Suppose an anarcho-capitalist (or minarchist, for that matter) country found itself in a war against a centrally planned, inflationist state. How would it go about defending itself? The inflationist state has at it’s diposal virtually unlimited ability, at least for a while, to cause weapons to be produced. What has the anarcho-capitalist country got? Is any of the US’ recent experience, say from Vietnam forward, relevant?
I heard the idea thrown around that printing out counterfeit money could be used as a weapon against any invader.
An anarcho-capitalist society also has goods. They just coordinate it differently.
Guess who has more goods and better coordination.
More liberal nations tend to defeat less liberal nations. Hoppe notes this along with the observation that there is a causative component to this… because liberal nations can defeat less liberal nations, therefore, they are more likely to make war. Perversely, the very liberality of democracies is one component of what makes them so aggressive.
Also, for a real-world example of a State versus an anarchy, the Ethiopian war against Somalis is a good example of this… the Ethiopians quickly rolled over Somali towns, only to find them largely empty. The Somali security forces regrouped and pretty much kicked Ethiopia’s ass. Now the Ethiopians are back, trying to sucker other African nations to pay for their Somali adventures through the African Union (AMISOM) but it’s just not working. The so-called “Transitional Federal Government” in Somalia is a lot like the Green Zone in Baghdad or Kandahar in Afghanistan… a heavily barricaded enclave of bureaucrats who dare not leave and occasionally send out armed convoys to inflict terror on the populace in the name of “fighting insurgents.” Who dreams up these strategies? Joint Chiefs? Langley? MI6? Who??
The areas around Mogadishu and southward have become more state-like with the surge in power of the extortionary al-Shabaab group but the northern portion, Somaliland, is still fairly anarcho-capitalistic. And, notably, that is the most peaceful and stable part of Somalia (but I do believe they are still quite poor).
Clayton -
Didn’t Great Britian crush anarchist Ireland?
The ancap PDAs would not be dragged into a silly ground war on the invading State’s terms. The PDAs would, in an effort to minimize losses, choose the most direct and efficient course of action to protect their client’s property, and would very likely take out the leadership of the invading state as one of the first courses of action in any conflict.
Interesting question, though I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much a flexible system that is driven entirely by the individuals within it, therefore, any ‘ancap’ society is only as strong as the people who inhabit it – as I see it. The centrally planned invader might have resources, manpower, whatever, but it is challenging a decentralised enemy who will; probably know the terrain better; have a much greater desire to stand and fight to the bitter end; have the added advantage of buying equivalent or superior military tech to the invader; or hire PMCs…
For perspective, Soviet Russia easily laid waste to Nazi Germany because of; sustained Allied bombing of industry and civilians in the country’s ‘hinterland’; the conflicting methods and goals of the German leadership and that Russians, irregardless of social status, were absolutely committed no matter the human cost to repelling the ‘teutonic invaders’. Ultimately, the Russians demoralised the Germans through sheer bloody attrition and swept them aside in 1944-45 after France and Italy fell to the Allies.
Both Russia and Germany were centrally planned economies at the time and would have probably bled each other dry in decades of bloody, cruel and vicious attrition warfare – had their been no Allied offensive in the west.
In the case of Vietnam et al, the war was lost due to a myriad of factors that largely stemmed from all-round incompetence, arrogance and the fact that ordinary Americans who weren’t in the jungles, rightly, had no taste for military adventurism against Vietnamese peasants. The same can be applied to Iraq and Afghanistan’s cases.
Ask yourself this: how could the ‘biggest, most advanced military in the world’ be stalled for eight years (and counting) by a country with no airforce, army or navy but mere roving bands of fighters? Even after the lessons of the soviet invasion in 1979?
Overall, there is no reason to assume an ancap society would immediately crumble under the treads of a centrally planned army. The survivability of the ancap society would hinge entirely on the character, temperament and goals of the people within it and survive or perish accordingly.
Very likely there would be various insurance companies which would hire out private military contractors to neutralize the invaders in the most cost effective manner possible. Some likely methods which come to mind are bribery, assassination, letters of marque, the application of WMDs to invading conventional forces, a heavy reliance on air forces (since it is necessary to have air superiority to make any large scale land offensive possible, ever since WW2), and a propaganda campaign targeted to the opposing countries population.
This is an empirical question that can only be answered through experience, and any aprioristic speculation on this matter is not going to give any answers of much value.
There is a difference between prediction, forecasting, and what you seem to be proposing, the “let’s wait and see approach”.
No, I am stating that how political systems will form is simply outside the realm of a priori speculation, and anything that does so should be condemned to fire. There is no point to forecasting if one has absolutely no information regarding what one is trying to forecast, and no Mises quote will help you with that.
In fact, that “lets wait and see” approach is all that you can soundly advocate due to the fact that inquiry about the nature of society’s institutional structure (and this is truly what the original post is about) is firmly outside of the realm of priori speculation, and only experience can reveal any knowledge about such a question. In order to utilize reason, we must accept its limits, and we must accept the fact that truly no man has knowledge (only hypotheses) about how a anarcho-capitalist society would take shape thus rendering any aprioristic answers to the question posted an abuse of pure reason.
Do you have anything to say about what Mises wrote?
You’ve basically restated your same proposition, that all understanding in the social sciences relies on the same methodology as the natural sciences. Your scientism is committed to this category error.
Armies and field battles are strictly a phenomenon of territorial warfare.
Suppose that you have a fancy camo uniform, an M1A2 MBT and you declare war on me. Ok. I surrender. Your tank now occupies my driveway. Now what? At some point you have to get out of the tank and go home to your wife and kids and sleep and shop in the grocery store.
The only real danger of armies is that they have a suicidal believe in obedience. As Napolean said, “A man does not have himself killed for a halfpence a day of for a petty distinction.” You can’t reward a man for dying today with a paycheck tomorrow. No professional soldier is a threat to anyone except insofar as he is inclined to commit suicide for no purpose other than the valuation of simple obedience above all else in the world.
What specific purpose pertaining to the annexation of Somalia could an Ethopian soldier plausibly have? One can hardly imagine such a thing.
Read Hoppe.
I re-iterate my point that an an-cap society would only be as ‘good’ as the individuals who comprised it. Whether they succeed, or fail, is dependant on the circumstances, terrain, available resources, quality of leadership and overall goal; how committed are they really to defending this society?
An an-cap society would have certain advantages over the centrally-planned enemy, the greatest asset being the decentralisation of command, of course.
War is not really a case of “A has this; B has that, so therefore A will win.” War is typically fluid after the fighting has begun, as by then, plans are constantly changed to deal with things intelligence didn’t know about, equipment jamming, vehicles breaking down, mutiny in the ranks, fatigue, defections…
What is much more likely is that an an-cap society would be subverted from within by enemy agents, using either violence or subtlety. The society would have to be the ultimate exclusive club and restrict entry to those who were either personally known by someone already on the inside, or who had something to offer – those looking for a free lunch need not apply.
The fundamental distinction is that, within a typical 20th century, Western nation, the character of defense is inherently collectivist. The public, by-and-large, thinks of defense in collectivist terms… the nation as tribe-writ-large. In a hypothetical anarcho-capitalistic society, defense would be of property (assets), not boundaries (except insofar as these boundaries delimit property) or ideological visions. I could imagine a large, multi-billion dollar manufacturing plant - insured to the nth degree against destruction by armed aggressors - surrounded by a community of residential homes not only because there are jobs there but because of the expectation of homeowners that they can “free ride” off the defense of the plant by simply locating near it. In the event of an armed invasion, the occupants would pack what they had time to gather and flee (a bit like fleeing a hurricane or other natural disaster), leaving the defense of their homes and property in the hands of the corporate defense company retained by the defense insurance corporation to protect the manufacturing plant. A few crazies might even stay behind with their guns to protect their property and maybe get a piece of the action (or die). Of course, that’s just in my imagination. [:)]
Clayton -
What’s an anarcho-capitalist country anyway? Is this short hand for “all people within x geographical territory?” And the war is against every single person and property owner in that territory?
I understand the intent of the question, but I think part of the problem lies with viewing the free society as a country. If the question is just “how will you defend against the entire Russian army nuking your neighborhood to take the gold mine underneath your houses,” then I would say that there is nothing we can really do.
I disagree with this. A natural social order is not incompatible with defense from even large-scale attacks.
Clayton -
You are right about compatibility. I guess what I really wanted to say is that there is no guarantee that any “country” could defend itself. If a region was made up of people like me, we would probably give up very quickly and kill ourselves. A region made up of determined people like Clayton, who fund defense organizations, have economic bargaining chips, etc. might fare very well in a warfare situation.
Honestly, this comment shows that you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. Accuse my of scientism as much as you want, you obviously don’t understand what scientism is if you are accusing me of it as well, but it just goes to show you can’t make a coherent point against me (the irony is that topics like this are just as much of an abuse of reason as scientism is).
Furthermore, you are absolutely abusing praxeology by stating that inquiries about the future institutional structure of society is open to aprioristic speculation. In fact, I did address the Mises quote, contrary to what you’ve stated here:
I did so here:
In fact, I am absolutely sure that Mises would have agreed with me here, and this was a very important point that Hayek, who wrote The Counter-Revolution of Science, made about the abuse of reason. The future state of society is an empirical problem (for instance, do you really think that praxeology will reveal, for instance, the end of the war in Afghanistan, and what would be its results?), and hence experience is the only means to gain knowledge about it - speculation can be made, but at the end of the day such speculation is nothing but a hypothesis that must be tested against experience.
Next time you respond, Olovetto, I hope you actually know what you are talking about rather than vomiting up some talking-points against empiricism. Maybe you should even read Kant’s discussion in The Critique of Pure Reason about the proper sphere of aprioristic investigation (after all Mises is very much a Kantian in his economic methodology), or read Hayek’s writings about how speculation like this is an absolute betrayal of reason.