the rest of your post is good, but this is just crazy talk.
Perhaps. But it’s not so crazy when you consider the history of Sealand, a platform 14 miles off the coast of England, that has been one guy’s sovereign territory for a couple decades now. From there they’ve been broadcasting pirate radio in defiance of the local authorities, and even had a couple outright battles, with people lobbing molotovs back and forth, shooting gun across the bow as warning shots, etc., etc.
And that’s without any positive aspect like trying to be a net energy producer that would benefit the whole country.
Ultimately, I understand the risks and am going to do my best to pull it off and grow it so fast that they fail to smother the infant in its cradle.
The part that makes it crazy is you use “cant” when you should use “wont”. I agree that govt in all its forms might not feel the need to shut down an upstart micro-non-state, I just dont like conflating that with the idea that they couldnt, because they surely could and would attempt to do so if they saw it as a threat. The sealand story is a great inspiration, however.
Jargon,
And you don’t think that could be a coincidence? Influential men work in influential areas and achieve fame there, what makes you so sure that this isn’t the case?
Yes. It could be a coincidence that executives from certain interconnected corporations, thinktanks and banks end up in positions of power and the events of world history happen to enrich them.
Well, I’m glad that we agree
Wouldn’t a better question than this one: “Is X a non-zero possibility?”, be this one: “How likely is (1-X)?”
Alright, what do you believe the probability to be?
97.28% approximately. Would you like to know why?
Srsly bro? I think that if you have it any higher than a 97.24 that you’re being pretty f***ing unreasonable.
Anyway yea, go for it.
Does there need to be a state for small communal militias to arise?
I think that in ancapiland, virtually every citizen will become militia as there is no standing army to protect them. So in addition to PDA’s there would be the ordinary citizen armed with their privately owned guns.
And every citizen that which is a militia has to only protect his or her private property, or their neighbors as well (if they choose todo so, for strategic reasons, for example if the statist army invades, and you only protected your house, but didnt help your neighbors, you can get encricled, and thus supply lines can become cut off).
Just because everything in ancapiland is privately owned does not mean that citizens can come together and make their own communal militias (remember as long as it is voluntary, it is ancap).
Any other thoughts?
The American revolution is actually a decent model for ad hoc military resistance. It was fought largely by private citizens, especially initially, who felt they were defending themselves against aggressions and invasion.
Then, someone stepped up who had war experience and said, “I’ll volunteer, be the general, follow me, and I’ll even fund the damn thing myself”:
George Washington.
I think in a free society that most people would feel comfortable with multiple layers of protection, from personally owning a pistol to various 3rd party protection agencies.
The counter argument tho is that france helped them.
Which actually wouldnt be really a counter argument because on my original post it was assumed that it was possible for a state to lend military aid if it was friends with ancapiland.
@Kelvin Silvia
I would be skeptical of taking such defense agencies as taken for granted.
Yeah, France helped them. And that turned out to be pretty awesome, because the French troops fighting with them saw that freedom was possible, took that realization back to Europe and started the French revolution for freedom. Which was unfortunately ill-fated due to lacking a broad-based libertarian-educated populace. They thought people were free if they elected their rulers, so they elected Napolean
So, such can be a model for influence.
@ Neo - Are you poking fun at my arbitrary percentage or what? Anyways, why? From having read Eustace Mullins, Antony Sutton and Rothbards’ history, I discovered that there were three powerful families, around which corporate and state power orbited in the early 20th century: Morgan, Rockefeller, and Rothschild. Their interests were not always the same but they often cooperated. For example: Rock and Morgan mutually seized banking power with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, when Chemical Bank, Guaranty Trust, Chase Bank, Banekrs Trust, First National Bank, and City Bank bought a controlling majority of the federal reserve. So could it just have been coincidence that these men who worked in these banks, which were criss-crossed by marriages, shares, law firms, and men simply working at 3-4 of them, which were controlled by Morgan, Rock, or both, all got together to influence politics so that the Fed was in place and that they would own it? I guess it could be. But the thing is: that doesn’t make any sense. Only a devotion to trying to sound “reasonable”, “rational” or “balanced” (read: socially acceptable) would lead one to conclude that power and profit landed at the feet of these corps of ambitious, rich, educated and connected bankers and lawyers by the grace of god and not out of their own machinations. We might similarly conclude that all of those Soviet peasants and workers were trying to sabotage their country.
I don’t think that I can convince you here and now, nor am I particularly concerned with doing so. I just wanted to say my piece. I can recommend you certain works of history if you are curious.
@ Kelvin - Sure people will own guns. They could have their militias. History has supported the notion of popular guerilla wars, but where? In agrarian societies with an underdeveloped division of labor and thus lower level of interdependency. In societies which were ideologically cemented towards repelling invaders. The north vietnamese won their war at immense personal cost. They got the shit bombed out of them and their country poisoned by toxic weapons.
Do you really think that defense agencies are going to stock up on tanks, anti-air equipment, battleships, missile defense systems, etc. during peace time? Why would they? It would be utterly unprofitable until the time came to use them. The competition principle would likely rule out the possibility of profit-seeking entrepeneurs buying tanks. It would be advisable come war time, but what then? The enemy state has already mobilized. What are you going to do? Ship in tanks and train tank operators while your land is being ravaged? Is that any kind of strategy?
If Ancapistan wants to be independent as well as free, it would require an ideologically pure society of nuclear weapons possessors and a delivery system. These people would basically be the national defense, and one would have to depend on them for moral correctness. What happens if a state infiltrates this crew of people and steals the Big Red Button? After all, it would be AnCaps only line of defense, if that were the line they would choose.
So in reality ancapistan has a bad chance of defending itself against a murderous human eating state?
So therefore we must assume that for our true goal to be achieved, all parts of the earth have to be ancap pieces of land (no state exists whatsoever).
Militias can be a far more effective means of defense than an organize state military.
Statist argument-
Not when you have a ravaging professional military with tanks, bombs, planes, and formal training, vs a mere militia