Why don’t they just buy it? It would be cheaper than equipping an army to steal it piece by piece.
This guy we are talking about is a ‘libertarian on domestic issues, but not on foreign policy.’ It is completely ridiculous.
I think this will be the key to my rebuttal. Thanks.
Him: It sounds good to me, but how do you get Country A to agree with the idea? Country B might not want to sell land or themselves, and Country A probably wants a great deal more than what Country B is willing to sell even if they are willing to sell anything. Did you see my list of wars involving invasion and attempt at takeover (very many of which were successful)? Why did all of those countries use force to try to take over instead of just buying the land? What has happened in reality is how things work.
Country B is in anarchy, hence every land owner is independent and makes his own decision as to what price the land should be sold. The reply makes no sense.
Yepp, you can be libertarian on foreign policy only, but on domestic policy only - no.
Well if you are a libertarian on foreign policy then that denotes certain societal preference on the domestic side also. Like a reluctance to aggrandize war fever, a softened sense of nationalism, I’m sure the draft is involved somehow. Anyways this guy is a complete tool.
Yes because of an anarchist society would likely resemble Switzerland in terms of gun ownership and the decentralized nature of an anarchist society would make it easier to in an asymmetrical manner against a potentially larger adversary.
Expansion would likely continue in an ancap society as well; wouldn’t be surprised to see pdas gobbling up other ones.
Reshuffling his choice of countries to more properly fit my aesthetical references: if “citizens” in “country A” (A for anarchy!) are unwilling, by and large, to sell land to those of country B, than it follows that citizen A are cap[able of putting that land to better economic use than B citizens. Should that be the case B citizens also profit form land being in A citizens hands.
Again, this precludes from the very onset the posibility of a “natural/total war”, leaving only alimited war as a possibility.
Aye, but again in many of those cases more liberal countries took over less liberal countries, increasing the economic surplus being yielded. Only limited wars fought very briefly in two or three very distinct periods (Classical age, medieval age, XIX century) were waged with no economic goals in mind. And those I think a decently large anarchistic commonwealth can deal with fairly easily, for all the reasons I put forth in the previous post.
I…I think our opponent has lost his marbles. He started sending threatening and absolutely crazy PM’s to Laughing Man, and now he’s gone so far to claim that Laughing Man and I are the same person. Some people just act in ridiculous ways when they lose debates/when their arguments are picked apart.
You’ve got to give us the post! I’ll use it as my signature[:P]
Him: Okay, that took way too long. This has gotten to be too much **** in light of your level of intellectual dishonesty and inability to give direct counterarguments. Have the last word if you want it, but I am through with you in this thread. Well, maybe I will have some short conversations with your BLUELINE character if you pretend as that character to be a decent person again.
Laughing Man pretty much owned his entire post, but he kept going on his “you two are the same person!” babble. Apparently our opponent freaked out over Laughing Man’s tongue-in-cheek comment that if our opponent kept going on with his contradictory statements and overall useless posting style, he would have to commit a “war crime,” whatever that means.
Him: Since you want to keep this discussion going so bad, here I am. My point was that I am through with you in this thread in terms of debate. You are too evasive and dishonest for the long winded post exchange. Since people are probably wondering now that you brought our PM exchange into this discussion, I sent you a PM asking what you meant by your comment about committing a “war crime” if the debate continued. I asked you if you were threatening me. You wouldn’t ever say if you were, but you implied I could do nothing if you were. So, I said I could see about having you banned and told you about the five year penalty under the Federal Stalking Statute. The statute does not cover merely replying to post comments. However, threats of physical harm over the internet are covered under it. There’s your answer. So, were you threatening me with violence? You made the comment. Explain yourself. I can send your message to the FBI.
Laughing Man: It was a joshing remark in which I was expressing the uselessness of discussing anything further with you because you make ridiculous statements. I’m an actual libertarian who follows the NAP, so under my principle I actually don’t threaten people with violence or do acts of violence against them unless in the sphere of defense. It is not my fault how you take my words in terms of your emotional sensitivity. No where in there did I actually threaten you with anything. You can now go back to supposedly living by the code that you set out before. I implore you to stop talking to me with your idiotic statements. For anyone who wants a copy of that email, I will forward it to you. It’s quite entertaining. It displays the mentality of someone who just received a defeat that they falsely think can be righted with harsh, aggressive words and silly insults. You can stop the scare tactics, they obviously aren’t working and frankly it is insulting that I actually discussed page after page with you and at the end all you do is try to show your superiority by trying to scare me into submission. I’m not afraid of you nor will I be bullied by someone who is intellectually inferior to me.
So after a few back-and-forth posts, I asked him what the hell he was talking about when he basically says Laughing Man and I are the same person.
Him: Just a bunch of interesting parallels. I talked about them in that second to last post I addressed to BLUELINE976 and you completely ignored. Now you are acting like you never even saw it. I just really wonder why that is.
So he asked me how private militaries would work and such even though he was asking that for FOUR PAGES and both Laughing Man and I had answered him.
Him: I couldn’t get “Laughing Man” to explain it. Can “BLUELINE976”?
I asked him who he was talking to, he says “both of you.” I give a more-or-less final post. He replies with more “same-person” babble:
Me: If you’re concerned about Laughing Man and I being the same person, have a mod check our IP’s.
And if I really wanted to make you look like an idiot I wouldn’t need to make two separate accounts (I say I because I’ve been here since 2006 and thus…that would make sense).
Him: Like you can’t use separate computers and servers? Two anarchists keep showing up here during the same eras and times of day, making the same obscure points in the same manners and committing the same fallacies? Perhaps it’s just an enormous coincidence. Don’t worry. You are not the only person here doing that.
Me (addressing a separate point): No, I can’t explain how a private military would work. I am not in the private military business. I’m not a private-military-minded entrepreneur. Can I speculate as to how it would work? Sure. Contracted private defense agencies, since there would be a demand for security and defense. The difference between this and a national army is 1: No monopoly on force, 2: The army is not backed by a government, 3: Since we’ve established that the private market is far more efficient than government, I would go so far to say that the private military would work better than the gov. military. Mostly due to the whole profit incentive thing you and Laughing Man went over. Now, is that exactly how they would work? Who knows. You’re asking me to speculate and I’ve given you how I think it would work.
Him: That is a Laughing Man answer, and it doesn’t tell me what I keep asking for.
Me (addressing a separate point): If some people buy protection (although that would largely occur on a smaller level), others don’t. I feel like this point has been proposed, talked about, yelled over, stomped on, beaten, and left to poke at.
Him: That is your same vague surface answer again, Laughing Man, and it does not clear up my specific issues. I get it that some people buy protection and some don’t. That is the very surface, and I am trying to get you to go deeper. I don’t understand the specific details of that difference in protection. Do you understand what I am saying? Did you read my question about the British military? How do you protect the people on a land mass the size of, say, the United States during an invasion, but just the ones who paid for protection? Explain further. Give me the details. It seems to me that the private military would just fight the invading army. How can that be done in a way that only the people who paid for private military protection get protected?
Me (addressing a separate point): Would there be charity work? Possibly. Pro bono work is a great thing. And it’s not like a company would have a board meeting saying: “Alright guys. We’re going to protect this neighborhood…but not this house…or this house…or this house.” Or hell, maybe they would. I don’t know. I’m not in the private military business.
So overall, as I started before, we’ve gone over this for like 3-4 pages now. I feel safe to say that it’s just turning into a bunch of “NO, U!” arguments. That, and whenever you get backed into a corner you start acting crazy or send threatening/insane private messages to people…So before that happens to me, I think we should either move to a separate topic or just leave the thread.
Him: Then you don’t have an answer other than it would be a private charity. That is because such an answer does not exist. Military is one of the very few things that cannot be private and effective. Obviously you are the one who is backed into a corner.
Laughing Man threatened me, and you know it. I just told him to elaborate and that he could get banned here and five years in prison for such a threat if he meant it the way it came across. It’s pretty interesting that you would rationalize that hard to take his side in that bullshit. Hmmm, I wonder why you would want to do that.
Yeah he’s pretty much insane.
I broke his brain. [:P]
Blue, he is basically trying to pull the neighborhood effect and say that military protection cannot provide exclusivity. Obviously that is shoddy reasoning because positive externalities are prevalent in all facets of life. To paraphrase Murray Rothbard, I could get a positive psychological benefit from looking at ladies in miniskirts. He never answered my retort of what he plans on doing with tax revolter who do the same thing so I would push him on that. And let us theorize that exclusivity is hard to maintain in this profession, that does not mean individuals cannot still compete in this market. If the majority of their customers are paying for this protection and a minority is benefiting, then it is still up to the producer to choose whether it is worth it. He knows he is losing, that is why he threatened me with a campaign of banning and federal ‘stalker’ statutes. He is a 15 year old who is too proud to admit he is wrong and too moronic to notice his own contradictions.
I think you broke more than his brain.
Anyway, arguing with him on the topic has largely become useless, as you have seen. He’s more concerned with his claim that you and I being the same person (despite living on opposite sides of the country and being 6 years apart age-wise…). And I think he’s in his thirties, actually. Not too sure. Yes I know you are probably exaggerating when you say 15. But his reasoning is certainly that of a 15 year old. "I’m right, you’re wrong, if you keep going I’m gonna have my Senior friend beat you up at the flag pole after school!’
Such is the nature of internet ‘geniuses’. Someone should write an article on that. Call it Internet and the intellectuals.
I guess I’m a little late, but I don’t understand the logic in showing you a history of states getting their land taken over, as evidence that a state is needed to prevent a society’s land from being taken over. What exactly was his point? He is basically saying that states have been taken over throughout history, so therefore we need a state to stop other countries from taking us over. Doesn’t make much sense…
Actually it is more along the lines of ‘look at all these states that have been taken over by other governments! This shows that private militaries, something I acknowledge has not existed due to government monopoly, cannot operate against being taken over!’
There are no armies, uniforms or any other identities of a fighter for free society. Thus, there is no criteria by which to declare victory. It is a war with no end and we are fighting it now. An inter-state war is won when a particular regime is no longer collecting tax revenues from a territory.
That is very telling of the consistency of Austrian Economics. And now, as I’m a man of my word…
…here’s my new signature!
I think I missed the point of your post lol