I think minarchism is incoherent but that isn’t the standard for libertarianism. I would say contemporary anarcho-capitalism seems to be more of a subset of a libertarian/classical liberal body of thought rather than the other way around, since the total number of complete anti-statists is small compared to the whole mass of thinkers involved.
Nazi Germany may not be the best example, but the point is that there are no certainties. The invaders and defenders can either win, lose, or both withdraw. The defenders have a homefield advantage, and it has been shown repeated throughout history that a small defending force and withstand and repel an overwhelming invading force.
The libertarian nation is most likely going to be the defending force, as it wouldn’t be much of a libertarian nation if it was invading other nations. And what’s more, is that many defending nations have repelled indvaders without having to bomb and murder the invader’s civilian population.
I’d like to inject myself into the discussion here just to link to a relevant article I read recently about nonviolent civilian defense
http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_2.pdf
I’ve taken a seminar in nonviolent conflicts and there really are some pretty inspiring examples of effective nonviolent noncooperation. It seems to me that ultimately for an anarcho-capitalist society to work that its going to require some action like this, because that individual human actors that make up the constituent parts of the “State”(s) hold a lot of advantages in terms of force production. The problem is less getting people to work together against foreign invaders than it is getting them to recognize that “their” State is no less coercive or legitimate than the other one.
Just my two cents
@ Gotlucky,
Sure there are no absolute certainties in war. And there are certain advantages to defensive and offensive strategies. Usually the smaller defending force does win, when there isn’t a strategic advantage in occupying.
Would the Red Army have succeeded in invading and occupying anarcho-capitalistic societies in Poland, Germany and Rumania? I think we can be pretty certain of that.
Historically it was almost always statist regimes that succeeded in invading, occupying and subdueing more anarchistic societies. However it has also proven to be an advantage for the occupying force, when there was already a state-like apparatus in place the invader would be able to use.
There have not been many anarchistic societies, so there is not a huge pool to draw from. Most anarchistic societies have been a lot smaller than statist societies, so part of the problem is that there is just overwhelming force. Imagine America as an anarchist society. That’s what, 300 million people? Try invading a nation of 300 million people. That’s not gonna work out so well for the invaders.
Give the examples for the anarchistic societies.
OK, size could be a factor.
If I imagine the US of today as anarchistic. mmmh what gives you the idea one had to subdue them ALL at ONCE. One could do that piece by piece, since the one member of such an individualistic society won’t feel an obligation for the other that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
I also smell some contradiction in terms here.
If I imagine the US of today as anarchistic. mmmh what gives you the idea one had to subdue them ALL at ONCE. One could do that piece by piece, since the one member of such an individualistic society won’t feel an obligation for the other that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Indeed, this is another important issue. And suppose for a moment that a handful of gigantic DROs did posses all the military capacity within the continental US, so that a foreign invader would be presented with a united front - is that a good situation domestically? Sounds to me like the fears of the DRO-become-State realized.
Are you asking me to provide examples of anarchistic societies? I don’t know why you are asking me, as you are the one who made a claim that “almost always statist regimes” successfully invaded “more anarchistic societies”. Such societies have been medieval Iceland, medieval Ireland, Somalia, and the Apache. There are certainly more.
Interestingly, regarding the Apache, they weren’t conquered until they stopped being anarchistic and centralized. Before that, nations that were far stronger could not conquer them. See Austrolibertarianism as a Starfish.
Somalia is currently improving its standard of living. But if the US decided to invade, who would win? It’s a good question, as right now, the US still hasn’t beaten the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. There are still people fighting against the US military in those countries.
You are making the fallacy that in an anarchist society, people won’t care about others. I see no evidence to support this belief. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, considering that anarchists refer to the division of labor and voluntary exchange. How did the American rebels beat the English? After all, there was no American state at the time. Not all of the colonists even supported breaking from England. So, why did the colonists band together to fight the English?
I don’t. So you can either provide what you believe to be a contradiction, or you can not make such assertions.
I’m just sayin’, anarcho-capitalists don’t get a monopoly on the definition of libertarian. Most libertarians aren’t even anarchists, and libertarian can be used in different ways, Mises is considered one of the greatest libertarians of the 20th century, even though he was a minarchist (not to mention FA Hayek, who thought that a welfare state was desirable).
“I’m just sayin’, anarcho-capitalists don’t get a monopoly on the definition of libertarian. Most libertarians aren’t even anarchists, and libertarian can be used in different ways, Mises is considered one of the greatest libertarians of the 20th century, even though he was a minarchist (not to mention FA Hayek, who thought that a welfare state was desirable).”
Classical Liberals. Not libertarians. I’m not poo-poo’ing Mises or Hayek but they weren’t libertarians.
Classical Liberals. Not libertarians. I’m not poo-poo’ing Mises or Hayek but they weren’t libertarians.
“Classical liberal” is a term that is used by libertarians to describe themselves, there is no distinction, anarchists do not get to marginalize our “libertarianess” just because we believe in some government.
““Classical liberal” is a term that is used by libertarians to describe themselves, there is no distinction, anarchists do not get to marginalize our “libertarianess” just because we believe in some government.”
No, a classical liberal is an individual who accepts the notion of government and tries to limit its size and scope while advocating certain liberty-oriented ideas. You cannot be a libertarian (which infers the adoption and practice the NAP) and still accept government. That is the plumline of libertarianism, the NAP. Sure there are secondary tenets but that is the basis for legal code and social interaction. It is the basis of all libertarian political philosophy. Just because some individuals dislike certain government programs or departments does not mean you are a libertarian. It’s definition requires an all or nothing view. Either government is acceptable or it is not and if it is acceptable then you are outside the principle of NAP. You are arguing for the principle of coercion and debating the frequency it is acceptable to use.
I think only a few hear don’t believe in some government/governance just not in the present form of the modern centralised state.
@Andrew: Nope, because “libertarian” can also simply mean someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (not to mention utilitarian libertarians who do not believe in natural rights). It’s not an “all out or nothing view”, if that was the case then the majority of self described libertarians would not be minarchists.
Anarcho-capitalism is just one form of libertarianism, get over it. 
"Nope, because “libertarian” can also simply mean someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (not to mention utilitarian libertarians who do not believe in natural rights). It’s not an “all out or nothing view”, if that was the case then the majority of self described libertarians would not be minarchists.
Anarcho-capitalism is just one form of libertarianism, get over it. ;)"
Yes you can be a fiscal conservative or a social liberal and if you also accept the NAP then you maybe considered a libertarian. Just because you want to lower government spending or want to be tolerant of the social choices of others alone does not infer that you are a libertarian. Whether you listen to Walter Block or Roderick Long, essentially polar opposites in defining libertarianism, it revolves around the concept that you cannot aggress against another human being. That is one of the basis of rights. It is the starting point of what is and is not allowed in the legal world. If you believe that it is acceptable for a human being to aggress against another human being, then you are not a libertarian. If you believe it is not acceptable, then all that is needed is for you to work out your cognitive dissonance.
And if you listen more to Walter Block, you can hear that even he acknowledges that the majority of libertarians are minarchists when he talks about anarchism vs. minarchism.
“And if you listen more to Walter Block, you can hear that even he acknowledges that the majority of libertarians are minarchists when he talks about anarchism vs. minarchism.”
Source?
It is the starting point of what is and is not allowed in the legal world. If you believe that it is acceptable for a human being to aggress against another human being, then you are not a libertarian. If you believe it is not acceptable, then all that is needed is for you to work out your cognitive dissonance.
But then the question remains what constitutes (on act of) aggression? Does that only apply one human bashing a stick over the head of another one (physical aggression or violence)? Or does that also apply to the more subtle forms of aggression (threats, coercion, symbolic violence, etc.)? And what would be the status of fraud, which includes deception for gain (and loss of someone else)?
I am sure one needs to look into other examples, cases and questions of definition here as well.
Source?
Question for bloomj31
Do you believe that only coerced cooperation can be considered cooperation, i.e. that there`s no such thing as voluntary cooperation?