Prevented under the threat of nuclear attack by an enemy state.
I’ll start from the beginning… and try to write really simply.
The now free people of America have completely dissolved the federal and state governments, and the defense of the people is now voluntarily funded.
PDAs are established to fight conventional wars against ‘out of line’ PDAs and aggressive states. All nukes from the former USA are completely disarmed, as advocated by nearly all libertarians on this forum, and from reading the defense myth essay that I read a month or so ago by Hoppe.
Free trade is established by the businesses in the free America with each other, and other countries. Those businesses’ assets are protected by the PDAs.
Businesses have only one moral obligation, and that is to profit and will do anything to sustain themselves.
A state (which by the definition libertarians give it, must always be seeking to forcefully acquisition resources and expand its borders to survive) will make all attempts necessary to acquire nuclear weapons, if they don’t already have them.
In the aggressive state’s conquest, they will seek to cut off trade from other enemy states. They will also seek key resources, such as oil or capital, to fuel their wars.
=========================
Now from this alone, you’ve got to see how vulnerable American businesses are to an aggressive nuclear state…
=========================
At this point…
–A nuclear state can demand that the American businesses stop trading with it’s enemies.
–A nuclear state can demand that the American businesses sell their goods to them at a below market level.
–A nuclear state can demand that American businesses pay some sort of tribute to fund their wars.
Why? Because instead of losing all of their infrastructure, labor, or other assets (like an oil rig for example) in a nuclear attack, a business will have to cave into such threats in order to survive.
Or..
A preemptive nuclear attack by an aggressive state against every PDA means they’ve knocked out most of the defense of the free America. Occupation is totally unnecessary, so armed guerrilla militias are rendered useless.
There is no option for equal retaliation. Saboteurs and F-16s are no match for a nuclear arsenal. Even a missile shield can’t defend against nuclear subs with Triton II (or whatever they’re called) warheads.
=========================
When faced under these circumstances, for a business to still turn a profit, will have to raise their prices to compensate for the tribute, selling their goods at below a market level, or because of the loss of other consumers.
Essentially, this is a sales tax built into the cost of the goods to all of it’s consumers at home and abroad.
This “tax,” built into the price of an essential commodity like energy (electricity from power plants) or oil, filters throughout the entire economy of the Americas… meaning everyone is therefor being taxed by the enemy state.
=========================
But suppose Len was running one of these businesses. Let’s say he was head of an oil company that had refineries, rigs, fields, and a big office building. Len gets a threat from an aggressive nuclear state asking for some sort of tribute and he gives them the bird.
Len is now dead. His refineries are destroyed, he corporate office is destroyed, and half of his employees are dead, not to mention the collateral damage done to others in the vicinity of his office and refineries.
The cost of the state is minuscule in comparison to that of Len, he of course paying the ultimate price, his life.
At this point, do the PDAs retaliate? They have no reason to because they will not be paid for their efforts, unless it is deemed by other businesses to pay to squash the threat overseas. But then, if they attack, they might meet Len’s demise in another round of nuclear attacks. But then, if they wait, they might also be forced to pay tribute. But then, a competitor of Len might be happy because he can raise his prices since there is less competition. But then, his competitor might have made a secret alliance with that enemy state in order to gain a greater share of the market. Who the hell knows.
=========================
Frankly, I think it is absolutely absurd to think there should be no national defense, even if funded through taxes, and furthermore, a ‘defense’ without nuclear weapons is not a ‘defense’. The reason nuclear attacks don’t happen now is because the USA has a fucking ton of them. Nukes are a deterrent. It amazes me that anyone can think they’re not… and infact it hurts the credibility of the Mises Institute to think that complete nuclear disarmament is viable. Don’t you see? The lack of nukes actually causes more death and destruction.
The theory is broken.