Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible

Economics Political Theory
1

F=MA one of Newton’s Laws.

a derivative of this physical law applies in the geopolitical arena, namely the application of force is most effective when it is delivered quickly in large numbers on a focused area of the battlefield or some other center of gravity (command center, communications hub, logistic hub, transportation hub, energy supply, food supply, choke point, high ground, political center, et al).

Military history and logic confirms that when all other conditions are equal, the independent variable that determines success in armed conflict is the coordinated application of force at an adversary’s center(s) of gravity before he can react to defend it.

for example, large numbers of combatants (mass) * speed (acceleration) * mechanical advantage (concentration/focus) = victory (force)

The very nature of anarcho-capitalism is anathema to all of these tenets.

  1. ancap society is averse to the concentration of power in one location or within one PDA since it increases the likelihood of the emergence of absolutism. Unless the ancap rejects Acton’s notion that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’

  2. all these being equal, an alliance of disparate ancap PDA’s would be at a disadvantage trying coordinate strikes on an adversary that possessed a unified command,

  3. moreover, an ancap alliance of PDA’s would be at a disadvantage trying to move these disparate entities in a timely manner relative to a unified adversary due to obvious shortcomings in communications which is critical on the battlefield or other contested centers of gravity.

while it may be advantageous and productive for most industries to have a decentralized organization and structure covering a large population within a diverse geographic area – in the defense arena, large concentrated forces under a unified command represent the most effective organizational structure to gain and hold power.

in sum, the PDA cartels that centralized the largest force under a unified command the fastest would emerge as the most powerful actor among a geopolitik of ancap enclaves. It is easy to see the survival level threat to anarchism that exists in surrendering military power to a few large entities. an ancap geopolitik would quickly morph into a geopolitik resembling what we have today – monopolistic militarized nation-states.

this is one of the obvious reasons why no anarchic society exists today.

how to properly smash the 'high taxes = prosperity" argument
2

You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.

3

In a completely decentralized society, where exactly would the center of gravity be? If there is no State, what can an invading army take control of? It would entail systematically conquering every individual, rather than conquering the one institution that has already conquered each individual, i.e. the State.

I think this is part of the reason the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism have been so unsuccessful. There’s no capitol building to overpower with either of these entities (“drugs” and “terrorism”?), and there are no standing armies to direct according to one’s own wishes.

Also, I think the case has been made many times that the large, unified force of the British army in the Revolution was no match for the various poorly trained, rag-tag groups of militia men in the colonies, not despite, but because of the decentralized, guerrilla style employed by the colonies. So while it may be true that, all things being equal, the statist army with the greater force defeats the statist army with the lesser force, it seems to be the case that the behemoth, hulking, statist army model may not be the best one.

4

So in other words, we need a violent coercive monopoly to protect us from violent coercive monopolies.

Got’cha.

5

You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.–Stranger

“all these being equal” – Rettoper

Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general.

If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner.

Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity.

6

In a completely decentralized society, where exactly would the center of gravity be? If there is no State, what can an invading army take control of?–Stephen Adkins

food/water supply, high ground, transportation/communication/logistic hub, choke point, industrial center, et al.

I think this is part of the reason the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism have been so unsuccessful. There’s no capitol building to overpower with either of these entities (“drugs” and “terrorism”?), and there are no standing armies to direct according to one’s own wishes.–Stephen Adkins

True, but these ‘threats’ are under seige and certainly do not have the wherewithal to significantly further their own interests, much less gain power. In sum, terrorists and drug dealers are constantly in hiding and confronted with ‘transaction costs’ that severely restrict their productivity and freedom.

but yes, decentralization has its advantages.

Also, I think the case has been made many times that the large, unified force of the British army in the Revolution was no match for the various poorly trained, rag-tag groups of militia men in the colonies, not despite, but because of the decentralized, guerrilla style employed by the colonies.–Stephen Adkins

accurate observation, but again the colonists did not have the wherewithal to gain and hold power and would likely have failed and been executed had ‘statist’ france not intervened.

it seems to be the case that the behemoth, hulking, statist army model may not be the best one.–Stephen Adkins

my original assertion did not mention statist armies. I was refering to PDAs. In review, a larger unified PDA command is far more likely to gain and hold power than a smaller disparate PDA command, all these being equal.

7

Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general.

If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner.

You’re obviously an idiot. The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn’t achieve numerical superiority on him.

What exactly makes one a superior general if not for such decisions?

8

So in other words, we need a violent coercive monopoly to protect us from violent coercive monopolies.-- eric080

a defense monopoly need not be coercive.

free market oriented liberal democracies are generally immune from the emergence of absolutism from military organizations since these organizations are funded and controlled by civilian institutions. Hence, liberal democracies are economically prosperous societies that possess large mass armies that still have centralized commands, albeit civilian control, command, and oversight.

Granted this system is not perfect, although I am not aware of any military coups within higher order liberal democracies. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that if it hasnt happened yet, undoubtedly it will happen eventually.

IN contrast, a dominate ancap PDA cartel would likely control all the means of waging war (vertical monopoly) since no law or control, save coercion, could prevent them from realizing this advantageous and productive structure.

9

You’re obviously an idiot. – stranger

no need to resort to insults

Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity. – Rettoper

The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn’t achieve numerical superiority on him. – stranger

isnt that what I posted ?

moreover, you have offered nothing to rebuke my original assertion that a larger army (defense monopoly) with a unified command will be able to direct force faster and with more coordination and focus than a smaller, decentralized force.

in sum, you have manufactured a strawman that has nothing to do with my original assertions

10

Since society precedes the state, it is obvious that AnCap eventually morphs into the State. The question is not whether this happens but whether it is desirable.

11

This is an example of a strawman argument deviod of fact and logic:

You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.-- stranger

My response:

Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general.

If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner.

Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity.–Rettoper

stranger’s offensive strawman rebut:

You’re obviously an idiot. The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn’t achieve numerical superiority on him.–stranger

In sum, my original post was that a large mass force with a unified command can deliver a concentrated force more quickly and with more combatants than a smaller disparate command.

stranger than challenged the preceding assertion with the strawman argument that napoleon divided his force to a successful outcome., hence, my assertion that a unified command is more effective than a divided command is ‘debunked’ ?!

even a 3rd grader can discover the obvious – however, i will clarify for stranger’s benefit.

napoleon divided his force to fight an opponent who had also had divided his force, so my assertion stands – namely that a larger unified command will be able to concentrate more force more quickly than a disparate non-unified command, all things being equal.

of course, stranger does not understand that an expertly led command that is at a disadvantage can still be victorious. I never asserted otherwise, indeed I stated in my original post that all things being equal was a condition for my proposition. stranger interjected an independent variable that supported his strawman logic.

with respect to ancap PDAs, this military tenet would tend to lead to the formation of large mass centralized ancap PDAs. hence, increasing the likelihood of absolutism – if you believe Acton, et al that ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’

12

So, Rettoper, you prefer having a cancer now, even though it is dangerous almost deadly disease than having a healthy body with a mere possibility to catch a cancer in future?..I haven’t heard of any minarchist or statist that refuted this argument. Care to try at least to adress it?

Because, analogy is clear. You admitted it here:

“an ancap geopolitik would quickly morph into a geopolitik resembling what we have today – monopolistic militarized nation-states.”

13

Since society precedes the state, it is obvious that AnCap eventually morphs into the State. – Lyle

I agree, however many ancaps on this site are of the notion that ancap society is viable and it will not turn to absolutism.

The question is not whether this happens but whether it is desirable. --Lyle

I agree with you it is inevitable, and it is NOT desirable.

14

MaikU,

a defense monopoly need not be coercive.

free market oriented liberal democracies are generally immune from the emergence of absolutism from military organizations since these organizations are funded and controlled by civilian institutions. Hence, liberal democracies are economically prosperous societies that possess lethal armies that still have centralized commands, albeit civilian control, command, and oversight.

Moreover, these societies are utterly peaceful to like-minded democracies, albeit highly lethal to certain types of expansionist statist regimes.

Source: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM

Granted this system is not perfect, although I am not aware of any military coups within higher order liberal democracies. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that if it hasnt happened yet, undoubtedly it will happen eventually.

IN contrast, a dominate ancap PDA cartel would likely control all the means of waging war (vertical monopoly) since no law or control, save coercion, could prevent them from realizing this advantageous and productive structure.

15

I wouldn’t say that the “morph” is inevitable. That it happened before doesn’t mean it will happen every time. By “eventually”, I simply meant that greed can have the effect of breaking down social cooperation and result in competition, not that it will, only that it has.

16

To compete is to vainly claim equality, to lay equal claim to the belongings of another. To cooperate, quid pro quo, is to claim a diversity. The state managed economy represents competition and laissez faire represents cooperation. The former is zero-sum and the latter positive-sum. The former holds all things in common and the latter holds all things privately.

17

of course, stranger does not understand that an expertly led command that is at a disadvantage can still be victorious. I never asserted otherwise, indeed I stated in my original post that all things being equal was a condition for my proposition. stranger interjected an independent variable that supported his strawman logic.

Do you even know what the Battle of Austerlitz is?

18

The state managed economy represents competition and laissez faire represents cooperation.-- Lyle

capitalism does NOT represent the means only the outcome – profit.

if a capitalist enterprise does not act to gain a profit, it will fail relative to other capitalist enterprises.

moreover, since profit is the only rational outcome in capitalist society coercion to obtain profit will be utilized if peaceful exchange is not possible:

The former is zero-sum and the latter positive-sum. The former holds all things in common and the latter holds all things privately.–Lyle

I believe that the former is zero-sum, in fact it is negative-sum since valued resources are redirect to politically connected individuals and enterprises at the expense of profitable individuals and enterprises.

Moreover, I believe the later is positive-sum to society and both parties when the transaction is voluntary – in the case of coercion within ancap society, the outcome is a positive gain to society and the coercive individual and enterprise that successfully annexes the value resource- but the inefficient individual or enterprise that failed to efficiently manage the lost resource obviously suffers a loss, nonetheless society gains since a heretofore mismanaged resource has been transfer to a more efficient individual or enterprise.

in sum, within ancap society the means used to obtain an outcome is secondary to the end, namely attainment of profit.

19

Do you even know what the Battle of Austerlitz is?-- stranger.

another strawman stranger ?

what does my prior knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding the battle of austerlitz have anything to do with rebuking my assertion of the advantages of a large unified command at projecting power at a center of gravity when compared with a smaller decentralized command ?

if you can site emprical or logical evidence of a smaller decentralized command securing victory against a larger centralized command, all other things being equal, then provide your evidence.

20

And the example of such liberal democracy (and which is purely “defensive”) would be.. which country?

Also, bolded claim seems to be ambiguous.