The purported purpose of a military is?
To deter attack, I guess.
Answer my question, Evader of Bans.
Nevermind, you did answer it. This awesome forum isn’t letting me edit my posts.
That was my answer. Are you typing?
But what’s with the “I guess”? Are you just telling me what you think I want to hear? I’d rather you tell me what you really think.
The way I define the terms, tribes are aborigines, or people inspired by primitivist ideas to live in a neotribal setting, or somesuch. I consider a warlord to be an actual person. If we are talking about tribes, they arent states either, rather they are a people, and the tribe has no social fiction. Thats a generalization, I wouldnt doubt that some tribes had a collective social identity that was all of them and none of them, just like I wouldnt doubt that some tribes had forms of coercive government. I will add that I dont see the relevance in comparing these antecedent forms of social organization to states. Maybe thats why I keep digressing.
The intended purpose of the military is to defend society.
Come on, ask me what society means.
In a nutshell, I think the state is far more ancient than you think it is. I can elaborate on this tomorrow.
I don’t care how predictable you think I am. Yes, I would like to know just what you mean by “society”. I already asked you once before. While you’re at it, you can also tell me what a military is intended to defend “society” from.
article one of the code of conduct.
I’m interested to hear your elaboration. This isnt something I have widely researched, so I simply default to my references, I’m not really prepared to debate it.
Very funny, Ban-Evader. So out of the five definitions for “society” in that link, which one are you using here?
I’m not sure where this is going, Auto.
Anyway, if the world was like Phi wanted it to be and people had a specific culture conducive to it, then sure, his idea would work. But I’m talking about a world that doesn’t necessarily have those characteristics (ie, the real world).
Going back, it isn’t clear why ancaps expect agencies to engage in certain types of anticompetitive behavior (like elimination of aggressive agencies), but not other types of anticompetitive behavior. Claiming that consumers will chose other agencies ignores the point that those choices would be eliminated by anticompetitive behavior.
Well keep in mind, mustang19, that there are people that do believe in liberty and property and understand economics. Those people wish to have their society now. What’s funny is the State refuses to let us be in peace. And that’s the point. The State is in NO ONE’S interest. They are parasites and needs every host possible. Would you be opposed to a state or two in the union seceding and becoming free societies?
If the people in that state decided that they wanted to secede, yes.
*As in, yes, I would support them in their succession if they wanted to secede (without reinstating slavery or anything).
Correct, no slavery. But what if it was a county? Or a city? Or a town? Or just an individual with his own property?
Sure, if it was any kind of reasonable social grouping that could provide for itself. You should be free to not pay taxes as long as you’re not using dollars.