Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Defending territory in Anarchy

CrazyRepublican
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.
Soli Deo Gloria
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:59:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM, CrazyRepublican wrote:
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.

With the military. They have a different name for it though.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
CrazyRepublican
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:02:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:59:31 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM, CrazyRepublican wrote:
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.

With the military. They have a different name for it though.

How would that be possible? If the military would be able to take control of the land a make a new government.
Soli Deo Gloria
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:17:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM, CrazyRepublican wrote:
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.

A militia, I guess.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:23:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM, CrazyRepublican wrote:
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.

By having a militia, and allies. Most Anarchists are also capitalists, and so value free trade. They would use this free trade to establish allies (kind of ironic), since the nations that they traded with would not like that trade route interfered with, they may be willing to provide some assistance. And if enough nations provided a small amount of assistance, the anarchist nation could be defended.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:26:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:23:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
Most Anarchists are also capitalists

I think most outside of this site are actually ancom. Do you have a source?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
CrazyRepublican
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:26:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:23:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:58:04 PM, CrazyRepublican wrote:
Ive been researching anarchism for about two months now, and I can seem to find out one thing. How would people defend against an attack by a foreign power?

Could somebody please answer this question.

By having a militia, and allies. Most Anarchists are also capitalists, and so value free trade. They would use this free trade to establish allies (kind of ironic), since the nations that they traded with would not like that trade route interfered with, they may be willing to provide some assistance. And if enough nations provided a small amount of assistance, the anarchist nation could be defended.

Yes that could, but that also leads me to another question whats stoping the surrounding countries from taking over that land?
Soli Deo Gloria
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:28:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://mises.org...
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:32:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Three things:
1. A military would not attack an anarchic society. They pose no threat to the attacking state. Modern wars tend to start with a perceived threat.

2. It would be impossible to occupy an anarchic society. The civil disobedience would be immense, and armed rebellion would be frequent.

3. Anarchic societies would be able to defend themselves. With or without an organized army, the individuals of the populace would have the firepower itself to withhold an invading army. No government doesn't mean no protection.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
CrazyRepublican
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:37:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:32:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Three things:
1. A military would not attack an anarchic society. They pose no threat to the attacking state. Modern wars tend to start with a perceived threat.

2. It would be impossible to occupy an anarchic society. The civil disobedience would be immense, and armed rebellion would be frequent.

3. Anarchic societies would be able to defend themselves. With or without an organized army, the individuals of the populace would have the firepower itself to withhold an invading army. No government doesn't mean no protection.

Thanks :) 2&3 answered my questions, but not all foreign powers attack just because they are threat. Take Russia for example, they wouls invade just for the land and resources.
Soli Deo Gloria
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:38:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:32:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Three things:
1. A military would not attack an anarchic society. They pose no threat to the attacking state. Modern wars tend to start with a perceived threat.

Not really. The "perceived threat" need not be more than "they are trying to over throw the government that you the people have choosen, and are trying to undermine your democracy."


2. It would be impossible to occupy an anarchic society. The civil disobedience would be immense, and armed rebellion would be frequent.

That would assume that everyone in the anarchist society prefered anarchy. Such a mistake is the same as thinking that everyone in the USA loves the way things are in the USA. There is a reason that government naturally arrise from the chaos of anarchy.


3. Anarchic societies would be able to defend themselves. With or without an organized army, the individuals of the populace would have the firepower itself to withhold an invading army. No government doesn't mean no protection.

As the misses article admitted, the government provides organization, which is a key factor in winning or losing a war.

If I can take my army of 100,000 soldiers, and fight the anarchist society only a few thousand at a time, it would be easy to work through 1,000,000 militia men in a few years.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:48:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Bear in mind that discussions about how an anarchist society might function are highly theoretical. There aren't really any modern examples of anarcho-capitalism in practice, though there have been in the past. It makes more sense to ask "why couldn't an anarchist society handle a foreign aggressor?" The issue of how defense would be provided is just a matter of capital allocation, which markets tend to handle very efficiently. Here's one example from Robert P. Murphy's Chaos Theory

"Suppose we start in an initial anarchist society with no defense services at all. Imagine that the one serious military threat is invasion and conquest by a certain mercurial neighbor. The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property, such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars. The insurance agencies hire geopolitical consultants and believe that the annual risk of attack is ten percent. They must therefore collect roughly $100 billion per year in premiums to cover themselves. If the society is composed of ten million people, the per capita expenditure on insurance from foreign aggression is $10,000. On top of this hefty expense, the residents remain completely vulnerable.

"In this bleak situation, an executive at the Ace insurance company has a brilliant idea. He can undercut his rivals and offer the same level of coverage for only, say, $5,000 per person—half the price charged by his competitors. He can afford to do this by spending some of his revenues on military defenses, and thereby lower the probability of foreign conquest. For example, he might pay private defense agencies $40 billion per year to maintain helicopters, tanks, trained personnel, etc. and be on the constant alert to repel any attacks. If these preparations reduced the chance of foreign invasion to only, say, one-half of one percent per year, then they would 'pay for themselves.' The innovative insurance executive would reap huge profits and capture the market for military liability, while the residents would enjoy increased security and lower premiums. With property safe from foreign expropriation, investment and population growth would be stimulated, allowing greater economies of scale and further rate cuts."

This is just one person giving one example of how it might work. Defense in an anarchic society might actually operate entirely differently, or it may vary from place to place based on factors like demographics, geography, market composition, etc. Markets are constantly changing; demand drives innovation.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 6:56:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:48:44 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Bear in mind that discussions about how an anarchist society might function are highly theoretical. There aren't really any modern examples of anarcho-capitalism in practice, though there have been in the past. It makes more sense to ask "why couldn't an anarchist society handle a foreign aggressor?" The issue of how defense would be provided is just a matter of capital allocation, which markets tend to handle very efficiently. Here's one example from Robert P. Murphy's Chaos Theory

"Suppose we start in an initial anarchist society with no defense services at all. Imagine that the one serious military threat is invasion and conquest by a certain mercurial neighbor. The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property, such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars. The insurance agencies hire geopolitical consultants and believe that the annual risk of attack is ten percent. They must therefore collect roughly $100 billion per year in premiums to cover themselves. If the society is composed of ten million people, the per capita expenditure on insurance from foreign aggression is $10,000. On top of this hefty expense, the residents remain completely vulnerable.

"In this bleak situation, an executive at the Ace insurance company has a brilliant idea. He can undercut his rivals and offer the same level of coverage for only, say, $5,000 per person—half the price charged by his competitors. He can afford to do this by spending some of his revenues on military defenses, and thereby lower the probability of foreign conquest. For example, he might pay private defense agencies $40 billion per year to maintain helicopters, tanks, trained personnel, etc. and be on the constant alert to repel any attacks. If these preparations reduced the chance of foreign invasion to only, say, one-half of one percent per year, then they would 'pay for themselves.' The innovative insurance executive would reap huge profits and capture the market for military liability, while the residents would enjoy increased security and lower premiums. With property safe from foreign expropriation, investment and population growth would be stimulated, allowing greater economies of scale and further rate cuts."

This is just one person giving one example of how it might work. Defense in an anarchic society might actually operate entirely differently, or it may vary from place to place based on factors like demographics, geography, market composition, etc. Markets are constantly changing; demand drives innovation.

More likely.

Insurance company C can offer the "protection" at only $4,900 a year per person (since the motivation is to simply undercut the next viable option, not provide the best rate). Which would be $4.9 billion a year, then take $4.8 billion a year and pay off the threatening nation, while still making a rather nice $100 million in profit a year.

Woo Hoo freedom!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 9:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:38:25 PM, OreEle wrote:

I answered the guy's question. I have seen all three of those arguments outside of this site.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 10:11:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:56:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
More likely.

Insurance company C can offer the "protection" at only $4,900 a year per person (since the motivation is to simply undercut the next viable option, not provide the best rate). Which would be $4.9 billion a year, then take $4.8 billion a year and pay off the threatening nation, while still making a rather nice $100 million in profit a year.

Woo Hoo freedom!

If that really is the most cost effective way to fend off foreign invasion, I don't see any problem with it. Having to pay to maintain a military is hardly desirable in and of itself. Answers to the defense problem pre-suppose some threat of foreign aggression in the first place, which is obviously less than ideal. However, this is no more of an issue for a hypothetical anarchist settlement than it is for a small country under the status quo. It may make sense for Country A to pay tribute to Country B if doing so is less costly than maintaining a force sufficient to deter invasion.

In that situation, it would basically be like a tribute, or a tax. Insofar as that's the case, it wouldn't be any worse than the status quo since states already charge exorbitant tax rates. Absent the presumption that taxation is legitimate people would be less likely to tolerate it. At the very least, the foreign aggressor would make no attempt to govern the anarchists' personal lives, which is clearly an improvement.

Assuming our "mercurial neighbor" behaves rationally, it would only be interested in invading if the benefits outweigh the costs and the marginal benefit is greater than than that which would be attained by exacting a tribute. Assuming multiple protection agencies have jurisdiction over the same, heterogeneous geographic area, they would each have to pay tribute individually to protect their respective clients.

Now, it might not make sense for each company to provide for their own defense if paying tribute would be more cost effective and would give them an advantage over their competitors, however, the same amount of military protection that would be necessary to defend Company A's clients could just as easily serve to protect Company B's within roughly the same region. Just because you have more people to protect doesn't mean you need proportionally more defense. Defense functions as an economy of scale. In some situations, it might make sense for all the various companies in a certain region to pool their resources to provide for their common defense.

So basically, the tribute scenario is no more likely to arise on anarchy than on statism. Of course, this is all a non-issue if we have global anarchy.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 11:26:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 6:23:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
Most Anarchists are also capitalists,

Do you mean in their relation to the means of production or in terms of ideology? (Or if you're a Marxist that would be one in the same thing.)

In either event, you couldn't be more wrong.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 3:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 10:11:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 6:56:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
More likely.

Insurance company C can offer the "protection" at only $4,900 a year per person (since the motivation is to simply undercut the next viable option, not provide the best rate). Which would be $4.9 billion a year, then take $4.8 billion a year and pay off the threatening nation, while still making a rather nice $100 million in profit a year.

Woo Hoo freedom!

If that really is the most cost effective way to fend off foreign invasion, I don't see any problem with it. Having to pay to maintain a military is hardly desirable in and of itself. Answers to the defense problem pre-suppose some threat of foreign aggression in the first place, which is obviously less than ideal. However, this is no more of an issue for a hypothetical anarchist settlement than it is for a small country under the status quo. It may make sense for Country A to pay tribute to Country B if doing so is less costly than maintaining a force sufficient to deter invasion.

In that situation, it would basically be like a tribute, or a tax. Insofar as that's the case, it wouldn't be any worse than the status quo since states already charge exorbitant tax rates. Absent the presumption that taxation is legitimate people would be less likely to tolerate it. At the very least, the foreign aggressor would make no attempt to govern the anarchists' personal lives, which is clearly an improvement.

Assuming our "mercurial neighbor" behaves rationally, it would only be interested in invading if the benefits outweigh the costs and the marginal benefit is greater than than that which would be attained by exacting a tribute. Assuming multiple protection agencies have jurisdiction over the same, heterogeneous geographic area, they would each have to pay tribute individually to protect their respective clients.

Now, it might not make sense for each company to provide for their own defense if paying tribute would be more cost effective and would give them an advantage over their competitors, however, the same amount of military protection that would be necessary to defend Company A's clients could just as easily serve to protect Company B's within roughly the same region. Just because you have more people to protect doesn't mean you need proportionally more defense. Defense functions as an economy of scale. In some situations, it might make sense for all the various companies in a certain region to pool their resources to provide for their common defense.

What if the "enemy" just pays the insurance company more amount than they get "defending" their clients? They could well take the money and settle somewhere else. As it is, full-scale war will cost a boat load of money. This could well be the cheaper option. The company doesn't have anything like patriotism or national pride or whatever to hold out in the face of money.

So basically, the tribute scenario is no more likely to arise on anarchy than on statism. Of course, this is all a non-issue if we have global anarchy.

It's all a non-issue if we have global peace too.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:01:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 3:40:51 PM, Indophile wrote:
What if the "enemy" just pays the insurance company more amount than they get "defending" their clients?

That would only work if the amount they pay is less than the amount they would stand to gain from successfully confiscating the property belonging to the company's clients. Moreover, the insurance company would only take the deal if the amount offered by the neighboring country is greater than they would stand to make by selling their services to their clients. Companies could always raise their rates, but they would stand to be undercut by competitors who maintain a force sufficient to deter aggression. Even if some companies take the money and run, others would stay to soak up the new clients. Plus, they would stand to make more money because of less competition.

It's not a perfect solution, but then again, you're basically asking "how would anarchy handle the worst case scenario?" which is going to suck regardless of what type of society you live in.

So basically, the tribute scenario is no more likely to arise on anarchy than on statism. Of course, this is all a non-issue if we have global anarchy.

It's all a non-issue if we have global peace too.

http://freshbread.blogs.com...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 4:24:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 10:11:01 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 6:56:55 PM, OreEle wrote:
More likely.

Insurance company C can offer the "protection" at only $4,900 a year per person (since the motivation is to simply undercut the next viable option, not provide the best rate). Which would be $4.9 billion a year, then take $4.8 billion a year and pay off the threatening nation, while still making a rather nice $100 million in profit a year.

Woo Hoo freedom!

If that really is the most cost effective way to fend off foreign invasion, I don't see any problem with it. Having to pay to maintain a military is hardly desirable in and of itself. Answers to the defense problem pre-suppose some threat of foreign aggression in the first place, which is obviously less than ideal. However, this is no more of an issue for a hypothetical anarchist settlement than it is for a small country under the status quo. It may make sense for Country A to pay tribute to Country B if doing so is less costly than maintaining a force sufficient to deter invasion.

In that situation, it would basically be like a tribute, or a tax. Insofar as that's the case, it wouldn't be any worse than the status quo since states already charge exorbitant tax rates. Absent the presumption that taxation is legitimate people would be less likely to tolerate it. At the very least, the foreign aggressor would make no attempt to govern the anarchists' personal lives, which is clearly an improvement.

So how is that acceptable? How is "we're paying them to not attack us" something that you "don't see any problem with?" Yet paying the government to not arrest us (which could be argued is the same as an attack in principle) is not okay?

We also run into another problem (I'm sure you've heard of it before). What if I (as an individual in the anarchist society) don't want to pay for it? No foriegn nation is going to worry about a single individual, since their goal would be to concour an area has a whole or not at all (or a section, but not individual pieces of property)? By this issue (whether it is a tribute form of protection or in providing a small military to deter invasion), there is no reason (and no force) for me to personally participate. After all, the same logic for the value of a single person's vote, the statistical relevence on my individual $4,900 dollars tipping the scale between invasion or no invasion is meaningless, certainly worth less than the $4,900 that it is costing me.


Assuming our "mercurial neighbor" behaves rationally, it would only be interested in invading if the benefits outweigh the costs and the marginal benefit is greater than than that which would be attained by exacting a tribute. Assuming multiple protection agencies have jurisdiction over the same, heterogeneous geographic area, they would each have to pay tribute individually to protect their respective clients.

Now, it might not make sense for each company to provide for their own defense if paying tribute would be more cost effective and would give them an advantage over their competitors, however, the same amount of military protection that would be necessary to defend Company A's clients could just as easily serve to protect Company B's within roughly the same region. Just because you have more people to protect doesn't mean you need proportionally more defense. Defense functions as an economy of scale. In some situations, it might make sense for all the various companies in a certain region to pool their resources to provide for their common defense.

True, like if they have natural defenses in their favor. If I was the invading nation, I would love to see the anarchist state break into multiple smaller states. Since I could take over one (preferibly one that chooses to defend rather than pay tribute). Sure, I take a loss on that one, but it increases the demand for protection, and so the value of "tribute" goes up to offset that.


So basically, the tribute scenario is no more likely to arise on anarchy than on statism.

Of course, this is all a non-issue if we have global anarchy.

If every single person on the Earth agreed to any single political view, there wouldn't be any issues either. If everyone willingly and unconditionally accepted socialism, there wouldn't be any issues.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 5:13:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 4:01:05 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/11/2011 3:40:51 PM, Indophile wrote:
What if the "enemy" just pays the insurance company more amount than they get "defending" their clients?

That would only work if the amount they pay is less than the amount they would stand to gain from successfully confiscating the property belonging to the company's clients. Moreover, the insurance company would only take the deal if the amount offered by the neighboring country is greater than they would stand to make by selling their services to their clients. Companies could always raise their rates, but they would stand to be undercut by competitors who maintain a force sufficient to deter aggression. Even if some companies take the money and run, others would stay to soak up the new clients. Plus, they would stand to make more money because of less competition.

Would you have safeguards in place to ensure that this "defense" doesn't become a monopoly? Local security companies will hardly be a match for an invading army. You can always say "it doesn't make sense" for them to invade, but that's not a good line to take, I believe.

It's not a perfect solution, but then again, you're basically asking "how would anarchy handle the worst case scenario?" which is going to suck regardless of what type of society you live in.
Is this the worst case scenario?? An earthquake, followed by a tsunami coupled with the threat of nuclear radiation leak has nothing on this, I guess.

So basically, the tribute scenario is no more likely to arise on anarchy than on statism. Of course, this is all a non-issue if we have global anarchy.

It's all a non-issue if we have global peace too.

http://freshbread.blogs.com...

Well, you could've kept that rock for yourself when you said there is no issue if we have global anarchy.

I take exception to this rock! :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 5:53:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property, such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars.
How you gonna collect on those insurance claims anyway when conquered? Why would anyone buy such policies, when even if you do collect the proceeds are under the jurisdiction of the conqueror, a conqueror who inquires into the source of income and finds that it was insuring against them?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 7:50:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy is impossible. Some group that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those that do not have the power of resources.

Anarchy doesn't exist because it can't. Even in ancient times they developed tribes. Tribes are just small governments. A tribe that grows to the size of a country is no different from a tribe that is the size of a small forest. It is still government.

And your scenario of anarchy defending itself is flawed. How are these little pockets of defense going to acquire the resources to fight such a war or develop the needed weaponry? In order to acquire these resources collectively it would take some form of government. All a government is...is a group that controls order. You can't fight a group of order with a group of disorder and expect he group of disorder to win.

Who would decide when and where to attack? When and where to defend? How many soldiers go where? Etc...etc...

A national defense force is needed for protection.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2011 7:53:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 7:50:55 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Anarchy is impossible. Some group that has the power of resources, will always have a certain degree of control over those that do not have the power of resources.

Anarchy doesn't exist because it can't. Even in ancient times they developed tribes. Tribes are just small governments. A tribe that grows to the size of a country is no different from a tribe that is the size of a small forest. It is still government.

And your scenario of anarchy defending itself is flawed. How are these little pockets of defense going to acquire the resources to fight such a war or develop the needed weaponry? In order to acquire these resources collectively it would take some form of government. All a government is...is a group that controls order. You can't fight a group of order with a group of disorder and expect he group of disorder to win.

Who would decide when and where to attack? When and where to defend? How many soldiers go where? Etc...etc...

A national defense force is needed for protection.

This [except the fact that I do believe one day humans will evolve to the level of being able live without a governing system]
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 11:15:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/11/2011 5:53:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property, such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars.
How you gonna collect on those insurance claims anyway when conquered? Why would anyone buy such policies, when even if you do collect the proceeds are under the jurisdiction of the conqueror, a conqueror who inquires into the source of income and finds that it was insuring against them?
How I understood this (making lots of assumptions, of course) is that the residents MAKE the insurance companies worry about defending them. It's the same as paying them an annual salary for doing this.

If they fail, of course the residents are screwed. Just the same way if the current traditional military fails, the citizens are screwed.

But, as it is written, it obviously makes no sense. Of course the victorious invading party is not gonna honor any claims.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 11:24:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 11:15:35 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 5/11/2011 5:53:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
The residents of this free society take out insurance policies on their lives and all major property, such that the total claims that would follow an invasion are estimated at one trillion dollars.
How you gonna collect on those insurance claims anyway when conquered? Why would anyone buy such policies, when even if you do collect the proceeds are under the jurisdiction of the conqueror, a conqueror who inquires into the source of income and finds that it was insuring against them?
How I understood this (making lots of assumptions, of course) is that the residents MAKE the insurance companies worry about defending them.
By waving magic wands or...?

It's the same as paying them an annual salary for doing this.
If that were the case they aren't insurance companies in that function and the free rider problem shows up again.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.