Hoppe and the anarcho-capitalists like to argue that an anarcho-society could muster the military might defend itself from an aggressive state. Yet theory always works in theory, but evidence for or against this view could be confirmed or denied by historical evidence. Yet this question is not limited to anarcho-capitalism. Is their any example in history of any anarcho-society capitalist, communist or otherwise successfuly defending itself from an an aggressive statist society?
What is “society”?
Ireland lasted for 500 years of invasion by the British. With the existence of nukes a stateless society could exist indefinitely.
“What is “society”?”
I used society instead of state since anarcho-state is an oxymoron. I uses anarcho-society in the sense that order is produced not by the complusive monopoly of the state by by any competing order producine system found in different anarchist ideologies.
“Ireland lasted for 500 years of invasion by the British.”
What 500 years? Also I do not believe that Ireland ancient or medieval ireland was an anarcho-societies, but a decentralized monarachy. They had a high king elected from the nobles of the land. Complusion was used to take taxes and muster military forces.
Do you mean medieval Iceland? I think that was pretty close in nature to an anarchist society, and I don’t think the takeover was exactly easy. You have chieftans and you had to pick from a set of chieftans to decide which clan’s protection you were going to get, and they had dispute resolution for conflicts between clans. They did get overrun by, I think, the kingdom of Norway.
And I believe that Ireland did ward off the British. It’s kind of apples and oranges based on today’s technology and weaponry, so I wouldn’t read into it too much. I don’t know how private defense agencies would ward off an invader, but I’d assume that PDAs would pool resources and/or band together to protect the land on which they operate for the (dare I say this!) “common” good.
“Do you mean medieval Iceland? I think that was pretty close in nature to an anarchist society, and I don’t think the takeover was exactly easy. You have chieftans and you had to pick from a set of chieftans to decide which clan’s protection you were going to get, and they had dispute resolution for conflicts between clans. They did get overrun by, I think, the kingdom of Norway.”
Well it depends on how one defines anarcho-society. If one uses Hoppe’s definition which sees the principle of non-aggression as central to an anarcho-capitalist societ, the Icelandic society was not Hoppean. The Icelandic commonwealth was Viking and Vikings raid, plunder and enslave. Vikings do not adhere to the principle of non-aggression. The Icelandic Vikinsg owned slaves and the Viking settlers in Vineland were Icelandic and they fought with the Skrealings and women were not given equal rights (at least equal rights in any modern libertarian sense of the word). If they anarchist they do not prove the viability of Hoppe’s anarcho-capitalist society because they violated the principle of non-aggression in pretty aggregious ways.
“Ireland lasted for 500 years of invasion by the British.”
Ancient Celtic Ireland, it was 1,000 years.
"But if Ireland was essentially an anarchistic (or libertarian) society, how was law and order maintained? How was justice secured? Was there not incessant warfare and rampant criminality?
To answer the last of these questions first -of course there were wars and crime. Has there ever been a society statist or otherwise - without war and crime? But Irish wars were almost never on the scale known among other civilized* European peoples. Without the coercive apparatus of the State which can through taxation and conscription mobilize large amounts of arms and manpower, the Irish were unable to sustain any large scale military force in the field for any length of time. Irish wars, until the last phase of the English conquest in the 16th and 17th centuries, were pitiful brawls and cattle raids by European standards.
The contemporary Irish historian, Kathleen Hughes, has remarked that one reason why the English conquest, begun in the 12th century under Henry II and completed only under William III in the late 17th century, was so long in being achieved was the lack of a wellorganized State in Celtic Ireland.
A people not habituated to a Statist conception of authority are incapable of considering a defeat in war as anything more than a temporary limitations upon their liberty. Submission to the enemy is viewed as no more than a necessary and temporary expedient to preserve one’s life until opportunity for revolt and recovery of liberty presents itself. The English, of course, considered the Irish notorious in their faithlessness (they repeatedly repudiated oaths of submission and allegiance to their English conquerors); they were repeatedly characterized by English commentators as natural-born, incorrigible rebels, barbarians, savages who refused to submit to the kind of law and order offered by the English State. The Irish, unfettered by the slave mentality of people accustomed to the tyranny of the State, simply refused to surrender their liberty and libertarian ways."
There has not been any contact between anarcho-capitalist societies and nation-states, hence the question is inherently without an answer.
I don’t think it matters if there is a concrete historical example for two reasons:
-
We have scant records of anarchic societies. Literacy at all is fairly modern and widespread literacy extremely modern. By the time writing was used to document historical events, most such writings were made by those living within a territorial monopoly of force (have a look at Hoppe on natural elites to see how the state established itself so widely).
-
Many states have failed to defend themselves from other states, which would suggest that states cannot always defend themselves - but still, does this mean that it is impossible for states to defend themselves? Certainly not. It is the same for anarchist vs. state conflicts.
Well the Vikings conquered large tracts of Ireland. Also I agree that Ireland was decentralized, but it was not an anarchy. It had kings. Monarchy is not anarchy. The Kings could raise armies. The High King could command the lesser kings of the country to fight. Also Ireland had slavery in an anarcho-society one cannot own another man or woman. Also I do not think the level of violence renders a society a state or not. Singapore is a police-state, but it does not fight wars on the scale of the US or China. Also the High King’s of Ancient and Medieval Ireland rose armies, did they do this by purely voluntary means?
The fact that anarchy is antecedent to archy, means that at some point in the past anarchy has been overtaken by archy (otherwise we would still be living in ordered anarchy). On the other hand, the nation-states currently exist in a state of anarchy in relation to eachother (they show no long-term tendancy to be combinine or be assimilated, on net), yet no superstate has overtaken them in the past. This suggests that there is a way for anarchy to be preserved against archy. Presumably, individuals and voluntary associations can use similar techniques to prevent archy in the context of ordered anarchy.
I think your original criterion has been satisfied
“Is their any example in history of any anarcho-society capitalist, communist or otherwise successfuly defending itself from an an aggressive statist society?”
Ireland wasn’t a capitalist or Hoppean society, it was anarchist though.
“There has not been any contact between anarcho-capitalist societies and nation-states, hence the question is inherently without an answer.”
I agree. The point is that the anarcho-capitalist have no experimental grounds to have the overweaning confidence they claim their system would provide. It has not been tested and as such sould be seen with as much confidence as one can have for a untested theory not a tested fact.
“The fact that anarchy is antecedent to archy, means that at some point in the past anarchy has been overtaken by archy (otherwise we would still be living in ordered anarchy). On the other hand, the nation-states currently exist in a state of anarchy in relation to eachother, yet no superstate has overtaken them in the past. This suggest there is a way for anarchy to be preserved against archy. Presumably, individuals and voluntary associations can use similar techniques to prevent archy in the context of ordered anarchy.”
Yes the global nation-state affair is anarchic, but there might be some equivication of terms. The nationstates are not anarchies, but are as Hoppe would define as monopolistic users of violence. To like the “anarchy of nation-states” to the “anarchy of Hoppe” is committing the fallacy of equivication. The two uses of anarchy are not the same.
“Many states have failed to defend themselves from other states, which would suggest that states cannot always defend themselves - but still, does this mean that it is impossible for states to defend themselves? Certainly not. It is the same for anarchist vs. state conflicts.”
I do not think it is the same it is concievable that anarcho-societies would necessarily and always fall to state aggressors or it might be the case that they can sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. Yet we just don’t know any assertion like yours above is not necessarily true since we have no historical evidece, as you state.
“Ireland wasn’t a capitalist or Hoppean society, it was anarchist though.”
I might agree with you if Ireland was an anarcho-society, but I do not believe it was. Ireland had kings under a high king. The high king had limited power to be sure, but monarchy is not anarchy.
There might be, but probably not.
I would accept Hoppe’s definition with few reservations.
I agree, but that isn’t relevant since I make no such equivocation. Try rereading the comment. I am making an analogy between people preserving their liberty against a state with nation-states preserving their liberty against a superstate. I never even hinted at modern nation-states approximating Hoppean anarchy; that would be absurd.
“I am making an analogy between people preserving their liberty against a state with nation-states preserving their liberty against a superstate.”
Ok, but this analogy is weak since the state resiting a super-state (which does not exist) would still have the state aid of compulsory taxation and compulsory military sevice. An anarcho-society would have no such 'advantadge" in the mutual murdering of men. These two subjects are too distinct to allow for a useful analogy.
“I am making an analogy between people preserving their liberty against a state with nation-states preserving their liberty against a superstate.”
Ok, but your analogy is still weak. A nation-state resuting a superstate would still have the advantages of compulsory taxation and compulsory military service thus maximizing its warfighting capacity, whereas an anarcho-society would not have these advantages in a war. In an anarcho-society, since one cannot use conscription, it is very probable, that one cannot utilize all active manpower in resting a state aggressor. The two societies are too different to be compared. The nation-state and the supertate or One World government have enough in common to be analogous, but are both so different from an anarcho-society, I believe you agree with this premise (of the dissimilarity of a nation-state and an anarcho-society), that any comparison between a anarcho-society fighting a nation-state and a nation-state fighting a superstate is unwarrented.
Sorry for the duplicats I thought the first one did not post.
Ok, but your analogy is still weak. A nation-state resuting a superstate would still have the advantages of compulsory taxation and compulsory military service thus maximizing its warfighting capacity, whereas an anarcho-society would not have these advantages in a war.
How are these advantages? They are more likely to turn your population against your state and in favor of the enemy.
You fundamentally misunderstand the analogy. The state can tax its own citizens, but not the citizens of other states. Just like individuals can act as one unit (the arms and legs cooperate to run and climb) and households work towards a common end, so can states (more or less, such as fighting wars or maintaining sovereignty). Think of states as individuals or households, and the superstate as the state. If the states can prevent the formation of the superstate, then it should be possible for households to prevent the formation of a state. All it takes is the right balance of power created by adherence to certain norms of behavior. I don’t pretend to know exactly the form these norms would take.