Troubles with Foreign Invasion

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

What historical evidence do you have to corroborate this thesis?

The fact that US has for a long time not annexed anyone either as a state or as a territory despite the demonstrated ability to conduct expansionism and the demonstrated apettite for expansionism.

[laminustacitus]

@Marko

@laminustacitus

What historical evidence do you have to corroborate this thesis?

The fact that US has for a long time not annexed anyone either as a state or as a territory despite the demonstrated ability to conduct expansionism and the demonstrated apettite for expansionism.

@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.

This is a circular argument with no corroborating evidence.

[Stranger]

@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.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[Marko]

@laminustacitus

This is a circular argument with no corroborating evidence.

If you say so. But then maybe you are better able to tell me why has the US for a long time not annexed anyone either as a state or as a territory despite the demonstrated ability to conduct expansionism and the demonstrated apettite for expansionism?

What is it?

It is not that this would cause national liberation movements to form and rise against the annexations, making them more of a pain than they are worth?

So what is it?

[Giant_Joe]

@Blueline976

…

Regarding your scenario, something similar happened during the Spanish civil war.

LIving Utopia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGBnAPKN9Oo

The major difference being, it wasn’t anarcho-capitalism, but anarcho-syndicalism.

[jaredsmith]

@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.

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

Did you come up with a counter argument yet?

[Blueline976]

@jaredsmith

Did you come up with a counter argument yet?

I did not. I was hoping for someone here to present a counter argument, give me a bit of a history lesson, etc, but the thread seems to have turned into a mini-debate between Iam, Stranger, and Marko

[Stranger]

@Blueline976

@jaredsmith

Did you come up with a counter argument yet?

I did not. I was hoping for someone here to present a counter argument, give me a bit of a history lesson, etc, but the thread seems to have turned into a mini-debate between Iam, Stranger, and Marko

There is little one can say, as all speculation is going to be speculative. What matters is that conquest is only rational when the good being sought is not privately owned, hence not for sale on the market. This is what drove wars in European history. On the free market, it is always much cheaper to purchase than to steal.

One additional thing to note is that conquering empires usually only can expand by conquering smaller, similarly or more oppressive states, hence for some of the people being “conquered” it is more akin to a liberation. They would never fight to prevent it.

[Blueline976]

@Stranger

There is little one can say, as all speculation is going to be speculative. What matters is that conquest is only rational when the good being sought is not privately owned, hence not for sale on the market. This is what drove wars in European history. On the free market, it is always much cheaper to purchase than to steal.

One additional thing to note is that conquering empires usually only can expand by conquering smaller, similarly or more oppressive states, hence for some of the people being “conquered” it is more akin to a liberation. They would never fight to prevent it.

I’m starting to think my opponent’s argument is: If a country invades an anarchist region, does the anarchist region really have a chance of surviving?

[nirgrahamUK]

your opponents argument is a question? now i’m confused [;)]

[Stranger]

@Blueline976

I’m starting to think my opponent’s argument is: If a country invades an anarchist region, does the anarchist region really have a chance of surviving?

That depends on your definition of anarchist. Classical anarchists are against all forms of organization, and so they would be defenseless against any organized opponent. Anarcho-capitalist believe in capitalist organization, and so they could scale up their protection to whatever threat existed to defend from.

[Marko]

@Blueline976

I’m starting to think my opponent’s argument is: If a country invades an anarchist region, does the anarchist region really have a chance of surviving?

Then he is asking the wrong question. The question is if a state tries to impose its institutions on an anarchist region does it have a chance of suceeding?

Sure it can carry out a genocide and depopulate the region. But can it impose itself on the populace?

[jaredsmith]

@Marko

Sure it can carry out a genocide and depopulate the region. But can it impose itself on the populace?

What do mean by imposing itself on the populace?

[Blueline976]

Good points. I’ve replied with this:

I’m starting to think your argument is: If a country invades an anarchist region, does the country have a chance of succeeding in taking over the region? I hope that’s correct.

Please note that I’m using the anarcho-capitalist definition of anarchism. That means: through capital organization, the region could scale up their protection to match the threat.

Fairly simple counterpoint, but let’s see where it goes.

[jaredsmith]

How would our protection be funded?

[jaredsmith]

Who’s this debate with again?

[Blueline976]

@jaredsmith

Who’s this debate with again?

If you’re looking on the forum I linked, it’s with “Universal Mind.” He calls himself a libertarian, but he’s with the minarchist kind so…

[Blueline976]

Stuck again:

Him: Like I said, Europe was never unified against Napoleon or Hitler. People like Napoleon, Hitler, and Genghis Khan would have a field day with an anarchist society.

You asked what reason Syria would have to invade what was Oregon, and I posted the Europe map change video to show you how powerful the tendency to invade is. World history is covered with take overs. A legitimate title of any thorough world history book could be Take Over.

Actually…maybe not stuck:

Me: Did those countries run under free capitalist economic systems or state-run systems where the government restricted personal arms, had poor militaries, or just didn’t care for their population?

[Merlin]

What I’d say.

1. the economic rationale of the population of a state to attack an anarchist society is minimal. Such a society is freely trading with everyone and allows immigration. It is, shortly speaking an asset to foreigners, not a liability. Thus, any war would be propaganda-driven, not naturally requested form the population. “Total wars” tend to be naturally-driven (WW1, WW2, Thirty Year’s War, etc.), “Limited wars” tend to be propaganda driven (medieval squabbles, Crimea War, etc.)

2. conquer what? The Capital? Station troops where? Barracks? On a purely tactical level it would be a nightmare for any general.

3. people would have a massive incentive to fight to defend their property and most woudl own weapons, while the enemy soldier’s incentive to fight would be diminished every day, as he would witness the destruction of a society far more advanced than his. Would the soviet soldier have fought heroically if attacking ’80 , witnessing such a fabulously rich society? I think not.

4. guerilla wars, especially if waged by a determined and rich population are the ultimate weapon. There’s no known example of a successful, long-run, counter-insurgency tactic. Even if militarily the movement would fail (BIG if), it would disrupt logistics long enough to force the enemy to retreat. Ex. the WW2 German attack on the was halted because logistic lines where being harassed by guerrillas, not because the Red Army miraculously managed to hold its own.

5. the locals would be immune to the illusion of the state being a just entity. Thus they’d never willingly pay taxes, only at gunpoint. But extracting taxes at gunpoint would be more costly than profitable. Only after 30 years, when today’s newborns would grow up, could the operation start to loose less. In 70 years it would start yielding something.

6. BONUS POINT 1: nukes would be cheap for the anarchists, beware!

7. BONUS POINT 2: the locals would just start printing (as an arbiter I’d find nothing wrong with printing pieces of paper), in their own basements, the fiat money of their conquerors like crazy. The rising prices would force the conqueror’s Central Bank to print even more, to avoid paying higher real salaries. Inflation would crush the enemy in a year. I think anarchists would be able to hold on for that long [:P]

8)…seriously man, try invading , a useful approximation for our purposes. Even declined the dubious honor!

[Blueline976]

@Merlin

What I’d say.

1. the economic rationale of the population of a state to attack an anarchist society is minimal. Such a society is freely trading with everyone and allows immigration. It is, shortly speaking an asset to foreigners, not a liability. Thus, any war would be propaganda-driven, not naturally requested form the population. “Total wars” tend to be naturally-driven (WW1, WW2, Thirty Year’s War, etc.), “Limited wars” tend to be propaganda driven (medieval squabbles, Crimea War, etc.)

2. conquer what? The Capital? Station troops where? Barracks? On a purely tactical level it would be a nightmare for any general.

3. people would have a massive incentive to fight to defend their property and most woudl own weapons, while the enemy soldier’s incentive to fight would be diminished every day, as he would witness the destruction of a society far more advanced than his. Would the soviet soldier have fought heroically if attacking ’80 US, witnessing such a fabulously rich society? I think not.

4. guerilla wars, especially if waged by a determined and rich population are the ultimate weapon. There’s no known example of a successful, long-run, counter-insurgency tactic. Even if militarily the movement would fail (BIG if), it would disrupt logistics long enough to force the enemy to retreat. Ex. the WW2 German attack on the Soviet Union was halted because logistic lines where being harassed by guerrillas, not because the Red Army miraculously managed to hold its own.

5. the locals would be immune to the illusion of the state being a just entity. Thus they’d never willingly pay taxes, only at gunpoint. But extracting taxes at gunpoint would be more costly than profitable. Only after 30 years, when today’s newborns would grow up, could the operation start to loose less. In 70 years it would start yielding something.

6. BONUS POINT 1: nukes would be cheap for the anarchists, beware!

7. BONUS POINT 2: the locals would just start printing (as an arbiter I’d find nothing wrong with printing pieces of paper), in their own basements, the fiat money of their conquerors like crazy. The rising prices would force the conqueror’s Central Bank to print even more, to avoid paying higher real salaries. Inflation would crush the enemy in a year. I think anarchists would be able to hold on for that long

8)…seriously man, try invading Switzerland, a useful approximation for our purposes. Even Germany declined the dubious honor!

To your #2 point: True, there might not be a main objective to capture, such as capitals or barracks, but what about the land in general? Say Country A is having overpopulation problems and doesn’t give a damn in general about peaceful citizens of an anarchist region. Of course Country A is in the wrong. However, my opponent is arguing that history is filled with nations invading other seemingly peaceful regions/nations simply for expansion purposes. He continues to say that with a unified national military, we are far better equipped to handle foreign countries invading our own compared to anarchist societies which would consist of loose groups of individuals forming militias to defend their land, which would flop under an organized foreign military.