States, due to their ability to apply violent force on their own residents and citizens, are also more suited (I reckon) to utilise violent force to defend themselves and subject other states. When two states conflict, each has a quite high level of military organisation (almost every state in the world has some force of national defence force, and the larger and wealthier states developed quite complex and powerful armed forces).
One could claim that anarcho-capitalist societies can also defend themselves using mercenaries and by voluntary unification of their (willing) citizens’ resources, but it in practice it has many flaws; The unwillingness of some to pay for defence expenditures, quarrels about the share of the burden and of course the fact that due to the above reasons it will be much harder to maintain a standing army (or even just the facilities, logistical support and technical personnel required for a mostly-reserve force).
Even more organised militias will face the problem of fighting against much better-resourced armed forces, originating from states with authority over their citizens, which can enforce taxes and conscription.
What is, in your opinion, the chances of survival of such an anarchist society against a military threat from a state (say, if the state wishes to conquer the territory, plunder its inhabitants (enslave them, even), et cetera)? In an anarchist world, what prevents from a large group of people unifying into a state (even into just a minarchic state) and achieving superiority over large parts of the anarchist society using military force because of their superior organisation?
Also, what do you think would be (if at all) the weaknesses (and strengths, possibly) of a minarchic state against a “fully-fledged” (public services, expansive government) state in warfare; I.E., if the minarchic state does not provide education, many of its citizens could be illiterate, hampering military efficiency, or its infrastructure could be relatively undeveloped, weakening defence efforts.
The US is struggling quite badly with “wars on terror”, a disorganized Afghanistan, and has struggled with the Vietcong. Likewise Napoleon struggled quite badly with the “Spanish hemmorage”
We’re not supposed to have standing armies in the first place.
If I were you, since you’re new to the forums, I’d also read/watch media on the website and look at other threads. This used to be one of my main concerns, but people will tear you apart on here if you don’t read the other threads first because your arguments will probably be elementary (no offense) in comparison to what many of the people on here have read. I’m just saying this so you don’t get too aggravated at everyone and give up like I almost did when I first came on here.
In all of these examples, the “inflicting” side is the state. In all of these examples, the inflicting side is the state, and an inverse example is very problematic; It is inconceivable that the Taliban or the Vietcong would occupy the US. Besides, neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong are anarchist; The Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a “state” for some time and it still does in some places. The Vietcong is also not anarchist; It became the present day’s government of Vietnam. The Spanish guerilla was effective, true, but it is somewhat irrelevant; The question is whether anarchic societies can defend themselves against states and engage in an effective military conflict (being able to preclude the possibility of their occupation in some form, not just inflicting some damage upon the invader) and not whether a guerilla movement (which has some anarchic aspects, true, but mostly aspires to restore the original state rule/establish their own state/government) is able to inflict severe damage on the occupying force in its own country.
I am familiar with the arguments presented in the forum’s threads (I have been reading occasionally, without posting, for some time, even if I’m not thoroughly knowledgeable in all of them) but I had a practical question I wanted to ask; The fact that that’s my first post does not indicate that this is the first time I’ve ever been here. I’ll be happy, of course, if you can refer me to some previous thread with my question and enlighten me with answers.
Weapons are defined by the objectives they are meant to capture/destroy. Nuclear weapons, for example, are meant to destroy entire cities. For what kind of warfare is this an objective? Only the total warfare of one totalitarian state against another.
For centuries, states have subjugated their population so effortlessly with simple police powers that they have concentrated their whole military practice on fighting each other, and so they have amassed huge armies whose sole purpose is to invade and capture other states. But when they engage in war with societies that aren’t states, these armies are quite useless. For example, the government of Mexico still cannot defeat the drug cartels that have infiltrated the country and corrupted key members of the state apparatus. Drug lords live medieval lifestyles, running from one stronghold to the next trying to evade capture, and their vassals even decorate their arms the medieval way. (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/09/14/narco.html)
There is nothing about the nature of the state that gives it an advantage in war. It must first triumph in a war against its population before it can begin to amass the huge armies that so impress you.
In all of these examples, the “inflicting” side is the state. In all of these examples, the inflicting side is the state, and an inverse example is very problematic; It is inconceivable that the Taliban or the Vietcong would occupy the US. Besides, neither the Taliban nor the Vietcong are anarchist; The Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a “state” for some time and it still does in some places. The Vietcong is also not anarchist; It became the present day’s government of Vietnam. The Spanish guerilla was effective, true, but it is somewhat irrelevant; The question is whether anarchic societies can defend themselves against states and engage in an effective military conflict (being able to preclude the possibility of their occupation in some form, not just inflicting some damage upon the invader) and not whether a guerilla movement (which has some anarchic aspects, true, but mostly aspires to restore the original state rule/establish their own state/government) is able to inflict severe damage on the occupying force in its own country.
What do you want? The US government can nuke / obliterate any region of the world it wants, no one can question that. What it can not do is fight a war against ghosts (terror, communism, “for liberty”, etc) or occupy a land full of insurrectionists. It is incapable of doing so by definitions of the actions being described. To become a half assed imperial is nothing but detrimental to the US
Could China wipe out Hong Kong without blinking it’s eye? Absolutely. The comparative advantage is too much, it is that simple.There is no magic bullet in societal orginization that is a guarantee to “win” a war. In so much as there is an insatiable undefeatable power next to you (be it gravity, death, or an undesirable government), all you can do is make the best of the situation and move on. There is a way to maximize wealth and productivity however. And that is going to give you the best chance you can ask for against some unexpected externality. Furthermore, the more markets are known and realized, the more pressure societies are going to have to adopt market mechanisms or go insanely self destructively reactionary (a la the USSR). Also, the more society is productive and decentralized the more difficult it is going to be to even know what the hell a “military conflict” is, much less being able to perform one.
Also consider how the “anarchic society” comes about in the first place:
If I, as some posessed idiot declare my sole sovereignty from the US, I will most likely end up in jail. It is very simply, an act a futile foolishness.
If a group of rabble-rousing, half-wit, left-wing disenfranchised hipster intellectuals stir up all of Ohio and cause a freaking revolution well:
Vive la révolution… et une mort rapide pour vous.
I do not envy the poor sap in that position. Honestly, this person may be in an awful lot of trouble.
If some how Ohio, or perhaps even just Cleveland, can in an orderly fashion secede from the Union and live in a radically capitalized society, it must be understood that there defense against outside forces is already reasonably calculated. This may be feasible today; that is I do not think the US would violently prevent a state from secession, if the case to secede in a state was overwhelming (or Quebec from Canada).
Even if it isn’t the case, it isn’t hard to imagine it being so: and to quote Ludwig Lachmann “The future is uncertain, but not unimaginable”
To sum up a disorderly formed / revolutionary anarchy = bad, an orderly nearly “self evident” and consciously realized, calculated radical capitalistic society = good. This is Burkeanism and Stirnerism 101.
“The US is struggling quite badly with “wars on terror”, a disorganized Afghanistan, and has struggled with the Vietcong.”
As all this wars include the attempt to be “nice” towards the enemy or part of the social base the enemy relies on, this does not show that the state as such is bad at wars, it just shows that fighting a war and being “nice” at the same time is difficult (maybe because there is some contradiction in it).
Each state has a giant inefficient military buerocracy that produces nowhere near enough bang for the buck and constantly blunders. Most of military history is a history of catastrophic buerocractic blunders. Socialised militaries are wasteful to the extreme and no more effective than socialized healthcare complexes.
Why would they be better organised? Are in your experience state run hospitals better organised than privately run hospitals?
There is no reason a confederation of militias can not take the form of an armoured corps, if that is what is needed. Militas in a free society do not have to look anything like militas today. Just like the few private clinics in a country with a state run healthcare do not resemble in any way the full system of private healthcare that would develop if there was no socialist healthcare in the country.
And what? The expansive state is going to magically conjure up the means to provide education and develop infrastructure? If an area is poor it is because it doesn’t have money. Giving them an expansive state isn’t going to put money in their pockets.
As all this wars include the attempt to be “nice” towards the enemy or part of the social base the enemy relies on, this does not show that the state as such is bad at wars, it just shows that fighting a war and being “nice” at the same time is difficult (maybe because there is some contradiction in it).
All wars are fought by some rules. If your opponent doesn’t at least have the choice to surrender, it is not a war but a massacre.
It happens that in Viet Nam and Afghanistan the US could not win by the rules, and so it gave up in the former and will give up on the latter.
“All wars are fought by some rules. If your opponent doesn’t at least have the choice to surrender, it is not a war but a massacre.”
Why do wars have to be fouhgt according to rules?
As far as i know in the quagmire in Kongo the last 10 years there were no rules kept and still it is a war.
And with “nice” i meant, rules that can be exploited by the enemy. In WW2 war against germany and japan was fought until unconditional surrender. But if you look at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokio and Dresden the term “massacre” would not be out of place, although there were some rules were during the war.
“It happens that in Viet Nam and Afghanistan the US could not win by the rules, and so it gave up in the former and will give up on the latter.”
I agree on the first part and the second is likely.
But therefore one cannot take Afghanistan or Vietnam as an example, that the state is unable to win wars, it shows only, that winning with those rules was not possible. With different rules victory in Vietnam might have been possible and victory in Afghanistan might still be possible.
So because he thinks there are serious flaws in anarchy that means he is unfamiliar with the arguments?
I was an anarchocapitalist but I’ve since abandoned the natural rights/morality and went for more consequentialist reasoning.
I think it’s a serious issue, states can conscript soldiers and in the case of world wars, the whole economy. Private organizations don’t have this power.
Another problem is that the defense agencies have an incentive to avoid combat, to preserve their capital and what not. I think if you take the authority structure out of military there are serious issues this creates someone needs to be able to send someone else into combat even when it isn’t in their best interest. You can rebut that with a reputation claim but we don’t really have any way of knowing the magnitude of these factors. I’m not saying it can’t work but I think militarily it would be inferior.
Also military blunders in modern American history do not really demonstrate the ineptness of state militaries. We are not talking about fighting guerrilla wars, guerrilla warfare is a last resort thing which is highly undesirable to say the least.
“They don’t “have to be”, they are by nature. This is like asking why mountains have to be tall.”
And yet the question, why mountains have to be tall, is a sensible question and can be answered by reference to the definition of mountain.
Definition of war from wiki:
“War is a phenomenon of organized violentconflict,[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality.[1] There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other.[3] The objective of warfare differs in accord with a group’s role in a conflict: The goals of offensive warfare are typically the submission, assimilation or destruction of another group, while the goals of defensive warfare are simply the repulsion of the offensive force and, often, survival itself.”
This definition of war includes the destruction of the other group as possible objective. You claimed, that simply killing all enemies would not be war, but massacre.
And according to wiki definition the only rules required to have a war are the rules necessary to have two organized group. There is no need for rules , how this organized groups conduct the war. There might be such rules, but they are not necessary to have a war.
So the US could conduct a war with a different rule set regarding the treatment of enemies and their social bse or no rules at all beyond obeying commands.