Troubles with Foreign Invasion

[Blueline976]

So Laughing Man and I are having a bit of a debate on a separate forum. For him, talking about history might not be tough, but for me it is; specifically about the concept of foreign invasions on anarchist societies.

So one of his (my opponent’s, not Laughing Man’s) main arguments is that if Country A (he used Syria for this) invades Region B (he used Oregon for this. I said region because it’s an anarchist society), how could voluntary militias in Region B be counted on to fight Country A?

I replied that the militias live in the area and thus would want to defend their lands, and that contracted defense agencies would be used also. I also expressed that his situation is highly unlikely (not just because Syria would be invading Oregon :P) because the region is peaceful and Syria would have no reason to invade unless for selfish land-grabbing reasons. Other region’s militias could be called to help also due to moral reasons and a fear of their own lands being attacked next. Of course they would have no compulsory obligation to help, though. I also said preventative attacks when attacks are imminent are justified, so its not like Region B would wake up with a bunch of bad guys on their doorstep. Now that I think about it, this discussion is getting very technical…

To my “the area is peaceful, so why would Country A want to attack?” he replied with: They would have the same reasons all of those other countries in world history had-- power, land, people, and resources. History has been very much about national expansion. It is a huge issue. The more peaceful the country, the easier it seems to take over. He also linked me to a YouTube video which shows political borders over 2000 years.

And that’s where I’m stuck. I can’t really say more than “well the people would defend their lands.”

There is also a side discussion of the same topic, but involving the expansion of the Romans and Napoleon, and the rise of the Nazi’s and Bolsheviks, and how they would’ve been stopped.. It’s basically the same discussions, to be honest, but I don’t know how to reply to that either.

Note: I can link you all to the forum (it’s viewable by guests, no account needed) and thread where this is taking place so you can have a better understanding of what I’m talking about. I just didn’t feel like copy/pasting everything

[Stranger]

@Blueline976

To my “the area is peaceful, so why would Country A want to attack?” he replied with: They would have the same reasons all of those other countries in world history had-- power, land, people, and resources. History has been very much about national expansion. It is a huge issue. The more peaceful the country, the easier it seems to take over. He also linked me to a YouTube video which shows political borders over 2000 years.

National expansion ended in 1945.

Showing political borders over 2000 years is deceitful, as “political borders” did not really exist in Europe prior to 1648.

[Giant_Joe]

@Stranger

@Blueline976

To my “the area is peaceful, so why would Country A want to attack?” he replied with: They would have the same reasons all of those other countries in world history had-- power, land, people, and resources. History has been very much about national expansion. It is a huge issue. The more peaceful the country, the easier it seems to take over. He also linked me to a YouTube video which shows political borders over 2000 years.

National expansion ended in 1945.

Showing political borders over 2000 years is deceitful, as “political borders” did not really exist in Europe prior to 1648.

Most of it ended in 1945, but some was still around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia

Annexation is still going on.

[Blueline976]

@Stranger

National expansion ended in 1945

True, but with a lot of previously owned government land becoming unowned, could there not be a possibility of expansion?

@Stranger

Showing political borders over 2000 years is deceitful, as “political borders” did not really exist in Europe prior to 1648.

It was more of a “History of Expansion” video. I’ll just link it lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kegXDSUi8c

[Stranger]

@Giant_Joe

Annexation is still going on.

The last pathetic attempt at annexation was the Falklands war.

[Marko]

Why should the shoe be on your foot? Shouldnt he be the one that should prove that Syria could in fact suceed when all evidence points to the contrary? Why doesnt he write down how USA could have won the Vietnam war? (And send it to general Petreas after he is done with it, he will be very appreciative of it.)

[laminustacitus]

@Stranger

National expansion ended in 1945.

South Vietnam was annexed by North Vietnam.

Keep in mind that the reason that annexation has ceased is mostly due to the fact that NATO, and the now defunct Warsaw Pact protected their allies against annexation. For instance, the North Korean annexation of South Korea was prevented by the United States and the newly created UN, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was prevented by the United States, and NATO. There is no credible reason to believe that if there were not a global hegemony like the United States, or the UN capable of intervening to prevent annexations that annexations would continue to be so rare because the rise of global hegemonies have been a characterizing feature of post-WWII foreign affairs.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

South Vietnam was annexed by North Vietnam.

East Germany was annexed by West Germany.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

Keep in mind that the reason that annexation has ceased is mostly due to the fact that NATO, and the now defunct Warsaw Pact protected their allies against annexation. For instance, the North Korean annexation of South Korea was prevented by the United States and the newly created UN, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was prevented by the United States, and NATO. There is no credible reason to believe that if there were not a global hegemony like the United States, or the UN capable of intervening to prevent annexations that annexations would continue to be so rare because the rise of global hegemonies have been a characterizing feature of post-WWII foreign affairs.

That is true but it is also largely irrelevant. US hegemony is an obstacle enough to prevent other states from attempting annexation, but it is not enough of an obstacle for the US itself to attempt this form of expansionism.

Jet the US itself shies away from formal annexation, but instead limits itself to more indirect rule over its imperial posessions.

The real fundamental reason why annexation has become unthinkable is that increases in literacy have given us the rise of nationalism, making imperial annexation a loosing preposition since it would be met by mass national liberation movements such as those that characterised the decolonialisation period.

[Stranger]

@laminustacitus

South Vietnam was annexed by North Vietnam.

That was not national expansion but national reunification, after a division imposed by foreign empires. Same deal with Germany. Both states had the same name.

@laminustacitus

There is no credible reason to believe that if there were not a global hegemony like the United States, or the UN capable of intervening to prevent annexations that annexations would continue to be so rare because the rise of global hegemonies have been a characterizing feature of post-WWII foreign affairs.

The ability to fight wars at a global scale is of course necessary to preserve any state-less commonwealth. That is why it is called anarcho-capitalism and not simply anarchy, the capitalist production of defense being necessary to fight at a scale large enough to prevent this kind of invasion.

[Stranger]

@Blueline976

True, but with a lot of previously owned government land becoming unowned, could there not be a possibility of expansion?

There has to be something to fight over in the first place. Before the Westphalian system, nobles would fight over small patchworks of states, but they couldn’t fight war at any larger scales because there was no large objective to conquer.

Conquering a state capital, now that is a large objective, but you also have to protect the state from destruction to achieve it. The US failed to do that in its invasion of Iraq, and the result was that it could not rule over Iraq at all in the aftermath.

[jaredsmith]

Can we get a link to the forum?

[laminustacitus]

@Marko

@laminustacitus

Keep in mind that the reason that annexation has ceased is mostly due to the fact that NATO, and the now defunct Warsaw Pact protected their allies against annexation. For instance, the North Korean annexation of South Korea was prevented by the United States and the newly created UN, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was prevented by the United States, and NATO. There is no credible reason to believe that if there were not a global hegemony like the United States, or the UN capable of intervening to prevent annexations that annexations would continue to be so rare because the rise of global hegemonies have been a characterizing feature of post-WWII foreign affairs.

That is true but it is also largely irrelevant. US hegemony is an obstacle enough to prevent other states from attempting annexation, but it is not enough of an obstacle for the US itself to attempt this form of expansionism.

Jet the US itself shies away from formal annexation, but instead limits itself to more indirect rule over its imperial posessions.

This really has nothing to do with my points, it is just a non sequitur to ensure that orthodoxy to the party line is kept, comrade.

@Marko

The real fundamental reason why annexation has become unthinkable is that increases in literacy have given us the rise of nationalism, making imperial annexation a loosing preposition since it would be met by mass national liberation movements such as those that characterised the decolonialisation period.

What historical evidence do you have to corroborate this thesis?

@Stranger

@laminustacitus

South Vietnam was annexed by North Vietnam.

That was not national expansion but national reunification, after a division imposed by foreign empires

Newspeak.

@Stranger

@laminustacitus

There is no credible reason to believe that if there were not a global hegemony like the United States, or the UN capable of intervening to prevent annexations that annexations would continue to be so rare because the rise of global hegemonies have been a characterizing feature of post-WWII foreign affairs.

The ability to fight wars at a global scale is of course necessary to preserve any state-less commonwealth. That is why it is called anarcho-capitalism and not simply anarchy, the capitalist production of defense being necessary to fight at a scale large enough to prevent this kind of invasion.

You completely avoided my point about global hegemonies.

[laminustacitus]

@Stranger

@Blueline976

True, but with a lot of previously owned government land becoming unowned, could there not be a possibility of expansion?

There has to be something to fight over in the first place. Before the Westphalian system, nobles would fight over small patchworks of states, but they couldn’t fight war at any larger scales because there was no large objective to conquer.

And how does the Thirty Years War, which was one of the most destructive wars fought in European history, fit into your analysis?

[Stranger]

@laminustacitus

You completely avoided my point about global hegemonies.

An anarcho-capitalist producer of security is a global hegemony.

[Stranger]

@laminustacitus

And how does the Thirty Years War, which was one of the most destructive wars fought in European history, fit into your analysis?

Some people tried to cheat the system and steal. That is always a possibility.

Regardless the thirty years’ war was less destructive than the other thirty years’ war fought by global hegemons in the twentieth century.

[Blueline976]

@jaredsmith

Can we get a link to the forum?

http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=89160

Should be viewable by guests. If you do make an account, just don’t cause any trouble

[Blueline976]

@jaredsmith

Can we get a link to the forum?

http://dreamviews.com/community/showthread.php?t=89160

Should be viewable by guests. If you do make an account, just don’t cause trouble

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

@Stranger

@laminustacitus

South Vietnam was annexed by North Vietnam.

That was not national expansion but national reunification, after a division imposed by foreign empires

Newspeak.

Legalism.

[laminustacitus]

@Stranger

@laminustacitus

And how does the Thirty Years War, which was one of the most destructive wars fought in European history, fit into your analysis?

Some people tried to cheat the system and steal. That is always a possibility.

If that is an exception to the rule than your theory cannot survive making more exceptions for the Peasant’s War, the Hundred Years War, and the Crusades. In short, your theory has been falsified for it cannot sufficiently explain the historical events, having massive holes for the events that have defined much of European history.

@Stranger

Regardless the thirty years’ war was less destructive than the other thirty years’ war fought by global hegemons in the twentieth century.

In numbers yes, in percentages it was roughly equal. For instance, the most conservative estimates are that the German population was reduced by 15% (Wurttemberg alone lost close to three-quarters of its population), and it is definitely an example of total war strategies being utilized against the enemy population.

@Stranger

@laminustacitus

You completely avoided my point about global hegemonies.

An anarcho-capitalist producer of security is a global hegemony.

The human mind cannot rationally build his society, you are falling into the errors of socialism here, proclaiming you have enough knowledge to design society.