“minarchists are matured anarchists. its the next stage that a lot of anarchists here have not arrived in yet. when one realises that security production is paradoxial, one grows out of it. He who protects you, Owns you. You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion.”
Lol nice argument. Bro.
He who protects you, Owns you. You cannot pay more for protection than you can pay for extortion. Because of that, protection is necessarily extortion.
It is impossible to protect one who does not demand protection
Really interesting perspective…
I could be wrong, but I think the more natural maturity (right or wrong) is from minarchism to anarchism. Most, if not all, ancaps I know started at some level of statism (socialist, american republican or democrat, etc..) then moved intellectually toward freedom to minarchism. This, I suspect, is because they have learned that Liberty is the only true policy that human beings thrive in, but they still cannot imagine a world sans the state. So, they arrive at the classical minarchist position and fallacy because of this fear. They still want to leave, at the very least, defense up to the state. “After all,” they think, “No private firm would take up a business with the kinds of losses that war brings.” They do not think about the fact that it is for this reason that war only comes with the state. It cannot come in any degree resembling the kind of war we see today. Once the minarchist sees that his framework is inconsistent and foolish, the makes the logical jump to market anarchy.
I am sure there are people out there who were ancaps and moved to minarchism, however I know 0 personally. Every ancap I know was at one point or another a minarchist. However, once they moved to market anarchy, they never left. Regardless of your view of minarchism or anarchism, I think it is without a doubt that you see more minarchists move to market anarchy, than ancaps who move to minarchy.
Substantiate. But obviously you don’t believe in the self-ownership principle. Why am I not surprised?
Substantiate. And how does one pay for extortion, exactly?
By your reasoning, however (as much as I can make sense of it), all forms of insurance are also necessarily forms of extortion. You seem to make no distinction between allowing harm to happen to a person and actually causing harm to a person.
So, they arrive at the classical minarchist position and fallacy because of this fear. They still want to leave, at the very least, defense up to the state. “After all,” they think, “No private firm would take up a business with the kinds of losses that war brings.” They do not think about the fact that it is for this reason that war only comes with the state. It cannot come in any degree resembling the kind of war we see today. Once the minarchist sees that his framework is inconsistent and foolish, the makes the logical jump to market anarchy.
War only poses a problem for anarcho-capitalism as long as there are foreign States. And under those conditions, it is indeed an insurmountable problem. Even if an ancap society could produce the kind of forces necessary to fight a war (it could), it still cannot fight a war without violating its own principles, as it is impossible to fight a war without either ignoring ethics altogether or making ethical judgments about collectives, rather than individuals.
But if we are theorizing about an ideal, we are free to suppose that anarcho-capitalism is global in scope, removing any concerns about war. Basically, war is a problem for the implementation of anarcho-capitalism in a world of States, but it is not a theoretical problem for anarcho-capitalism.
The real problem is dispute resolution.
Vietnam was hardly anarcho-capitalist, and last I checked, America retreated from that war.
And then there was the America Revolution. I’m sure that some of the rebel colonists did some unsavory things, but they didn’t have to bomb England willy nilly in order to win.
Vietnam was hardly anarcho-capitalist, and last I checked, America retreated from that war.
And then there was the America Revolution. I’m sure that some of the rebel colonists did some unsavory things, but they didn’t have to bomb England willy nilly in order to win.
I’m not sure if I see your point. If you mean that guerilla warfare is a viable defensive strategy, I agree. But keep in mind that “defensive” in the context of warfare does not equate to “defensive” in the context of libertarian ethics. War always involves aggression in the libertarian sense of the word.
Yes, war requires an aggressor, but there is no reason why the libertarian society must be the aggressor. And in a war of defense, there is no reason why the defender must necessarily have to use aggression.
The point is that societies that are at an extreme disadvantage have been able to win a war against invaders. A libertarian society can do the same.
**
Minarchist just acknowledge that the political is part of human live just as the economic and cultural is. However they try to limit the polical within their own societies.
If war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society, than postulating away the issue will not do. Even if somehow the whole world magically wakes up ancap tomorrow, the first society that sheds the NAP and organizes itself on militaristic lines will tear a new Empire on the map. There is no shying away from the issue of war for a serious anarcho-capitalist.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. I would think that an ancap society would have fewer enemies, since war is the health of the state and the state would be nonexistent under ancap social contexts. An unprovoked war is rather unlikely, imo. But even if the society was invaded, everyone would be armed and dangerous, this is one reason the British lost the battle for American independence. Just my 2 cents.
[Nevermind. Sorry about that.]
The first part sounds like a ridiculous argument. The second part assumes that the means for warfare are mainly or only material. And the last part is borderless naive on the one hand, while making a good point in the direction that wars can only be fought collectively and with collective-holistic assumptions. I mean, if you are urged into war and due to your strangulation have crush the enemy party, will you at all cost avoid damage to private property. Won’t your mercenaries walk across the lawn of a private property owner to get into a better position for defense or attack?
Personally I view the NAP sounding good in theory. However there are huge practical problems with that, since most violence/aggression isn’t that obvious. And I view cloacked (non-physical) aggression with far more disdain then the open one.
I, for one, would very much appreciate an elaboration of all that.
You will not use that tone with me. If I have not made it clear until now that I detest such condescending replies as these, this has been because I was rather counting on my absence from the forums for that point to become clear; well, let me be more explicit now. I do not care a bit about what you think of my posts, whether they sound unscientific or otherwise untenable to you, and I surely do not tolerate this confrontational stance you and a few other use here. I may think of some idea silly, but I’d never relly on nerve-racking to make my point. I surely expect as much from others. Throughout the post I use ‘ifs” and I made absolutely no claim of certainty, but rather a ‘than-if’ analysis. If you cannot see that, I do not care to make it clear to you. From now on, please refrain from replying to the sparse posts I will make.
It’s true that your first statement was “if, then”. However, you did make a claim of certainty about the future in the following statement, which I will quote:
The statement of certainty here is that any society that sheds the NAP will necessarily be able to overwhelm other societies that do not. Not only that, but you claim that the first society that does this will be able to become an empire.
These are claims of certainty given the situations you postulate. I also see no reason why any of these claims of yours are true.
Not at al I say. What I’m saying is: let us make an assumption. Let’s just assume that a NAP-observing society works as we think and hope it will, with the exception of defense, where it fails. Let us just assume that.
What was said was that if somehow the whole globe would go ancap, than this assumed issue with an ancap society (inability to defend itself against a regular army) would not mater. So, defense was said to be an issue of implementing anarcho-capitalism, not of anacho-capitalism per se.
What I say is that this interpretation is not correct. If anarchic societies are defective in defense, even if the whole globe is anarchic it just will happen, sooner or later, that a small commune somewhere will go militaristic. Perhaps a small gang, perhaps a large and aggressive extended family, perhaps a bnch of convicts. And in time, such a small militaristic society shall grow since the rest of society will not be able to confine and defeat it. What the hell, if ancapistan is defenseless against organized violence, PDA themselves will sooner or latter get it!
So, again, I made a what-if analysis: if anarcho-capitalism really is unable to properly defend itself in regular warfare, even assuming a global anarchic community will not do away with the problem, as it is bound to eventually bring anarchy down. Of course whether anarchist really are so defenseless against a regular army, that’s an other debate. here i just assumed so for the sake of the following analysis.
[Nevermind. Sorry about that.]
Looking back at that post, I think I now understand what you were trying to say. It wasn’t clear to me that you were carrying the clause “if war is indeed unmanageable for any NAP-observing society” beyond the first sentence. Now that it is clear to me, I can follow and agree with your argument.
I humbly stand corrected.
I see no reason to make those assumptions. As I pointed out to minarchist, Vietnam successfully repelled America, and the American colonies successfully repelled Britain.
Sometimes the invaders win, sometimes the defenders win. I see no reason to assume that an ancap society must necessarily always lose to an invading force.