available (to the best of that person’s knowledge. This is a dangerous thing to base your philosophy upon (go look at the burgeoning field of behavioral economics). People just don’t make decisions like this generally speaking.

      Also, government isn’t the cause of war. It is the result of war. To get past “barbaric violence” we don’t need to abolish governments, we need to change human nature. Look at Leviathan, or the Treatises on Government. There will always be inequality between people. Combine this with a society in which anyone can kill anyone else, and you get chaos. It is far easier to pull a trigger and take then it is to produce. To avoid this type of violence is why people made governments in the first place. And what’s your answer to this? To make a privatized security force? So, instead of an imperfect system marred with occasional corruption but which at least tries to have impartiality, we end up with an even more imperfect system which actively encourages bribery and corruption (because, in fact, it legalizes it). When you privatize security, you end up providing it only to the wealthiest. You guys really need to examine these ideas more.

      • Hal Gailey

        There can be no war without government and/or the state and a socialization of the costs of war. Whether its clans and tribes, city-states, or dictatorships and republics. There is no war without a system in place to fuel it.

      • Nunyer Business

        Maybe government is not the ’cause’ of war, but they certainly make it FAR FAR more likely when you can steal from people in order to concentrate guns in the hands of one group, and then force the children into indoctrination camps to teach them that murdering people is patriotic and questioning such murder is disgusting.

        Almost no one would have willingly paid for Vietnam and Korea, and no one would be still willingly be paying for the war in the Middle East. Popular support MIGHT have been able to muster a willing fighting force and enough voluntary donations to go after the perpetrators of 911 for a while. But that support would have LONG dried up.

        Hardly anyone would be paying willingly to murder ‘terrorists’ in foreign countries.

      • Peter Jeffers

        Hi Jon, i strongly urge you to read the book i mentioned, it will answer your questions.

        Another thing to realise is that nobody knows how a post state world will work and nor should they be expected to. No-one has a crystal ball. It would be like saying that when Steve Jobs was starting Apple he needed to explain to investors how an iPhone would work and how many would be sold in 2014.

        The free market has proven time and time again how well human beings are able to come up with solutions to problems while religion/monarchy/government has proven time and time again how good they are mass murder on a global scale. I’d prefer to trust the entrepreneur with my kids future than risk another genocide.

    • Mark Stuber

      None of the concepts you mentioned would be of any use in repelling an invasion.

  • Hal Gailey

    One other thing to remember is that an anarchic society will have no compunction over targeting leaders over soldiers. After an attempt or two most states will realize inviting attacks on politicians, generals, and infrastructure is even more expensive. States don’t target each others’ leaders. Anarchists won’t play by those rules. Why target poor 19 and 20 year olds who have no power over their nation other than to die when you can target those who lead and command? It’s hard to checkmate when your opponent has no king, and every pawn is ready, willing, and able to go well past checkmate all on their own.

    • Jon

      How do you possibly target their leaders? You have no diplomatic connections (meaning no emigration that can be used to insert your people). You likely don’t have the organization necessary to mount/plan massive operations. Chances are most of the military assets of the US are already gone because of the war you fought to “free” yourself. And let’s be honest, if you do organize a military force powerful enough to strike back against another developed nation, it seems likely that someone within that organization will have an ounce of ambition and just declare himself the new leader. Except this time the intimidation and the threats would be a lot more open. You wouldn’t have freedom, you would have another Soviet era Russia. I get this stuff is fun to talk about or whatever, but have any of you actually sat down and truly thought about what would be necessary to do any of the things you propose? It’s staggering. I know you’ll be tempted to dismiss my words with a sneer and an insult, or else with some dogmatically based reply (which you probably don’t even recognize as dogmatism). But if you truly think about it, you will quickly realize that without massive popular support, nothing you are suggesting is possible. And lets be honest here – if you can’t get massive support from the public now, you certainly wont get it after instigating a war.

      A final note, all of you seem to want some kind of “free society.” Less regulation, etc. Well, I just want to remind you of the industrial revolution, and the times not long thereafter. The times where children worked and died in mines, where workers would lose limbs in the machinery and have those limbs end up in the food produced by those factories. Even with regulations today, we still have rampant abuses and problems. Competition isn’t going to solve this problem – just a race to the bottom. Come up with a non-conceptually based example in which businesses have competed with each other and one of them hasn’t attempted some form of immoral method of winning. And lastly, let’s be generous and say that a full 25% of the population supports your war and overthrow. Well, the other 75% has a right to organize into whatever kind of society they want. Are you able to take away that right from them simply because you’re in a minority and you feel like that right was taken from you? You believe in property rights. This place was taken by a majority population that wants things mostly as they are (though i bet almost everyone would be down for less corruption generally). So, instead of taking that away from them (i.e. robbing them of their natural rights), go find some unclaimed property and live as you please.

      • Hal Gailey

        Who says? You have willful individuals and private security corporations who want to end the affair as quickly and bloodlessly as possible. If it were a hundred years ago a decently stealthy woodsman could make it nearly anywhere, and in todays world of cutthroats, drones, missiles, and lasers there are plenty of avenues.

        The industrial revolution wasn’t some time of free markets and capitalism. I would suggest watching stefan molyneux’s video on the subject, 1. its not as bad as we relate to it, and 2. those were still situations dictated by the state.

        In an anarchist society people can set up whatever system they want, they can form a commune, they can form a socialsit society, so long as its voluntary and non-coercive it can and will exist in the anarchist society. I myself have made many comments stating this very example of small voluntary governments and cooperatives. No state doesn’t mean no government, or no rules.

        An anarchist movement would not take private property from people, merely remove the coercive structures of control from the state. People could choose to do what they wish from then on, reform voluntary governance, divest large land holdings and move to a small homestead style ownership system, or decide on corporate interaction. Who knows. If the worst case scenario of anarchism is a new state forms… what is the problem?

        • Nunyer Business

          You said, “But if you truly think about it, you will quickly realize that without massive popular support, nothing you are suggesting is possible. And lets be honest here – if you can’t get massive support from the public now, you certainly wont get it after instigating a war.”

          No one is ‘instigating war’. Why can this not be done without a war? And of course it cannot be done without popular support. That’s why people like Chris educate people. In order to GET popular support. Would you have told Ghandi, “Stop being stupid, you’ll never get the Brits out without popular support”. Of course not, he would have looked at you like an idiot and said, “Duh!!! What the hell do you think I’m doing but trying to get popular support?”

          “A final note, all of you seem to want some kind of “free society.” Less regulation, etc.”

          the US has the most prosperous and envied society in the world after the Industrial Revolution BECAUSE we had freedom and almost no regulations. I can provide dozens upon dozens of links to historical evidence that none of your contentions are correct. Do you HONESTLY think that immigrants came FLOODING to the US and sent money back to their family members extolling the virtues of “The American Dream’ when they were forced to send their children off to die in mines? Come on. Just think about it for a few minutes.

          “And lastly, let’s be generous and say that a full 25% of the population supports your war and overthrow. Well, the other 75% has a right to organize into whatever kind of society they want. Are you able to take away that right from them “simply because you’re in a minority and you feel like that right was taken from you?”

          No one here wants to prevent them from being in voluntary organizations. We deny THEIR right to use violence against us to force us to join their government. Do you see the difference? We are HAPPY to let 75% of the population have their idea of government. If 75% of the population wants to have income taxation and pay for a military to go murder people overseas, I’d not stop them. I just want them to leave me out of it. Why is that so heretical to you? You act like it’s using violence against THEM to not allow them to use violence against ME. That is entirely backwards.

          “You believe in property rights. This place was taken by a majority population that wants things mostly as they are (though i bet almost everyone would be down for less corruption generally). So, instead of taking that away from them (i.e. robbing them of their natural rights), go find some unclaimed property and live as you please.”

          You should listen to yourself. We are ‘robbing them of their natural right’ to steal from us? How does that work?

          Isn’t it a natural right to be LEFT ALONE when you are not hurting anyone? So how is ‘leave me out of your stupid government’ violating THEIR natural rights? That is so backwards that I cannot even believe that you could possibly actually believe that telling someone to leave you alone somehow ‘violates their right’ to force you to be in their government? What a completely bizarre thing to say. I made up a picture JUST for you!

      • Nunyer Business

        Why would you need ‘diplomatic connections’ to target leader? He means leaders on the battlefield. Any dork can figure out who are the grunts and who they look to for leadership without having to send an emissary to another country.

        IN any case, yes, you CAN have emissaries and diplomatic relationships without a government. When Somalia was stateless, tribes formed their own diplomatic ties with nations for trade and such. Your thinking is in a box. Think outside the box. WHY could no one have diplomacy without a government? Isn’t just TRAVELING to other countries or doing trade with them a form of diplomacy that is much more effective than dropping bombs?

    • marik

      reminds me of al qaida

  • Steven Vandervelde

    I like the pretty picture you paint, but it is lacking in one minor detail. Weapons, effective, modern weapons, cost a lot. That is why the state with its taxes and central bank spend so much of other people’s and future generation’s money to pay the military-industrial complex to have control of the state of the art equipment, manned by a hoard of morally lobotimized studges (I have to credit Joel Bowman with that term, because it is just such a neat term.) to kill on command. The minor detail is this. How the fuck are you going to persuade people who are busy earning a living and enjoying their lives to pay for any kind of force that could stand up to that, much less defeat it? A little well placed “shock and awe”, formerly known as terror bombing when the Nazi’s did it, and those stooges will waltz right in, and local stooges, the statist criminal element, will gladly hoist whatever flag the new puppet government requires. Then it will be too late for productive people to put down their work and fight back. That is the lesson of all human history in a nutshell. Something more is needed. Subvert the invading powers from within.

    • AtlasAikido

      I put more emphasis on Chris Dates article: ‘Freedom Has No “System”‘(–Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO “WE”.)

      I do not see Christopher Cantwell as needing to “persuade”. I re-call he wrote an article “Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You” which I thought IS all about the foolhardiness of “persuad[ing]” others.

      • Steven Vandervelde

        While I recognize that you were smart enough to identify my argument as a persuasive argument (Which means an argument intended to persuade, in case you jump to the conclusion that I am being presumptuous.) and you might have gotten my point when I see you referencing “Freedom Has NO “System”, some kind of organized use of force is necessary to combat organized force. Random acts of violence will never do the trick, if you intend to increase liberty and destroy tyranny. To that end, an ideology (libertarianism) is a voluntary means of organizing opposition. Organizing and directing revolutionary violence can only work, no matter what ideas you have, if there is substantial support for the desired outcome. Since foreign forces could invade, it is a good idea to undermine them, unless you believe that statist do not murder and destroy for fun, and will only act in their economic interest. I believe that the Empire of the DC has shown they are very un-economic. Killing and destroying is their game.

        • AtlasAikido

          Someone says that the System of freedom (etc) and or State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, *we* are in real trouble, what are *we* going to do about it. *We* must “direct” and “organize”. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?”

          Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself (or some “Noble” cause) onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of (voluntary, non-collectivist) solutions that do NOT involve **enslaving other people**.

          *As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.*

          See Chris Dates article: Freedom Has No “System”–Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO “WE”!

          • I don’t argue with crazy people, but that is an interesting argument you are having with yourself. If you don’t consider yourself to be part of a greater movement in which you have substantial agreement with others, then what is the point? Please continue talking to yourself. It is entertaining.

          • AtlasAikido

            I read what you wrote. I am clearly responding to you and others.

            If your need demands that I do something OR ELSE, and it does, then you and I have a different definition of needs.

            I define needs with no reference to do something differently.

            It is important thing to do but I don’t want to mix needs with requests.

            Feel free to keep using We-isms when anarchy has nothing to do with the WE. It is what differentiates you and I and properly so.

            I see many who are well educated in language of obeying authority that exist within a culture of long standing domination structures and systems.

            Where someone considers themselves a superior who has a right to “control” and “organize” others and this kind of domination requires a language of domination. Where this person claims to know what is unfit,”crazy”, selfish, incompetent, good for the tribe or not.

            A very dangerous tragic language indeed. And that language is so called needed in this culture because the concept of justice is retributive and based on punishment and reward systems.

            So if you want to make life more miserable on the planet not only use a language that ostrasizes and psychologically speculates but continue to use punishment and reward to try and influence people.

            If one is an “organizer”, “director”, “systems” type who needs to control those under him (for some NOBLE cause such as freedom), one would probably not want people who have a consciousness of life of their individual self-rule needs (not no rules). Individual don’t make good slaves when connected to life. paraphrased from Marshal Rosenberg Non-Violent Communication

            In closing, freedom has no system, and it never will. Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or theorized…Chris Dates article: Freedom Has No “System”–Challenge the premise. THERE IS NO “WE”!

            I cherish your and my differences and wear that badge proudly. Cheers!

          • Clearly, you have not responded to anything I wrote. I never used the word “we”, but your imaginary others might be well pleased with your response. I can’t know.

          • AtlasAikido

            True You never used the word “we” good for you!

            Yes you and I have been having a go around about my identification of  We-isms: such as your “greater ‘support’ movements” and authoritarian need to “persuade” others, “control” others, to fight and replace one unfun system with another. Go for it!

            It is interesting to watch your tragic suicidal projections about  “imaginary” “others”. More violent communication on your part?

            Have you blocked off access to my responses for “others” to read?

            Off to get some coffee.

          • “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep.”

          • AtlasAikido

            Not an authority…

          • AtlasAikido

            On the other hand regarding: “and you might have gotten my point when I see you referencing “Freedom Has NO “System”, some kind of organized use of force is necessary to combat organized force. Random acts of violence will never do the trick, if you intend to increase liberty and destroy tyranny. To that end, an ideology (libertarianism) is a voluntary means of organizing opposition. Organizing and directing revolutionary violence can only work, no matter what ideas you have, if there is substantial support for the desired outcome”.

            We’re you referring to something like this: (insert draft here)

          • AtlasAikido

            Regarding: “and you might have gotten my point when I see you referencing “Freedom Has NO “System”, some kind of organized use of force is necessary to combat organized force. Random acts of violence will never do the trick, if you intend to increase liberty and destroy tyranny. To that end, an ideology (libertarianism) is a voluntary means of organizing opposition. Organizing and directing revolutionary violence can only work, no matter what ideas you have, if there is substantial support for the desired outcome”.

            We’re you referring to something like this: (insert draft response below)

            1st Question: …how do we get some type of defense of the whole without some type of organization of the whole.

            Without government, ONE way to defend ourselves is with local voluntary militias comprised of armed citizens. (More on that subject will be found below). There were stretches of time during the Great Move West when communities had to provide their own defense because the USA government was not present or available. And even today, the VietCong, the Iraqis and the Afghans have fought the mightiest Empire in history–with the most sophisticated weapons EVER KNOWN–to a standstill or defeat. They did it (are doing it) WITHOUT “some type of organization of the whole”.

            Life provides no guarantees. We can SEE what governments do. Government is not the solution, it is the problem.

          • AtlasAikido

            Interesting: The irony is not lost on me that calling people “crazy” and “talking to myself” with your help drives site traffic. Well that is the “entertaining” side of waking people up for some.. See: “Social Trolling” by Craig Harms

  • Peter Jeffers

    What is slightly annoying is that this discussion always descends into an conflict about government. Forget whether you believe in government or not and for one second just play with the idea of what would happen if it collapsed or wasn’t there. It’s a very real scenario as governments do collapse and it would be important to understand if there is a better way to deliver services that are currently delivered by a public system.

  • yadranko

    Question: what happens in a case when an adventurer or a large group of adventurers/explorers is/are killed in some remote and uninhabited corner of the earth, that is not under jurisdiction of any protection agencies? Is it OK for the human society to look the other way and ignore the road kill in such circumstances? Or does the society need to be forced to somehow address (via taxes) murder, theft, or loss of liberty of those whose protection agencies refused to cover dangerous lands, or who simply refuse to hire protection agencies altogether? Assume also that for some economic reason no protection agency is willing to do it pro-bono.

    • AtlasAikido

      Are you familiar with the article “Why The Obsession with Flight 370? By Butler Shaffer posted April 7th this year on Lewrockwell?

      It would appear to provide insights to your questions to which you provide no example.

      I arrived at the above by first asking: “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it, I would use the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.”

      – Albert Einstein

      • yadranko

        Neither does the article on systems and control nor does the article on marginal utility as an eye to the “beautiful orderliness of anarchy” provide answer to the very specific and plausible question that I posed.

        Anarchy obviously can’t solve all the problems, and no anarchist has ever denied that. Anarchists claim that anarchy is the best system out there, and overall I would not argue against it. What concerns me is whether some of those few problems that anarchy cannot solve are something we really can turn our heads the other way when we encounter them. The morality of leaving it unaddressed, like in the example above (life, liberty, property).

        • AtlasAikido

          So “What concerns [you] is “The MORALITY of leaving” unaddressed “Something [that allows others] *WE* [the freedom so that we] can turn *OUR* head[s] the other way when *WE* [you] encounter…[US].

          Which is why you disagreed with the “Marginal Steps Toward a Better Life” by Jeffrey Tucker as it relates to the “beautiful orderliness of anarchy” and your concerns.

          And disagreed more specifically with what that proposes: a “MORALITY” that recognizes and respects that other people think differently (value preferences regarding the freedom to control their “(life, liberty, and property)”.

          And disagree with that which provides ways of handling those differences (living freely on the margin) without bowing to your dictates and concerns.

          AND further more why you DIS-agreed that such a morality of live and let live (anarchy) pertains (“nor systems and control” [of others] regarding YOUR so-called “very specific and plausible question[s] that I [you] posed”.

          And why you DIS-agreed that a recent example of the important need of some to control everything regarding “…a large group of adventurers/explorers… killed in some remote and uninhabited corner of the earth [ocean]” pertains. Ref: “Why The Obsession with [recent] Flight 370”? by Butler Shaffer:

          • yadranko

            Thanks for continuing this conversation.

            Why so subtle? Just go ahead and call me a statist who supports governments that killed hundreds of millions of people? That is the final answer of all anarchists who failed to address the issue, and I’m quite used to it now.

            I already stated that freedom gives best results. The only problem is that it doesn’t solve few of the deeply moral issues that can arise from time to time, and that in my view cannot be ignored. That’s all.

          • AtlasAikido

            Hey hi, yadranko, I was doing a work it out of what you were perhaps looking at and the parameters as you stated them.

            I laid it out just as you said (as best as I could tell) so that I could see what you were perhaps factoring in and factoring out.

            So yeah thanks for hanging in there with me too.

            I got the impression I needed more info. Would blow it if I made an evaluation. And I am not going to do that.

            With that laid out I now see 3 things I did not see before from your latest post:

            1. Your observation of the situation. 2. How you feel about what has been done not done including from anarchists. 3. What need of yours that was not met.

            More specifically 1. You have a unmet moral needs in the scenario you present 2. perhaps painful (although you say you are used to the ad hominems) as it relates to the travelers/adventurers lost but in general favorable (pleasure) towards anarchy 3. see this moral problem as an anarchy issue you cannot ignore?

            Back in a bit. I am on another site and I need to let this sink in…

            Give you time to respond back to see if I am on right track…summarized issues properly?

            I will do what I have done so far. And walk thru this…OK?

          • yadranko

            Yes, that’s exactly the way I see things. Things you said earlier, and what the two articles talked about still stand. I am not really opposed to anarchy, it’s just that I see some possible holes in it that deeply trouble me. As such, I’m inclined to believe that for example an unaddressed murder (through market and/or voluntary means) in the end becomes a burden of society to ‘mandatorily’ do something about it. Yet, I can’t stomach calling myself upon some kind of social contract to enforce it upon the society as a whole… Some sound moral reasoning is needed… A tough call, it is!

          • AtlasAikido

            Well, THIS is the “JUSTICE” that we have, right now, today, 2014, under “Constitutional” government.

            I am still typing…

          • AtlasAikido

            yadranko, perhaps try this approach. Can you make a request of others without demand? to get what you want and not put others in loose situation? Can you create quality of connection where you can get your needs met and those who you are seeking help from as well? But to get that to occur might I point out that one cannot get addicted to the strategy of making others do things (because it is self evidently so called the right and fair thing to do). Others may end up helping you once they see what your needs are and trust you are equally concerned with their needs?

            You could end up coming out with something far richer than your initial expectation.

            Nonviolent Communication and Corporations with Marshall Rosenberg

            Here is a link: www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=YvFeY5GXtQo.

            Replace (dot) with .

          • AtlasAikido

            PLEASE keep in mind that I can only give INDICATIONS of solutions because we do not live in a society without government regulation and
            government monopolization of these fields. MANY MORE innovative solutions can be expected when people are free to pursue innovation.

            The problem is similar to describing how to privatize shoe making after
            government has monopolized the industry for 75 years. Actual case:
            Soviet Union. Nobody in the USSR remembered how to be an entrepreneur and make needed decisions about shoe sizes, styles, colors, quantities etc. Fortunately for them, they could turn to the West for help and examples. Such is NOT the case with privatized justice and security, but there actually do exist some historical examples.

            I HIGHLY recommend a course of self education thru the article titles I provide (I
            cannot/will not copy entire articles here) and there is an enormous amount of existing material on each of these very same issues at LewRockwell and Mises You can also get daily emails from both organizations. But YOU have to do it yourself. I cannot “give” you the knowledge, you have to go get it.

            Here is my brief response in the post below.

          • yadranko

            Sorry for my late reply, I got lost in other things over the weekend. (but made some thinking and research about our discussion as well)

            I quite agree with everything you said above. The laws that we have today with so called Constitutional government is way more than the founders envisioned. One additional argument of anarcho-capitalists is that once we have a state, even minimal one, it is in danger of constant expansion. The history proves this to be absolutely correct. However, it is not a solid argument against governments, as anarchies too are susceptible to the disease of catching the disease (the government), and must be guarded against.

            The Statutory Law cannot fit all the circumstances, indeed. I am personally against almost all such laws. There should be only laws that protect property (including life) and liberty. Everything else should be the domain of Contract Law.

            Now, you could (and should) also have a contract between you and your private protection agency in regards to these few statutory laws that are written in stone – the protection of your life and liberty (and you would most certainly get better service than you do from the government – if not, you would change the provider…), but such arrangement (as in our case) is not available to everybody. That’s where the problem still stands.

            However, since under such an arrangement where government would not be a monopoly, the market would provide better services, and the danger of government expansion would remain minimal, limited to the size of the population or rather to the number of unaddressed cases needing attention. Under such system, I envision that government would go from micro size to almost nonexistent at times, depending solely upon the society’s complete ability or lack thereof to participate in the free market.

            So to sum it up: I’m inclined to advocate government for addressing loss of life, liberty, and property theft of those who for some reason aren’t market participants. Everybody else who can afford it and who can find agencies that fit these basic needs will never look back. But the burden of the prior group is unfortunately something that would have to remain, a burden, however minimal.

          • AtlasAikido

            Once you label someone a “freeloader” a “burden” needing govt, you are going down the road of such to spy, chk point, seize, interrogate, corral, milk and loot…

            Make no mistake. Disagree and be hunted down, caged, “murdered” and eventually disappeared! Not under anarchy but via false assumptions and pro-govt “guarantees” pap.

            Chris Dates was right.

            Watch people squirm when asked to think like a free person (to put it on them to think of solutions that do not involve enslaving others).

            See Freedom Has No System by Chris Dates
            http://zerogov (dot) com/?p=2334

            And The Market for Liberty by Tannehills at Mises or Lewrockwell sites.

            Given that the majority of Western governments borrow money just to pay interest on money they’ve already borrowed, it’s obvious the current game is almost finished.

            So much for “guarantees”…

            … why bother working so hard if everything you’ve ever achieved or provided for your children is tied up in a country with dismal fundamentals….

            . Right now, the world is on fire (to cite just two examples) aggressive war and aggressive fiat currency inflation — the former being nothing other than Mass Murder, the latter being Massive Theft through official fraud. Need I point out that this is Govt at work?

            …So much for needing help(forced do
            goodism) from govt.

            See NASA-funded study: Over 32 advanced civilizations have collapsed before us, and we’re next in line.
            bySimon BlackonMarch 20, 2014

            Technology is one major game changer. The technology exists today to completely revolutionize the way we live and govern ourselves.

          • AtlasAikido

            yadranko, perhaps try this approach. Can you make a request of others without demand? To get others to help you in what is alive in you?

            Can you create quality of connection where you can get your needs met AND those who you are seeking help from?

            But to get that to occur might I point out that one cannot get addicted to the strategy of making others do things (because it is so called called evidently the right and fair thing to do to you). Others may end up helping you once they see what your needs are and trust you are equally concerned with their needs?

            You could end up coming out with something far richer than your initial expectation.

            See Nonviolent Communication and Corporations with Marshall Rosenberg

            Farther Down the Rabbit Hole

            Here is a link at 23:00 minute mark: www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=YvFeY5GXtQo.

            Replace (dot) with .

            Go back pick up the rest…

            “Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it.”~ Mikhail Bakunin

            See Freedom Has No System by Chris Dates
            http://zerogov (dot) com/?p=2334

          • yadranko

            Thanks for the links, will check on these and get back to you.

          • yadranko

            Alright. Watched the entire video and saw something unrelated but which I didn’t like nevertheless. That was when he mentioned that corporations have other responsibilities than just profit. Would be nice – in a moral society, but that is not what their interests are. Only profits and fear of loss of profits forces them to do good things, i.e. fear of being sued for polluting the river.

            His approach here alludes to the answer he offers throughout the video interview, and that to me is a Stefan Molyneux style argument that we need to voluntarily evolve to be nice people, and that would solve our problems. While I do believe that this is the path which the human society is taking anyway (just consider the fact that slavery was largely eradicated, etc.), these are just baby steps that I cannot support as the definitive answer. It is quite irresponsible to expect that voluntarism would take care of the posed problems in the society that we have today, the evolution has a long way to go to get us there. Even then (say: some 500 years from now) I am not convinced that voluntarism will take care of the problem.

            The article youlinked is sort of a general overview of the problems people pose about anarchy, and I agree with (in general) it as well. Yes, in a society without government “we will deal with the blood suckers as they come” – no doubt about it, but that is not enough when it comes to murder.

            I just saw a video clip from Milton Friedman, where he responded to a student’s question about whether government should force the good samaritan behavior onto people., i.e, forcing people to help someone who is drowning in a river. Friedman answer was no, and I agree with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnh7HI901Mk However, I cannot say the same for unaddressed murder.

            Even in an anarchic society, all we can hope for is to use the advantages of maximum individual freedom and opportunity to create maximum possible prosperity, and thus reduce the desires of the have-not’s to steal, imprison, and kill. Psychopaths will nevertheless continue to exist, and when they impose their will upon the unprotected, it is the moral duty of the society to act, whenever not done so voluntarily, it should probably be enforced.

    • Waldetto

      Are you under some false impression that every time some US missionary is killed in the jungles of Africa that a contingent of US Soldiers rushes over there and metes out justice or some similar nonsense? What happens NOW when some adventurer is killed in a remote part of the world? YOU look the other way! There is obviously some risk involved in life, those that go to dangerous places take on that risk willingly! It’s their choice.

  • AtlasAikido

    Re:”…Yes, in a society without government “we will deal with the blood suckers as they come” – no doubt about it, but that is not enough when it comes to murder”.

    The question (1 of 7) would appear to be: …how does one get some type of *defense of the whole without some type of organization of the whole*. (From psychopaths incubated by govt etc…see also questions 2 thru 6.)

    Without government, ONE way to defend ourselves is with local voluntary militias comprised of armed citizens…There were stretches of time during the Great Move West when communities had to provide their own defense because the USA government was not present or available. And even today, the VietCong, the Iraqis and the Afghans have fought the mightiest Empire in history–with the most sophisticated weapons EVER KNOWN–to a standstill or defeat. They did it (are doing it) **WITHOUT “some type of organization of the whole”**.

    2nd question: How do we provide a frame work for justice which not only punishes for crimes against humanity but theft of rights…  ?
    3rd Question: The question seems to be how do you keep the Gov on a leash?
    4th question: Let’s say we have this place based on the government-free principles described above and it is attacked by the enemies of freedom for whatever reason.  How do we come together to provide for the common defense of this freedom loving land that has no government to co-ordinate the defense?
    5th question: In Israel of the Old Testament the People were essentially practicing Anarchists as pictured above – however when an enemy was moving in, the word went through-out the land and the people responded by raising an army. How could such happen in a modern society without government?
    6th question: In our day the weapons would require a level of sophistication that would be impossible to create by the average ‘individual’. Isn’t government needed to build, maintain and operate such weapons?
    7th question: If you had a company who was into war defense (via the free market), wouldn’t that very company be tempted to become the next warlord of the free domain–or join with other such companies to rule?

    SEE  answers at

    tinyurl (dot) com/Security-and-Justice
    [2011-04-15] Security and Justice WITHOUT government — article by Dennis Wilson

    • yadranko

      Thanks for the answers. While they do successfully argue why a free society without a ruler would indeed be better, they fail to fix the hole I pointed to.

      An attempt, however, a weak one, was made by Bob Murphy in his section on freeloaders, to, not fix, but dismiss the significance of the problem, by tuning his scale up to the maximum level, by throwing in an example of a large city like New York. Well, that was some cherry picking by an intellectual whose work I otherwise highly respect. I live in Hong Kong, and I do understand how a highly populated area can absorb lots of freeloaders. But scale the problem to a more sparsely populated countryside and you find that the problem of freeloaders becomes more significant, thus the problem of nobody willing to fund taking care of any uninsured road kills. Back to you.

      • AtlasAikido

        Hi. Well lets go with your point as it relates to solving “murder” and problems of payment* in say HK and or Kowloon, AND or “scale” it down to New Territories (country side*) and or say the many fishing villages.

        The following would seem to apply there or here: see article “Who Killed Kurt Cobain? Twenty Years Later, The Free Market Looks for Answers”. It made no difference regarding where* or fees* to this free mkt homocide detective”**.

        I see no problem with dealing with sparsely populated areas as it pertains 2nd question/answer in article prior post: How do we provide a frame work for justice which not only punishes for crimes against humanity but theft of rights… ?

        Question 1 answer…how does one get some type of *defense of the whole without some type of organization of the whole*.

        I thought that the free rider problem was the excuse govt gave for their existence? I see statism and it’s belief in superstition of authourity to be a larger problem than free rider.

        5 questions were devoted to it as it relates to security justice and defence.

        • AtlasAikido

          SECONDLY, regarding your earlier points on lost “adventurers” ” “explorers” in remote places etc…

          ABSENT Govt perhaps Branson (Virgin Airlines and space exploration entrepreneur ) would be involved/ approached?

          If this was Branson funded expedition or that of a competitor etc or of a magazine such as “Outdoors” or free mkt insurance would they leave lost “explorers” or travelers stranded without an exhaustive investigation? I doubt that.

          AGAIN this IS ANARCHY.

          I thought that the free rider/loader problem was the excuse govt gave for their existence and that it IS the cause of free rider and loaders, not competing svcs in ANARCHY?

          • AtlasAikido

            IN SUM the 7 Questions / answers in prior post “Security and Justice WITHOUT government” — article by Dennis Wilson were devoted to supporting the (points enumerated).

            Is their evidence being suppressed as it relates to Flight 370?

            JUST AS Supreme Court shields prosecutors in wrongful convictions

            THOUGH new DNA testing has shown hundreds of convicts to be innocent, the court has protected prosecutors from lawsuits and balked at letting prisoners reopen cases.
            April 03, 2011|By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

            FINALLY:
            1. Are you looking for a consultant such as Tom Grant for an actual application such as investigating the downing of Flight 370 (if not why not?

            2. And or brainstorming

            3. Writing a book/article in an attempt to refute Bob Murphy’s Warlord article etc?

            4. Would you consider donating to Tom Grant who refused to turn his head away in a botched “murder” case and the appearance of Justice?

          • AtlasAikido

            IN SUM the 7 Questions / answers in prior post “Security and Justice WITHOUT government” — article by Dennis Wilson were devoted to supporting the (THREE points enumerated).

            Is their evidence being suppressed as it relates to Flight 370?

            JUST AS Supreme Court shields prosecutors in wrongful convictions

            THOUGH new DNA testing has shown hundreds of convicts to be innocent, the court has protected prosecutors from lawsuits and balked at letting prisoners reopen cases.
            April 03, 2011|By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

          • yadranko

            All I’m doing is testing my own beliefs and putting them in front of others to find flaws and solutions. The problem I presented in this thread is something that prevents me from being an anarchist, despite the fact that market is always more efficient than governments are.

            I have nothing against anyone investigating anything. Is this the other way of putting it to me that I’m a statist, supporting governments that killed millions of people? Just for being such a heretic and pointing to problems that anarchy can’t solve… and which, morally speaking, cannot be brushed off as someone else’s problems.

          • AtlasAikido

            Anarchism, in contrast, means “absence of a ruler”. It’s one of a series of words derived from Greek: “monarchy” is government by one person, “oligarchy” by a few persons, “plutarchy” by some rich persons, and so on. The prefix “an-” means a negation or opposite, and the suffix “-archy” means “rule”, hence “anarchy” means rule by no persons. An “anarchist” is one who believes society runs best when nobody rules or governs it; when each of its members makes 100% of the choices that affect his or her life and therefore none at all of those affecting anyone else’s.

            Naturally, pro-government people hate that idea, because they would not be able to strut around ruling other people or live off their labor. So they do all they can to discredit anarchism. As above, they lie; they try to redefine the word, to scare people into supposing that it means “chaos” or is lacking and has holes. On this web site, we’ll examine the true source of chaos and violence.

            To compound the confusion, some people call themselves “anarchists” but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate – so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn’t want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom – and not just for ourselves. We’re happy for everyone else to enjoy it too!!!!!

            If mankind can turn on a dime from being honest individuals to being dishonest thieves (i.e, original sinners as some imply) then I suggest there is no hope whatever and we might as well give up. I don’t. There is a rational (non-superstitious) basis for ethics and inter-relationships, and it is that self interest is best served by acknowledging self-ownership rights. ( “No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck”)

          • yadranko

            “Naturally, pro-government people hate that idea, because they would not
            be able to strut around ruling other people or live off their labor. So
            they do all they can to discredit anarchism.”

            OK, I am pro government for protection of life liberties, and property of those who cannot or will not pay for market based services. You can call me statist all you like, but I personally don’t hold the kind of views you described above. I have no desires for ruling over anyone nor living off of someone else. My only desire, again, is to make sure that all violations of basic rights are addressed. Yes?

          • AtlasAikido

            Again How does anarchy contradict this?

          • yadranko

            Not sure what your point is here. Talking about possible conspiracy?

          • AtlasAikido

            All 3 Points lead from and sum up your murder, lost explorers (travellers), protection services, conspiracy fact, anarchy immorality issues …

            And apparently also even the possibility, saying that protection service officials are too decent to ever do such a thing. Is this what passes for study of government?

            Type in operation Northwoods in Google yadranko. A conspiracy fact!

            The Second Mystery Around Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 by John Chuckman

            Supreme Court shields prosecutors in wrongful convictions April 03, 2011|By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

            No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck”)

            While you here do snoring lie Open-eyed Conspiracy His time doth take. ~ William Shakespeare, The Tempest

          • yadranko

            Ok, you seem to continue to kick the can down the road (ignore addressing the fact that anarchy – without contract or charity – does not guarantee addressing the issue, which is what my whole point is) by simply pushing the fact that when we do let the free market to address murder, it does so better than the government can. I want to make sure that murder is addressed in all cases (unpaid and absent of charity included). The examples I put forward in earlier comments clearly show reasonable scenarios where this may not occur. Over and out.

          • AtlasAikido

            Regarding you, me, others including a Mao and Stalin etc as being exempt from natural laws and hence the need for your special “hole” in Anarchy to be filled that meet your needs…

            Not so.

            Even if Stalin personally escaped some of the consequences they were never the less neccessarily transferred to others. His victims were not necessarily innocent…..

            First they came for the Socialists (“murdered”), and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Socialist.

            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Jew.

            Then they came for the Anarchists, and I did not speak out—
            Because I was not a Anarachist
            Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

            Natural law has consequences. It will either be PAID by the perpetrator or his victims..

            Man is part of nature. He is subject to natural law. Anything man does is part of nature. Including things contrary to his nature.

            An animal cannot do anything against his own nature without suffering the consequences which is usually pain or death..

            A man who does something against his nature will suffer consequences. ( a rabid dog can only infect those who he comes into contact with)

            Man being a higher level animal the consequences of what he does may affect other animals. (Man can infect inflict consequences on people who do not even know of his existence.)

            Illustration of this is. Man is capable of creating and exploding small bomb, medium sized bomb and atomic bomb. Consequences of each, effect people within the radius of the bomb explosion. Same is true with Govt.

            As a rabid dog will effect many victims before his death so it is with an evil human being, effect more than just himself. The person who does not kill a rabid dog allows evil by inaction to multiply.

            Man is capable of more evil than one man can pay the price. The consequences of that evil are inescapable in that they are propagated and spread out to those who sanction victim hood…

            People who allow mad dogs or tyrants to exist become victims themselves of their own refusal to deal with reality in a sensible and rational manner.

            If you allow a tyrant to exist then by natural law you will suffer the consequences of such. Some of us are protecting ourselves as best as we can…

          • yadranko

            What you are in effect saying above is that I am blaming freedom for the lack of morality in the human kind. Not true! What I am saying though, is that freedom will not necessarily fix the problems of immorality. And while everyone is free to have and spread their own moral values, those of life, liberty, and property should be written in stone, and must be protected in all cases.

            That “no man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck” is a fact, no one is denying it. It is a solid reminder that it should be used as little as possible, probably even acting as an encouragement to the society to do more philanthropy in order to guard against the arrival and rise of government, whenever possible.

          • AtlasAikido

            How is anarchy contradicting this?

          • AtlasAikido

            There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
            PT Penn Teller

            See James Altucher article “Don’t be a slave”.

            Your true salary is the value you create for the place you work.

            Perhaps you are unaware but some percentage of your salary if you work for a company goes to employees that don’t pull their weight. The 80/20 rule applies where approximately 80% don’t pull their weight, so any money left over from your efforts has to be used to pay them. You pay them. You don’t need to consign them to the clutches of govt..

            How does anarchy contradict this? It doesn’t!

            “Freeloaders” are free to secede from a non-territorial non-monopoly security and justice arrangement. Not so under your proposal.

            Indeed ANARCHY plays to individual consent (voting with one’s feet) to be productive to save one self from solutions that ENSLAVE others.

            YOU propose as their only salvation their assimilation by a Statist Quo of *forced consent*–*whilst AGREEING it IS undeniably Mutual Enslavement for all parties.

            have you thought of asking them what they want first?

            As such you jump the gun and assume a pro-territorial protection service monopoly is the only answer. The one that currently wages WAR on personal freedoms via mass murder, mass theft of “life liberty and property”. I pointed out their failures in prior post (3 points).

            I see you inserted “property” and removed “pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence.

            Since when did anyone have *a right to happiness AND a right to someone else’s property* Which IS what we have today via a security and justice. Once you label someone a “freeloader” in a welfare/war state you are on tge road to spy, seize, interrogate…

            Make no mistake. Disagree and be hunted down, caged, “murdered” and eventually disappeared! Not under anarchy but via selective reasoning, false assumptions and pro-govt pap.

            Chris Dates was right. See prior post. Watch people squirm when asked to think like a free person (to put it on them to think of solutions other than enslaving others).

            See The Market for Liberty by Tannehills

          • yadranko

            Alright, I’m back… I don’t disagree with what you said about people not being free to not pay in order to address murder, theft, enslavement of those who cannot or will not pay. it is indeed true, which is why i said that we may need government arise from the ashes to make sure these things are financed.

            I never cited nor referred to US Declaration of Independence. I take it that pursuit of happiness means ‘liberty’ – as in life, ‘liberty’, property (freedom to do with your life whatever you want, possibly trying to make yourself happy, or not – your choice)

            Few days ago I had an amazing interview with David Friedman and we talked about superiority and issues in anarcho-capitalism. What struck me the most was how non-confrontational and suggestive he was in communicating his ideas. he never said that certain anarcho-capitalist ideas were sure to produce better results, but rather that they probably would. He agreed that the anarcho-capitalist system would probably leave some people in the dust, and I agreed that creating government to take care of those issues would probably (due to its predatory and expansionary nature) end up causing more harm than good, if it cannot be contained.

            Dr. Friedman also agree that anarcho-capitalist system may not scale well when it comes to private protection agencies, where in a sparsely populated areas the few existing protection agencies (due to lack of competition) could possibly turn into protection rackets. Remember, Bob Murphy cherry picked example of a large city – New York. Back to you.

            I also recorded his lecture on Law Enforcement Without the State, here at Chinese University of Hong Kong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oWka2fi3y0

  • ProphetPX

    This is the MAIN QUESTION i have ALWAYS wanted answered — ANARCHY ITSELF does NOT SEEM CONDUCIVE to repelling MASSIVE, FOREIGN, HOSTILE forces … let alone, tyrants who are already entrenched in a society.

    • Jace Wright

      Anarchy can do almost anything more effectively than a government.

  • Waldetto

    Great analysis, and I am all for it, the only problem is that the US would likely impose sanctions on Ancapistan, preventing any exports or imports until they relented. How can that be dealt with? Also, the US would control most media, making the Ancaps look “selfish”, etc.

    • Roy J Lores

      The U.S does not control independent alternate alternate media though.

  • AtlasAikido

    Briefly Re: “due to its predatory and expansionary nature) end up causing more harm than good, “if it [govt] cannot be contained”[?].

    I addressed your points in prior posts see article Security and Justice WITHOUT government by Dennis Wilson and excerpts.

    3rd Question: The question seems to be how do you keep the Gov on a leash?

    This is a “false alternative” question because it assumes a false conclusion within the question. If there IS no government, there is no need for a leash.

    The question ASSUMES that we MUST HAVE government to do things…

    Re: “when it comes to private protection agencies, where in a sparsely populated areas the few existing protection agencies (due to lack of competition) could possibly turn into protection rackets”.

    This is the equivalent of Question 7 in DW article: If you had a company who was into war defense (via the free market), wouldn’t that very company be tempted to become the next warlord of the free domain (lack of competition) –OR join with other such companies to rule?

    Again, the issue of multiple insurance companies is dealt with extensively at LewRockwell and Mises I will not attempt to duplicate their excellent work.

    Also see Robert Murphy’s article But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? See article following

    Re: “Remember, Bob Murphy cherry picked example of a large city – New York. Back to you”.

    Third, people need to really picture the nightmare scenario to see how ABSURD IT IS. Imagine a bustling city, such as New York[ or Hong Kong], that is initially a free market paradise. Is it really plausible that over time rival gangs would constantly grow, and eventually terrorize the
    general public [but only in the country side? NEW TERRITORIES and or Lantau Island but not Hong Kong]. Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs….

    Of course, it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. But the point is, from an initial position of market anarchy, these would-be
    rulers would have to start from scratch. In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized.

  • AtlasAikido

    See Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens:
    The “Sagra Model” of Privatized Security
    William N. Grigg
    Sunday, September 18, 2011

    “They are coming to kill us!” exclaimed a young resident of Sagra, Russia as he spied a column of vehicles approaching the tiny village at the feet of the Ural Mountains. Responding to the alarm, several dozen residents mustered near the town entrance, bearing whatever weapons they could find. Some of them grabbed pitchforks, chains, or knives. Three men arrived on the scene with shotguns.

    The leader of the approaching convoy was Sergei “The Gypsy” Lebedev, head of a criminal gang that had tormented Sagra for months. Lebedev’s followers swiped anything of value that was left unguarded. Power tools, appliances, and other household property disappeared; homes were vandalized as copper tubing and wiring were ripped out to be sold to scrap metal dealers. An onslaught of shoplifting threatened the survival of the village’s only significant retail store.

    Exasperated citizens complained to the police in nearby Yekaterinberg, only to be treated with a mixture of amusement and impatient annoyance. Mounting hostility against Lebedev and his underlings prompted the gangster to withdraw – but only to gather reinforcements.

    Lebedev was no petty cut-purse; his entourage included at least one vory v zakone (“thief in law”) – that is, a member of a politically protected mafia.

    The gang leader’s intent was to seize control of the village as a base of operations for a drug operation, and he clearly enjoyed the covert support of the region’s “law enforcement” establishment. Thus it was that late in the evening of July 1, Ledbedev assembled a contingent of about 60 armed thugs and mounted a punitive expedition against the village of 130 people…

  • Roy J Lores

    Why should we not create our own separate AnCap society instead of waiting for society to collapse or for violent revolution to start?

    In another article a statist troll posted that we do not have the balls to create an AnCap society of our own I say, let’s prove the motherfucker wrong.

  • Yarmouth

    Sorry but “Anarcho-Capitalism” is a paradox. You cannot have a non-hierarchical society without also smashing the capitalist system. Capitalism is hierarchical and oppressive by it’s very nature, the state and capitalists work together and are in essence the same thing: Capitalists simply use the state as a puppet to enforce their authority.
    Private Property is theft from the Commons. If you take private property from the commons, you are stealing from the people, and you are doing it through coercion, as you will have the backing of a court of law (other Capitalists).
    If you only removed the state, Capitalists would simply create new organisations in it’s place to retain their power e.g private militias, security etc. They do not want to lose their power. As soon as you removed the state, they would create another state for themselves.
    I hate how the right-wing have hijacked and stolen the Anarchist symbol, which was always anti-capitalist, and anti-statist. They are even more dangerous than Conservatives or Liberals in some ways because free market interests have infiltrated the movement and manipulate it to their interests.
    Go and read Bakunin if you want real Anarchist philosophy.

    • AtlasAikido

      Crony capitalism is what you are describing. Collusion between state and business.

      Indeed sarc intended joseph.liberty (dot) me/2013/08/19/the-fundamental-flaws-of-capitalism/

      Yarmouth as a variation of yadranko a prior poster hmmm… spend all this time working on dropping context (focus on who and whom whilst dropping the what) and then extrapolating from there. Oh well…

      lewrockwell (dot) com/2014/06/dan-sanchez/witchs-brew/

  • Eli Wiedrich

    how about the fact that nearly a third of the population is armed with at least three guns? and the fact that there would probably be more people armed in a stateless society because there is no supposed ‘guarantee’ of police protection

    • Mark Stuber

      An army is more than just people with hunting rifles or even assault rifles. Leaving, the fact that this so called anarchist army would have hardly any training and not know how to fight together as a teamed, like say a U.S Army or Marine ifantry squad would. It wouldn’t have any eavey weapons. You know, artileary/tanks

      This army would be slaughtered.

  • paendragon

    Re: “Why Governments Invade

    A government does not invade a place to exterminate the people and
    destroy the resources. They invade either for defensive purposes, or for
    the purpose of setting up a puppet government that will extract from
    the survivors their resources and the fruits of their labor for
    generations to come.”

    Unless you’re China, replacing the indigenous populations of Tibet and Nepal with your own Han Chinese.

    Genocide by neutron bomb isn’t off the table, either – one quick and fairly harmless KABOOM, all life dies in the vicinity, and your own people can move right in, because most of the infrastructure is still intact and waiting.

  • Mark Stuber

    The idea that a leaderless mob could beat an army simply by people pointing at the street with a rifle is fantasy. Look what happend in the 16th Century Peasants Revolt.

    Also, the soldiers don’t have to march down the street. They can go house to house.

    If you think it is that easy to stop a city from taking control of a city block, how were the Marines able to take Faluja?

  • David Alejandro Chaparro Zambr

    Man, this anarchism thing requires a lot of balls. I can imagine due a possible invasion a sign saying “Welcome to Ancapistan, Now Get the Fuck Out”

  • marik

    Whats stopping Acme and Contoso from squeezing out or absorbing the competition and effectively taxing the territories they control like the Mafia in Sicily or the Taliban in the Afghan-Pakistan Tribal Areas? Look at whats happening in Syria

    “Nice shop you got there…it’ll be a pity if anything were to happen to it..”

  • Dalton Quigley

    How does a free society go about constructing roads and other infrastructure? This probably isn’t the place to ask this but it was just a thought. Any ideas?

  • Jace Wright

    I’m surprised the government allows this plot tho overthrow it through direct violence to continue. You might get assassinated by the secret service.